You can do all the legal arguments and benefits to society and everything else under the sun and still miss this point.

Gays have already accumulated alot of rights and benefits. Health insurance benefits, civil unions and marriages in some states. Adoption rights, etc. ALL WRONG….

It’s not about some standard somewhere, its God’s standard. God is holy and demands that we be holy.

God says its wrong, it’s perversion and sexual immorality. There are consequences for engaging in these acts.

Its just that simple. Its the same thing as heterosexual sex outside of biblical marriage, pornography, men having sex with boys, etc. etc. etc…All of these are SIN and they have the same end result if practiced continuously, death and hell.

It may be the ultimate in close-mindedness but that’s all that any born-again Christian needs to say.

“Equal treatment of citizens to the privileges and immunities of law, and a respect for the private choices of citizens. It’s the same reason why states in the last century overturned laws that forbid interracial marriages.”

This has already been addressed, 03.16.06 @ 1:17 pm Scroll up. You can’t cherry pick one issue and decide that should be addressed to grant equal protection of law, and deny the others (like marrying your pet or your kid sister). The same legal argument applies to each. The same argument you’ll use to deny those applies to homosexuality.

‘Nuf said! Kman does not believe that there is a compelling state reason for the state to encourage marriage.

So, ala Kman, drop all marriage restriction laws and let all benefits that accrue to marriage be annulled.

Let the games begin!

You’ve skipped over enormous parts of people’s posts and left behind points they made to attack specific parts as if by showing these to be weak the entire point is negated.

My apologies, but I simply can’t address EVERYTHING, so I have to pick and choose. My comments are plenty long as it is.

If you care to doubt me about marriage being the foundation of society (and I didn’t say it was only because of child-rearing, although that’s a major part), don’t trust me. Trust any credible sociologist or historian you can find.

The entire premise is a matter of subjective opinion. No “expert” can “prove” or “disprove” that marriage is the foundation of society. It’s like saying “Apples are the most delicious fruit on Earth — just ask any credible culinary expert.”

Heliotrope:

Let’s not split hairs….What is the compelling state interest in overturning the state laws in order to accommodate gay marriage?

Equal treatment of citizens to the privileges and immunities of law, and a respect for the private choices of citizens. It’s the same reason why states in the last century overturned laws that forbid interracial marriages.

If there is a compelling state reason to keep geriatric heterosexuals from marrying then bring it on. Likewise requiring a fertility test.

There isn’t a compelling state reason. That’s my point. That’s why the argument that you offer (“states have an interest in encouraging child-bearing”) is simply absurd.

Let’s start there. Perhaps the state should just get out of the marriage business entirely. Poof! All 1138 disadvantages disappear for everybody, without regard to their sexual proclivities.

Fine. But that’s not, you know, reality. And until the states get out of the marriage business entirely, they’ve shouldn’t discriminate unless there is a compelling interest.

In all seriousness, why should we deny the right of a father and several sons and a few neighbor men to marry and form a grand, gay family? What is the compelling state interest in preventing it?

You mean, like, the Elks?

Okay, that was a stupid joke. I like the Elks (but you know, not THAT way).

But seriously, I’m not sure the state HAS a compelling interest in preventing polygamy. I suppose one concern (from the state’s point of view) would be the formation of “sham” polygamous marriages where groups of people unite not for love and emotional support, but for 100% economic interests (tax write-offs, etc.). Furthermore, there’s a body of evidence suggesting that many polygamous marriages aren’t truly consensual, i.e., the women tend to be subjugated. So the state might not want to condone that.

But who loses out from gay marriages? The state? Heterosexual couples? Exactly how is the fabric of society going to come apart?

I question why an organization that touts itself as “Christian” is wasting its time in such an overtly foolish activity. By engaging in these stunts, SoulForce is, quite frankly, behaving in a very un-Christ-like manner.

What is the compelling state interest in overturning the state laws in order to accommodate gay marriage? Conversely, what is the compelling state interest in upholding a gay marriage permitted in a maverick state and forcing the provision via the “full faith and credit” clause on the remaining states? These are not transient questions, but quite apropos to current dilemma.

My preceding remarks about childbearing and marriage are not so shallow as to obfuscate the traditional purpose of marriage. If there is a compelling state reason to keep geriatric heterosexuals from marrying then bring it on. Likewise requiring a fertility test.

The 1138 disadvantages of law accrued to homosexuals because they can not claim a marriage benefit is just so much smoke.

The state has differentiated between married couples and unmarried couples and it had granted advantages, particularly in the tax and inheritance codes, to married couples.

Let’s start there. Perhaps the state should just get out of the marriage business entirely. Poof! All 1138 disadvantages disappear for everybody, without regard to their sexual proclivities.

So now we have come full circle. Shall the state regulate marriage or not? Should the state “reward” marriage. Both the Greeks and the Romans went through this conundrum and both rotted at the core due to their conclusions. (Ooops! They had plenty of other pressures of negative societal proclivities that added to their decent, as well.)

In all seriousness, why should we deny the right of a father and several sons and a few neighbor men to marry and form a grand, gay family? What is the compelling state interest in preventing it?

I’d encourage you to read and address the points made rather than trying to cherrypick points you want to attack. You’ll find people take your attempts at logic and rhetoric a lot more seriously. You’ve skipped over enormous parts of people’s posts and left behind points they made to attack specific parts as if by showing these to be weak the entire point is negated.

That’s just bad rhetoric and would get points taken OFF your score, not added to it in a debate.

If you care to doubt me about marriage being the foundation of society (and I didn’t say it was only because of child-rearing, although that’s a major part), don’t trust me. Trust any credible sociologist or historian you can find. Don’t find an activist, find a trustworthy, reliable, accredited and honored person in the field. They all unreservedly support my basic point.

Simply denying it’s true doesn’t matter. Even if it wasn’t true, you don’t have a compelling case, all you have been able to do is criticize what we say, with limited success.

Convince people you’re right. Pursuade people.

If you cannot, perhaps it’s time to think about your position more critically.

Christopher, you keep putting words into my mouth. I never argued that preventing gay marriage was “cruel”. “Cruelty” isn’t even the touchstone here. (By analogy, I don’t think segregation was “cruel” either; it was clearly, however, an injustice).

But let me pick up on Heliotrope’s compelling state interest issue.

Heliotrope does a fair job defining the “compelling state interest” test, but when it comes to gay marriage, he avoids the test altogether. Instead, he writes:

“Which brings us back to homosexuals marrying. Why should they?”

Asking “why should [gays be allowed to marry]” is NOT employing the “compelling state interest” test. In a free society, the burdon is on the *state* to show it has a compelling interest in restricting individual liberty, not on individuals to show why they should have it.

So the proper question is “what is the state’s compelling interest in NOT sanctioning gay marriage?”

Nobody has provided an adequate “compelling state interest” as to why gay marriage should be unrecognized.

Heliotrope, for example, argues that gay couples cannot bear children. I’m going to ignore the obvious counterargument that gay couples can certainly RAISE children. Instead, I’m going to point out that many heterosexual couples cannot bear children either. Yet, the state doesn’t seem to care. In fact, the state doesn’t even inquire into fertility when straight couples decide to marry. So how can you say that the state has a “compelling state interest” in people bearing children when it simply doesn’t weigh that as a factor?

Christopher, on the other hadn, offers essentially two “compelling state interests”. One, it seems, rests in preserving some nebulous moral standard regarding marriage. I don’t buy it. Every state in the union allows divorce. If states have some compelling “moral” interest in marriage, then why is divorce so easy from a legal standpoint? And what exactly are states doing to combat high divorce rates? Anything? Doesn’t sound to “compelling” to me.

In a related vein, Christopher argues that “one woman, one man marriages provide the ideal and best possible construct for raising children and building the foundations of civilization and society.” He states this as proven fact. I doubt that, but assuming it is a “fact”, it is a fact that is obviously too simplistic and pat.

The factors relating to the healthy raising of children are many and varied. Income levels, geographical location, education levels of the parents, etc. all play a part. No social scientist ever suggest that heterosexual parents is the magic bullet here to successful kid-raising. And I’m sure we all know kids who are raised by a single parent who are better adjusted than other kids raised in a troubled (albeit dual parent) household.

And, as I said before, states will sanction marriages between an 80 year old man and his 79 year old wife, so the child-bearing and child-raising “interest” really doesn’t hold water.

A final point. Heliotrope writes:

“The only ‘rights’ [gays] miss out on is having the state take an interest in their property divisions due to divorce or in forcing private entities to accept their partnership.”

Those two are the “only” ones? Sorry. I’ve already mentioned intestate succession. Want more? How about 1138 more?

In 2004, the United States General Accounting Office did a study of all the federal benefits, rights and privileges that would be denied homosexual couples as a result of not being able to solidify their union as a “marriage” (assuming that “marriage” is limited to a man and woman).

The total number was 1138. Everything from tax benefits, to veterans benefits, to hospital visitation rights, etc. You can read the study here (PFD format).

And that’s just FEDERAL benefits. Obviously, there will be many more when you add state benefits.

1) not too closely related
2) over the age of 17
3) not already married
4) willing to marry
5) not the same gender
6) the same species
7) must be alive
cannot marry more than one person at once

Each one of these is codified into law, and is based not only on cultural morés but because they are damaging to society and violate either personal rights (willingness to marry) or the basic concept of marriage as a building block of civilization and society.

We all are under these restrictions, equally, under law. I cannot marry my sister (if I had one), yet someone else could. I cannot marry my kitchen table or pet cat, no matter how much I love them. I cannot marry my best friend’s wife, no matter how hot she is. None of these restictions are cruel, unreasonable attacks on my personal liberty or a brutal crushing of my civil rights.

Further, the compelling state interest is, without possibility of rational or historical contradiction, in the side of these laws remaining in place as they stand. One woman, one man marriages provide the ideal and best possible construct for raising children and building the foundations of civilization and society. This is absolute fact as proven repeatedly through the world for all of history and affirmed unwaveringly by sociologists and historians worldwide.

The fact that people abuse the system and do a poor job of it at times does not somehow negate this or demand we destroy that basic building block.

I will take a look at your post this afternoon. Thanks for the link.

On a related subject, I recently received a newsletter from Desert Stream Ministries. I obtained permission to post the article, “Brokeback Mountain: A Christian Response.” at my blog. It was written by Andrew Comiskey in response to the many editorials and articles that tended to blame Christianity for perpetrating a judgmental, narrow, and/or intolerant attitude towards homosexuality. Andrew answers these critics in a brilliantly, forthright and biblically accurate way. I hope you will take the time to read it and comment.

The courts have a traditional standard in plowing new ground which is called the “compelling state interest.”

Marriage is a state sanctioned institution that involves inheritance, property ownership, the legitimacy of children, etc. This state sanctioned institution directs laws and gives standing to litigants appearing before the the court.

Not to be foolish, but there are those who would marry their sibling or favorite pet or small child or many partners. Society had adopted certain taboos against these marriages and when the courts are challenged on one of them, they examine the “compelling state interest.”

Why would the state be better off if the societal “taboo” were to be overturned?

Because our society has drifted more toward the single parent family, live-ins who are not legal spouses and since we no longer care much about bastards, perhaps the time is close at hand when the state is no longer interested in sanctioning marriage of any type.

However, to ditch state sanctioned marriage would really mess up property rights, inheritance, custody responsibilities, etc.

Which brings us back to homosexuals marrying. Why should they? They can not bear children. Without marriage they can assign property, designate custody of adopted children, cosign for loans, etc. The only “rights” they miss out on is having the state take an interest in their property divisions due to divorce or in forcing private entities to accept their partnership. (Many retirement homes will not let them live together.)

Really, if you are going to champion homosexual marriage (recognized by the state) are you also ready to support polygamy? And if so, will you draw the line anywhere? If not, why do you even care if there is state sanctioned marriage as it would be basically meaningless?

“Homosexual couples simply don’t have that option.”

Sure they do. They just can’t “marry” each other. Just like I can’t marry my sister but you can. Just like I can’t marry my best friend’s wife. None of those facts are a cruel robbing of my rights.

“I always thought that government was “for the people”. I didn’t know that that rights were denied to people in order to benefit the government, or even “society”.”

No rights are being denied. Privaleges are extended to some because of the benefit to society. Getting tax breaks or legal benefits are not rights they are privileges and benefits given to some people insofar as they benefit the society and culture.

Homosexual relationships simply do not provide that bedrock benefit to society that normal marriages do.

Incidentally, Gay Marriage is a minority viewpoint, a large minority in the last poll. So much so that several states made it impossible to happen in them – even liberal states like Oregon.

Your problem is that you
1) think marriage is a right
2) think that being denied marriage is a cruelty done to homosexuals
3) believe that the constitution demands this be made legal

all three are utterly false and without merit.

Further, when I say “significance and meaning” I’m referring to the bedrock basis of culture and society with is universally known to be marriage and families. You want to redefine the concept of marriage to include something that is not that basis simply out of personal whim. Why on earth should anyone listen to you or care, let alone redefine a millenia-old cross-cultural human insistution? They should not, until you can actually convince people and provide good solid compelling reasons.

You have not, and cannot. Simply crying “its not fair” is not any of those things.

It’s also denied heterosexual couples who aren’t married. Do you consider that a crushing cruelty?

The point is that heterosexual couples have the right to get married, and enjoy the rights and benefits that come with marriage.

Homosexual couples simply don’t have that option.

Or could it possibly be that marriage is such a beneficial system for society and strength of a culture that the government benefits this union legally?

Yikes.

I always thought that government was “for the people”. I didn’t know that that rights were denied to people in order to benefit the government, or even “society”.

What you want to do is redefine marriage so that it loses it’s significance and meaning for culture and society, and yet gain the benefits by law.

I’m sorry, but I think this is a bit of a red herring.

If you were, say, a Lutheran, would your faith in God lose its significance simply because there was an uptick in the rolls of the Catholic religion? Or Jewish religion? Or Buddhism? Would feel “forced” in some way to adopt another religious viewpoint?

I suspect not.

So, by the same token, how does your marriage lose its “significance and meaning” by other people — that you probably don’t even know personally — getting married?

If gay marriage is recognized by law, will you love your wife any less? Will you take your vows less seriously? Will divorce rates and adultery rates among heterosexuals skyrocket?

State recognition of marriage is not the factor that makes marriage “significant and meaningful”. After all, marriage (and dare I say it, love) is one of the few institutions that pre-dates government. So let’s not pretend the two are inextricably bound.

That’s what makes it special: you want law and meaning to change to fit a specific, narrow, and extremely minority viewpoint and lifestyle.

While gays are a minority, I’m not even sure gay marriage is the minority viewpoint at all, much less the “extreme” minority viewpoint.

But assuming it is, what’s the magic number? How many gay people have to want the legal rights and benefits of marriage before you think it shouldn’t be denied to them?

Personally, I think marriages between albino men and dwarf women are disgusting and unnatural. And they’re a REAL extreme minority. If I can convince most people to my side, do I “win”? Is there nothing in the Constitution that protects “extreme” minorities, or does it only support equal rights for large minorities that the majority has (eventually) grown to tolerate?

It’s also denied heterosexual couples who aren’t married. Do you consider that a crushing cruelty?

Or could it possibly be that marriage is such a beneficial system for society and strength of a culture that the government benefits this union legally?

What you want to do is redefine marriage so that it loses it’s significance and meaning for culture and society, and yet gain the benefits by law.

That’s what makes it special: you want law and meaning to change to fit a specific, narrow, and extremely minority viewpoint and lifestyle. That makes it special, out of the ordinary, beyond what people gain.

If you can convince the voters to do this, feel free – but you have to actually try to convince them and persuade them, not force it on them or abuse them for disagreeing.