I don’t see this happening in the least. And that is a matter of clear record. I see the exact opposite happening. If gay Americans had approached their fellow citizens in a spirit of authentic liberal debate and democratic pluralism about the need for X or Y benefit being extended to their couples; or had asked those few States that still had sodomy laws & professed “We see these as infringements of our privacy, a Scarlet letter against us as people, and a downright silly use of police and legal resources” many people (including myself) would have joined their ranks in such a movement. Multiple arrangements can be made in the form of legislation at the State and National level regarding genuine interests that may hinder caring couples from conducting their affairs without undue burden. As I said above gay Americans have not approached their fellow citizens in a spirit of authentic liberal debate and democratic pluralism. What has happened is a matter of near history and the record is clear. They have used the tool of what is called “judicial activism” or “living constitutionalism” to force on multiple states a new definition of marriage that the people oppose for a host of reasons having to do with the general welfare, rights of parents and children, the actual institution of marriage, and religious liberty questions. This approach was never preceded with a legislative push or engagement of the public on behalf of gays concerns. Rather a national and indeed international push was made exclusively through the court at the time of the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts. That push was not asking for anything, but rather demanded that the country redefine the institution of marriage. Any opposition was called and dismissed by Supreme Courts as “irrational bigotry: Marriage itself and its justifications were dismissed as “irrational bigotry”. This was paralleled by a compliant media and gay advocate groups that framed the issue as one of a request for “adding” (as apposed to redefining) gay couples into “marriage”. Accusations of bigotry, homophobia, & comparisons to the black civil rights movement * anti-miscegenation laws abounded, and still do. A Democratic U.S. Senator I spoke with said (off-the-record) “This is not a movement, its a scheme) As far as democratic engagement; the people answered back by adopting constitutional amendments in 31 States so far… defining marriage as it was already defined in their laws…as protection against further intrusion by unlawful court opinions. The example of California is instructive. After the Hawaii Behar decision – the people of California adopted a ballot initiative that protected marriages definition at law. It won by 65%. They also adopted civil unions, as did several states as a way of addressing homosexuals concerns. This was dismissed by the courts as inadequate and indeed has been used as an excuse by court for redefining marriage. After the courts in California did this…the people themselves got another ballot initiative, this time a constitutional amendment stopping the courts from redefining marriage. Again an arrogant elite ignored the people and imposed same-sex “marriage” through Federal Judges. Any authentic legislative gains won by same-sex “marriage” advocates have been done under the pale of this oppressor/oppressed dicotomy, and amidst a media firestorm only too willing to continue to cast this battle in the framing set by Judges and advocates. This is not a movement to address authentic concerns homosexuals may have for their relationships. This is a movement rooted in a desire to overthrow the institution of marriage as a legal relationship that centered in sex differences and hereditary lines. Being fortunate enough to be on good terms with high placed Law School professors, advocates, & Judges who reveal the authentic motivations and ideological underpinnings of this movement simply reaffirms what sophisticated observers already understand. Taking the approach that this is simply sympathetic need driven requests made by homosexuals to address some genuine needs that can not be addressed by other avenues is either disingenuous or rooted in a delusional esteem for ones own cause; rather than a clear reading of near history. In order to understand your adversaries point of view on this subject you need to be able to understand… #1. Just how grotesque and insulting these results driven Judicial decisions are #2. How the entire movement for same-sex “marriage” & even civil unions would have found little political traction without such usurpations of our jurisprudence #3. The real philosophical divide between marriage as understood in law & culture as opposed to what this new definition of marriage says about the institution. Perhaps this would be easier if you would meet the substance of our disagreements & displayed a greater understanding of your advesaries arguments and worldview. This could represent a start. I would be happy to suggest readings and books that also agree with my understanding of what is being done to our law & culture through this “movement” that is really a scheme. All the time. The Americans with disabilities act was voted on and gained acceptance by bi-partisan legislative actions. It represented standards that cost the government and private business billions of dollars to comply with and is still being hashed out. Minority groups as you describe them don’t get a free “push” or “extra head start” through the courts in a democracy simply because there numbers may be small. The Black civil rights movement was no different. The 14th amendments guarantees of equal protection were written precisely with African-Americans in mind. The courts were not helping a minority out; they were applying correctly the 14th amendments guarantee of equal protection after generations of Jim Crows “separate but equal” approach proved an obvious farce. They had enabling legislation like the 1957 Civil Rights act as added evidence of popular will. Blacks had been subjected to massive voter disenfranchisement efforts and intimidation that made it impossible to effectively use the ballot box to effect change. I do not bring up these examples to simply show how gay “rights” & black civil rights differ. I bring them up to illustrate why Judicial intervention was necessary and warranted under the law, as opposed to same-sex “marriage” that is clearly unconstitutional infringement on the rights of all Americans. Another example can also shed light on the “scheme” you may unwittingly be a part of. That is the right of woman to vote. Here you had half the population disenfranchised from the most potent form of political participation; the vote. Now remember, the 19th amendment came after the 14th. Courts at the time could have used the 14th amendments language to enable female voting but they did not. This is because the 14th amendment simply was not written with females in mind. It took about a generation for woman to use their free speech rights and rights to free association and petitioning their government for the regress of grievances, in order to convince the male half of the population to allow them the vote. All this occurred with out women even being able to vote; they had to convince men in large numbers to give up their monopoly on the franchise; and it worked! This is a testimony to the power of authentic equality arguments ability to prevail despite political disenfranchisement. This shows that our system of government properly applied, liberal democracy does work when people play by the rules. All these examples are juxtaposed to the illegitimate abuse of power that is occurring in the name of gay “rights”. “To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.” * * – Andersen v. King County; New York Superior Court (J. Graffeo concurring) NO reasonable, informed person on EITHER side in this debate maintains that this is not a redefinition of marriage. Allow me to flush out one particular insight that I take as evidence to demonstrate that (at the highest levels) supporters of same-sex “marriage” are not simply “like” totalitarian movements but rather are, in & of themselves…literally totalitarian The origins of Totalitarianism go back to the French Revolution. [The Origins of Totalitarianism - Hannah Arendt] Under classic liberal enlightenment thought the traditional family is what is called a “intermediary social institution” That is it exist between the naked individual & the State. There are any number of such institutions including Universities, Trade Unions, Religion, Political Parities, Press outlets, and the like… These are covered under our “right to free association” under the 1st amendment. The entire collection of these institutions, including the family are known as “civil society”. Of these “intermediary social institutions” – marriage & the family has always been considered the primary one. As old as Pericles the family has been considered a bulwark against state tyranny. Marriage & the family are considered to pre-exist the State and even religion. That neither created marriage, but that it evolved organically. The State did not create marriage, it simply recognizes it as one of our natural rights. That is why & how it became recognized as a fundamental constitutional right and international human right. In the Mass. Goodridge case the Court addresses this understanding in its decision – “We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage..” This is no mistake that the Judge in such a prominent case starts off with this argument. If the State creates marriage it can uncreated marriage or redefine marriage. A totalitarian state is considered one who doesn’t recognize these “intermediary social institutions” – Hence “totalitarian” = total social control by the state. Marriage is the basis of the family and the family is considered to be the ultimate “intermediary social institutions” – with rights against the State.. All this is well established fact in the history of political philosophy and represented well in the case law.* * {Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) } Under international human rights law and Supreme Court precedent marriage is considered a fundamental right; the state must recognize marriage as originally defined. It can no more redefine marriage than say redefine “speech” to mean “saying those things the government wants you to say” or redefine “arms” to mean “down pillows”. This is not slight of hand but rather naked subterfuge. This is what I mean when I say that you show no real evidence of being able to understand your adversaries world view on this subject. Michael (writes) “And of course, I understand your world view. I was raised Republican, Catholic, and Texan. I understand you. I just don’t agree with you.” None of these facts necessarily mean you genuinely understand our world view or the facts of what is taking place and how it is being accomplished. Michael (writes) “I hope you’ll understand that it’s not quite fair for you to ask me to defend, explain, or denounce arguments that I haven’t made.” I don’t expect you to do anything of the sort. What I expect you to do is be able to comprehend and acknowledge that these are in fact the strategies and animating impulses of the movement to redefine marriage. Towards this end, the best paradigm that I have seen is that used by scholars of the family.. That is the “pure relationship theory” vs “the conjugal model”. As N. Y. Superior court Justice J. Graffe points out..our fundamental constitutional right to marriage is predicated on the conjugal understanding of marriage. I hope you can bring yourself to a fuller understanding of the arguments against same-sex “marriage” – How redefining a institution changes its meaning and purpose & how transparent violations of our rights have been the predicate on which this “movement” has gained the traction it has. But for such an egregious abuse of “raw judicial power”, our democratic process would have lended itself to a more sober reflection and intellectually honest approach to an institution that is as important to the whole of society as marriage.

Phillip Blond is more correct than he may know. The origins of Totalitarianism go back to the French Revolution. Under classic liberal enlightenment thought the traditional family is what is called a "intermediary social institution" That is it exist between the naked individual & the State. There are any number of such institutions including Universities, Trade Unions, Religion, Poltical Parites, Press outlets, and the like... These are covered under are "right to free assosiation" under the 1st amendment. The entire collection of these insitutioins, including the family are known as "civil society". Of these "intermediary social insitutions" - marriage & the family has always been considered the primary one. As old as Pericles the family has been considered a bulkwark against state tyranny. Marriage & the family are considered to pre-exist the State and even religion. That neither created marriage, but that it evolved organically. The State did not create marriage, it simply recognizes it as one of our natural rights. That is why & how it became recognized as a fundemental consitutional right and international human right. In the Mass. Goodridge case the Court says in the first paragraph of its decision - "quite simply the State creates marriage" This is no mistake that the Judge in such a prominate case starts off with this argument. If the State creates marriage it can uncreate marriage or redifine marriage. A totalitarian state is considered one who dosent recognize these "intermediary social institutions" - Hence "totalitarian" = total social control by the state. Marriage is the basis of the family and the family is considered to be the ulltimante "intermediary social institutions" - with rights against the State.. All this is well established fact of history and represented well in the case law.

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion: Lockyer v. San Francisco (2004) 33 C.4th 1055, 95 P.3d 459, 17 C.R.3d 225, 7 Summary (10th) Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v. Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division: Wilson v. Ake, 354 F.Supp.2d at 1302 The Indiana Court of Appeals noted the precedential value of Baker in an opinion upholding Indiana's Marriage Laws: Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division also noted the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection claims on the issue of same sex marriage: Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 Upon appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (The Supreme Court in NY State), the State Supreme Court also recognized the controlling nature of Baker, as to the Federal Constitution: Hernandez v. Robles, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005) In an opinion upholding Nebraska's Marriage Amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Baker v Nelson and the authority of States on Marriage Law: Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) Justices Johnson and Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in their opinion : Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) Baker was cited as precedent in Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County District Court (MN -2011)

http://culture11.com/blogs/ladyblog/2008/11/10/disgusted-by-traditional-marriage/

Chesterton
This has always been one of my favorite Chesterton quotes, ever since I read it about 12 years ago. As far as I can tell, it has never appeared on the internet except for this text version. Chesterton explains the seeming paradox that people who don't see the use of a social institution should not be allowed to reform it. Here's the quote:
The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, chap. 4 (1929).

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

McHugh is here referring to “sexual identity” as it would be sensibly understood pre -gay activism: Male and female, not homosexual and heterosexuality. It is ironic that in the worldview of the modern left, significant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals (which science shows to be extraordinarily difficult to characterize and wholly unstable) are argued to be innate, while significant differences between men and women (which are enormous, self-evident and permanent) are argued to be at once trivial and socially constructed.

This statement does not contradict the presence of “indirect genetic factors” influencing homosexuality. Most people mistakenly presume that an indirect genetic influence refers to a mere technical distinction. In fact, the distinction is crucial. Basketball playing shows a very strong, argu ably stronger than homosexuality, indirect genetic influence, but there are no genes for basketball playing —it is a wholly “environmentally” influenced behavior subject to a high degree of choice —much higher than same-sex attraction. The crucial point is that genes that indirectly influence a trait have nothing at all to do with the trait itself and therefore can’t possibly “cause” it. The genes that influence the likelihood someone will become a basketball player are self -evident: Those that code for height, athleticism, muscle refresh rate. There are, at present, even strong racial genetic associations to basketball playing. These associations are almost entirely socially-determined while the genes themselves are biological (and evolved in an era before basketball playing even existed), and the associational degree (i.e., with race) fluctuates over time as basketball spreads across the globe.


This phenomenon was actually first recognized not by sociologists, epidemiologists, psychiatrists, psychiatrists or any other kind of “ist,” but by savvy Smith College students who first called themselves SLUGs: Smith Lesbians Until Graduation. Elsewhere, the eponym mutated into Selectively Lesbian Until Graduation.

[FROM Standhardt v. Super. Ct of Ariz.,

[FROM Standhardt v. Super. Ct of Ariz., 206 Ariz. 276, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.App. 2003)],(Ariz. Supreme Court review denied 2004 Ariz. LEXIS 62 (Ariz., May 25, 2004)-- a state appeals court ruling denying a claim for same-sex marriage:

..."P34. Petitioners argue that the State's asserted basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest for several reasons, which we address in turn. First, Petitioners briefly contend that a state's interest in procreation and protecting children can never justify a law infringing upon the right to marry, because the Supreme Court has stated that the right to marry belongs to individuals rather than families or society. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486 (striking state law banning distribution of condoms to married couples and describing marriage, in part, as "a bilateral loyalty, not [a] commercial or social project[]"); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."). Although Griswold and Loving described marriage as a personal right, neither case suggested that a state cannot infringe upon that right for social purposes, such as encouraging procreation and protecting children. Indeed, the Court recognized in Loving that "marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power." 388 U.S. at 7. We therefore reject Petitioners' contention.

P35. Petitioners more persuasively argue that the State's attempt to link marriage to procreation and child-rearing is not reasonable because (1) opposite-sex couples are not required to procreate in order to marry, and (2) same-sex couples also raise children, who would benefit from the stability provided by marriage within the family. 16 However, as the State notes, "[a] perfect fit is not required" under the rational basis test, and we will not overturn a statute "merely because it is not made with 'mathematical nicety, or because in practice it results in some inequality.'" (citations omitted).

P36. Allowing all opposite-sex couples to enter marriage under Arizona law, regardless of their willingness or ability to procreate, does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. First, if the State excluded opposite-sex couples from marriage based on their intention or ability to procreate, the State would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-86; Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453-54; Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (recognizing government inquiry about couples' procreation plans or requiring sterility tests before issuing marriage licenses would "raise serious constitutional questions"). Second, in light of medical advances affecting sterility, the ability to adopt, and the fact that intentionally childless couples may eventually choose to have a child or have an unplanned pregnancy, the State would have a difficult, if not impossible, task in identifying couples who will never bear and/or raise children. Third, because opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, excluding such couples from marriage could only be justified by a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721, which is not readily apparent.

P37. For these reasons, the State's decision to permit all qualified opposite-sex couples to marry does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. See Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (rejecting challenge to same-sex marriage prohibition on basis that opposite-sex couples not required to prove or declare willingness to procreate in order to marry); Baker, 291 Minn. at 313-14, 191 N.W.2d at 187 (same).".....


Apparently, Topix no longer maintains my post that I linked to above, so here's an excerpt on the UNDERINCLUSION/OVERINCLUSION fallacy so often used here:

It's long past time to have a thread addressing one of the gay-marriage advocates' most persistent claims.

That persistent claim is that a civil marriage restriction because of the heterosexual ability to naturally procreate is a constitutionally-invalid restriction or limitation on "the right to marry", because the restriction "discriminates" against homosexual couples who procreate by artificial means and that it on the other hand "discriminates" in favor of heterosexual couples who are childless and therefore who don't procreate at all.

There is a name for these distinctions in the effects of various laws -- these distinctions are called "underinclusiveness" and "overinclusiveness".

[BRIEF OVERVIEW FROM: Answers.com]:
"Underinclusiveness

A characteristic of a statute or administrative rule dealing with First Amendment rights and other fundamental liberty interests, whereby the statute prohibits some conduct but fails to prohibit other, similar conduct.

An underinclusive law is not necessarily unconstitutional or invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that all laws are underinclusive and selective to some extent. If a law is substantially underinclusive, however, it may be unconstitutional.
...

A law is not necessarily invalid just because it is underinclusive. For example, a statute that prohibited the use of loudspeaker systems near a hospital might be underinclusive for failing to prohibit shouting or the use of car horns in the same area. This type of underinclusiveness concerns only the manner of delivering speech, however, and is therefore more likely to pass constitutional scrutiny than a statute that prohibits speech on particular subjects."....
----------
As you might logically guess then, "overinclusiveness" is generally the flip side of underinclusiveness -- "overinclusiveness" involves a claim that a law ALLOWS some conduct but fails to allow other, similar conduct.


Yes women fought for the right to vote. Some religious people were against it and some for it. The suffragettes were a Church based movement in themselves, with many prominent figures being highly devout Christians.

But more to the point - women “fought” for the right to vote. They went out & convinced people that they should have the vote. This required a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Eventually (within a generation) they convinced enough Americans that it was voted in. This means men (who were the only ones who could vote) were convinced enough to give women what they deserved.

Compare that with the imposition of same-sex “marriage” on an unwilling populace through the courts. Gays don’t have enough respect for their fellow citizens & the system to take that route. They realize their agenda is bad public policy & is rightfully rejected; so they have to force it on the country.

Now… Think about this.
The 19th amendment (women’s vote) comes AFTER the 14th amendment..
If the 14th is such an elastic, equal protection guarantor of minority rights, then why did a group that did not even have the ability to vote themselves require a Federal Constitutional Amendment – while today, (a group that can vote & organize- gays) sees fit to use judicial usurpation to enact their agenda?

California Supreme Court to Consider Gay Marriage Issue

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080206-1230-ca-gaymarriage.html

The Supreme Court will hear three hours of arguments on the issue March 4 in San Francisco. Justices then have 90 days to rule.

The six consolidated cases being heard together challenge state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court has banned same-sex marriages in the state until it decides the issue.




No I don’t "think" that’s what SCOTUS was referring to I KNOW that’s what they are referring to.

The Quote you use is indeed from Loving v Virginia

“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

But it is the Loving court quoting the precedent of Skinner v. Oklahoma

That’s a case challenging Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, the Court based its finding on the fact that procreation was a fundamental right which belonged to all citizens. In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and procreation were fundamental rights.
The state found that they have a valid role in regulating marriage as a social institution, , finding the institution of marriage, social in nature, & a basic civil right that cannot be restricted without very good reason.
The connection between marriage & procreation is seen as fundamental to the nature of marriage as a fundamental right. It is not linked with marriage because procreation outside marriage is somehow impossible (A system that merely wanted to promote procreation would look quite different) Rather it is responsible procreation in the promotion of family formation that gives the fundamental right it civic power.

That right realizes that procreation is inevitable but the linking of marriage is “is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Because it provides for the basic family unit of binding the natural mother & father together and each to the child(ren).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magazine/30Chastity-t.html?ex=1207454400&en=517c765792e45531&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C9239.aspx
For what it's worth, this is incorrect historically. By the first couple centuries of the common era, Greco-Roman culture had embraced a wide array of ideals of virginity, and ideals of sexual morality in which the best path is either virginity or sex only within marriage only for procreation. These weren't universally held by any means, but neither were the early Christians universally practicing ascetics.

See, for instance, Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality, vol 3: The Care of the Self
Paul Veyne, Sexe et pouvoir ࠒome
Kate Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride and Jennifer Knust, Abandoned to Lust have good takes on this looking more at Christian literature.

It's a common misreading of antiquity to suggest that the pre-Christian pagans were sex-mad hedonists, or well-balanced pro-sex liberals, but this is not the case.

It makes sense from a historical perspective - early Christian culture was not a sudden sui generis event unrelated to Greco-Roman culture, but a development internal to that Greco-Roman culture which shared many of its norms and ideals.

A change does occur in the sexing of the body, but it's not one that provides a more "healthy" attitude toward sex.

New stuff

“The majority of the court held that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, that there is no scientific consensus that orientation is immutable, that marriage does not discriminate based on gender, that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, that laws defining marriage as a union of husband and wife are substantially different from those banning interracial marriage, and that the historic link between marriage and procreation justifies the state's definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.”

SSM [same-sex marriage] has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003... When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely in the near future... If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/opinion/29wolfers.html?_r=2&ex=1348804800&en=1f2e335d9590c5bf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northwest/chi-0923_multisep23,1,3340366.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5juVbhPK68Fyi9JaXnZ_CxuLP3zuA

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/us/20marriage.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190291659-Zd1qIHBRCg8bmC+uGoqRJQ

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/18/DI2007091801050.html


1. Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures.

2. "Children reared in a stable married natural family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/10/07/2007-10-07_rebuild_the_american_family_starting_wit.html


Maryland Decision
The Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state’s highest court) today issued a decision in a case brought by nine same-sex couples and others challenging the state’s definition of marriage. A trial court had ruled that the marriage law was a form of sex discrimination but today’s decision reversed that ruling. The majority in today’s decision consisted of four justices, two of whom had retired but were recalled to participate in the decision.

As to the sex discrimination argument, today’s majority said that the state’s Equal Rights Amendment was intended only to end discrimination against men or women as a class and “to remedy the long history of subordination of women in this country.” Since the marriage laws “do not separate men and women into discrete classes for the purpose of granting to one class of persons benefits at the expense of the other class” and the statute does not “place men and women on an uneven playing field” it is not sex discrimination.

The court then ruled on whether a sexual orientation classification should require the court to subject the marriage law to more exacting scrutiny. The court noted the prejudice and legal disabilities experienced by gays and lesbians but pointed out that they are not politically powerless, having experienced a number of legislative gains in past years. The court also said it could not assume “that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons display readily recognizable, immutable characteristics that define the group” based on “the scientific and sociological evidence currently available to the public.”

The majority next rejected the idea “that a right to same-sex marriage has taken hold to the point that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in history and tradition of Maryland.” In fact, the court noted that previous cases recognizing a fundamental right to marry “infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species.” In fact, the court said that virtually all of the cases “indicate[] as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”

In terms of the justifications for the current marriage law, the court ruled “fostering procreation is a legitimate government interest” and the “‘inextricable link’ between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding).” The court held “the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation.”

One justice agreed that the definition of marriage might be justifiable but would have endorsed the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision that the benefits of marriage must be given to same-sex couples.

Two justices dissented, the first endorsing an absolute reading of the state Equal Rights Amendment (if sex is even mentioned, the law should be presumed unconstitutional) and the second endorsing a dissenting opinion in the New York marriage case.

Pew Poll on Gay Marriage: Opposition High and Holding
A new Pew Poll on SSM, released Sept. 6 (and somewhat buried under the lead which is about religion and presidential candidates:
"Attitudes toward gay marriage have remained virtually unchanged since July 2006, with 36% of Americans favoring it and 55% expressing opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. . . . Support for gay marriage is highest among liberal Democrats (71%) and lowest among conservative Republicans (11%), with other ideological and partisan groups falling in between.

Among religious groups, evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, including 81% of white evangelicals and 79% of black evangelicals. A large proportion in both groups – 55% of white evangelicals and 48% of black evangelicals – say they strongly oppose gay marriage. White mainline Protestants and Catholics are more evenly divided on the issue. The religiously unaffiliated are the only group in which a majority (60%) expresses support for gay marriage. . ."

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=353

Doug Kmiec on the Iowa SSM Ruling
Prof.Kmiec is at Pepperdine:
"When the Iowa trial court struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, Mitt Romney was the only presidential candidate voice to be heard understanding the ruling for what it was: "yet another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act." It is often complained that the words judicial activism are used frequently and without definition. There is some truth to that complaint, but a close review of the ruling illustrates the sum and substance of that unconstitutional disease.

First of all, one of the aspects of the case that would trouble any open-minded reader is the extent to which the court rebuffed expert testimony in behalf of traditional marriage. Testimony from the founding director of the McGill center for medicine ethics and the law; testimony from Dr. Paul Nathanson a senior researcher at McGill University; testimony from Dr. Steven Rhoads, a well-respected author of important books on gender roles and the healthy development of children and related matters; and finally the testimony of Dr. Allan Carlson the president of the Howard Center for family religion and society were all refused by the court. The court had the temerity to indicate that these individuals were "not qualified" to testify as they lacked "scientific technical, and other specialized knowledge." By contrast, the court swung the door open widely for experts to opine upon anti-gay sentiment.

Notwithstanding this one-sided appraisal of offered evidence, the court noted that those advocating for same-sex marriage did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:

1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures..." and

2. "Children reared in a stable married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk."