jaysays.com |

because simon isn’t cool anymore.

LGBT Lessons for Straight People: The Homosexual Threat to Marriage

November 28, 2009 By: geekgirl Category: Featured, LGBT Lessons for Straight People

Gay EducationI  enjoy when the opposition hands me material on a silver platter. Thanks to the Manhattan Declaration, we have confirmation of the real reasons why right wing fundamentalists and conservatives oppose same sex marriage. As of today, over 180,000 people have signed this Declaration. One voice, making the same statement. At last, our enemy has defined themselves.

One of the main founders of the Manhattan Declaration, Chuck Colson, was part of the Watergate scandal and went to jail for obstructing justice. He is a convicted felon who became a born again evangelical while in prison. Many doubt that his conversion is real. One of many endeavors sponsored by Mr. Colson is his desire to have the Bible taught in public schools.  This is a very small snippet from the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Colson.

A quip that ‘Colson would walk over his own grandmother if necessary’ mutated into claims in news stories that Colson had boasted that he would run over his own grandmother to re-elect Nixon. Plotz reports that Colson sought to hire Teamsters’ thugs to beat up anti-war demonstrators. Colson proposed firebombing the Brookings Institution and stealing politically damaging documents while firefighters put the fire out.

Ah yes. This is definitely the kind of guy that Jesus would hang out with.

Back to the Manhattan Declaration. Let’s examine parts of it, shall we?

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law….

I actually have no idea what this wordiness means, other than its intent is to lure you into believing that marriage has THEIR meaning embodied in our civil law. I’ve included it because we will get to their meaning of marriage quite soon.

It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life.

The bold is my emphasis. However, procreation is italicized in the original version.

Jackpot! We have it. The false and destructive belief that marriage is about romance and ‘other’ adult satisfactions. Marriage is NOT about love. I don’t know what is implied by ‘other adult satisfactions’. I know they don’t mean procreation or sex  (how do you know Geekgirl? Ah, we’ll get there.) Right now I am pondering the ‘adult satisfactions’ that my marriage has brought me. Companionship, someone to share my life with, for better or worse… what does that remind me of? Oh well, never mind. Let’s continue.

They [meaning gays and lesbians] fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit.

Marriage is actually made possible by the government when it hands out marriage licenses. Period. End of sentence.  Yet I sense they are slipping away from procreation, as in having children,  and into something else here.

Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritualon a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

Let’s shorten that first sentence to get to the point. Marriage is what one man and woman establish by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. Behavioral conditions of procreation. You can’t fool me. I’m a biologist. I know what this means.

Marriage is one man and woman having sexual intercourse.

So it’s NOT about procreation.  We know this now because  the church does not annul marriages on the grounds of infertility. As long as you have the kind of sex that could, in theory, lead to procreation,  you can be married. You don’t need romance or love. You just need a willing penis and a willing vagina. Take note, it cannot be only metaphorical.

Not convinced? Read this direct quote from Dr. Ronald Sider, one of the signers of the Manhattan Declaration, from an interview with the Village Voice.  What is sad about Dr. Sider is he professes to be a Democrat who supports equality for gays and lesbians.

It’s quite clear that… men and women who have sex and make babies stay together. It’s better for their children, and it’s better that children grow up with their moms and dads — and that’s why societies have defined marriage, to protect making babies. The real question is, what is marriage?

Mr. Sider is incorrect here. Many studies have shown that gay parents are as good, if not better, than straight parents. It’s also very insulting to single parents who try hard to do a very good job.

You can say what you just said, but you’re not listening to me. My argument was not a religious argument. It is about what marriage means. It’s true, a lot of contemporaries have redefined marriage. Marriage now means an emotional, romantic relationship between people. If that is what marriage is, then it should ought [sic] to be available to gays or lesbians. But if marriage is what every culture has always said it was, then it makes no sense to offer it to everyone.

He doesn’t elaborate on what every culture has always said it was. But we all know this argument is put forward as if the only model of marriage that has ever existed is their own. Forget polygamy, Native American cultures and women as property.

We have a couple hundred years of public law in this country on this. But nobody would argue that everybody ought to have identical things regardless of who they are. Children don’t have identical rights; grandparents don’t have identical rights with parents. It depends on who you are, what rights you properly get. It’s not true somebody who is living in a relationship, which is not marriage, should have the rights of marriage.

Wow. Now we’re comparing rights of children and grandparents to those of same sex couples who want the same rights as opposite couples. The arguments against this point are so obvious, I won’t take up your time. That last sentence is the one that really bothers me. It is a slap in the face to every loving, monogamous same sex couple.

I want gay Americans to be protected by the law. I want an end to gay bashing. I want them to have jobs, and have housing. I want them to visit their partner in the hospital, and to inherit property and pay taxes [together] legally. Those are all proper things a good society does to establish equality. Even though gay people are not practicing what I believe is the proper sexual relationship, I think they should be protected by the constitution and have all of their civil rights. It doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t follow gay marriage. But I very much believe that we should have civil rights for everybody. …. I think …. people with a gay orientation, ought to seek God’s help to live lives of joy without sexual intercourse.

Outside of some grammatical issues, Mr. Sider doesn’t actually say how society should give these rights to gays and lesbians. But when you get them, you still should not have sex. And it won’t be called marriage.

What case does the Manhattan Declaration make against the legalization of same sex marriage?

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good.

The law has no duty to create a legal version of marriage. We are often reminded by the religious right that the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the right to marry. However, we as a society have recognized that giving legal protections to couples and families protects individuals and society as a whole. But if you are a same sex couple, evidently the sake of justice and the common good do not apply. Here is your confirmation that you are, indeed, second class citizens.

First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends.

First, no one’s religious liberty is at stake except for those religions that support same-sex marriage. For the millionth time, no church will be forced to recognize same sex marriages. In fact, under current marriage laws the Catholic Church has, and will continue, to deny marriages to even opposite-sex couples that they believe do not meet the criteria for a Catholic sanctified ceremony.  For those of you who think marriage is a religious institution, here is my suggestion. Skip the marriage license. Just have a ceremony at your church. Now ask your minister what legal benefits you just gained.

Second, you are worried about what schools (probably won’t) teach? The immorality of same sex marriage?  About half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce and 40% of children are born out of wedlock.  Yet Christians feel the biggest threat to marriage is two people of the same sex wanting to commit to each other legally and financially? No, that’s not quite it. We see this in point number three.

Third, it’s a sexual partnership that is non-marital and immoral. Why is it non-marital? Because, as we have just read, marriage is about the physical act of male-female intercourse.  When we take away the bloated sugar coated language of this declaration, we can see their real concern.

They don’t like what gay people do in bed.

And because they don’t like it, they state, as if they have true control, that no one has a civil right to a non-marital relationship being recognized as marriage. This logic is more twisted than a pretzel. Civil law regarding marriage has no requirement for procreation, nor does it have a requirement for sexual intercourse. I checked my marriage license. Not there.

Let’s look at something so traditional I bet many of us know this by heart. The traditional marriage vows, said in many a church.

I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

This vow looks suspiciously similar to love, romance and other adult satisfactions to me.  If religion insists that marriage is about the biological act that can lead to procreation, why isn’t it mandatory for heterosexuals getting married in a Christian church to include a vow to have sexual intercourse? Now I’m sure we wouldn’t want to use such a descriptive term in front of our families and children. What did you call it? Fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation?

I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, to fulfill together the behavioral conditions of procreation, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.

What did we learn? Without male-female sexual intercourse, it is not marriage. And the threat to marriage?  An emotional, romantic relationship.

In other words, love threatens marriage.

jaysays.com contributor geekgirlgeekgirl: Jude is a straight woman, a mom and has been married for 32 years to the same wonderful man. She believes in Buddhism and attends the United Church of Christ. She is a molecular biologist, her best friend is a lesbian, and she believes that every human deserves equal rights, respect and a life free from hate, fear and discrimination. The only thing she hates is pickles. Her science blog can be found at LGBT Latest Science.

Iowa Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage Ban

April 02, 2009 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News, Marriage Equality

The Iowa Supreme Court has advised that it will release its ruling on the “gay-marriage” ban this Friday, April 3, 2009.  Oral Arguments were presented to the court in December.  The case, is Varnum v. Brien and will be released on the Iowa Supreme Court website by 8:30 a.m.

The lower court previously ruled that same-sex marriage is “gender” based and subject to an intermediate scrutiny analysis and that the statute banning same-gender marriage was unconstitutional under both Due Process and Equal Protection claims.  Defendants in the case appealed the decision stating that the Court erred in its ruling on these issues and in refusing to admit the defendant’s expert witnesses as well as entering summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

This makes me think of the linguistic battle as well as a civil rights battle.  The question of gender is an apt debate when referring to “same-gender” marriage; however, a change in nomenclature, such as “gay marriage” can effectually change the argument for a gender discrimination claim to a “protected class” issue – either way, this blogger hopes Lady Justice is feeling a bit gay tomorrow when the decision is released.

For more information or to read the briefs, replies and the trial court ruling filed in the suit, please visit the Supreme Court of Iowa’s website.

Why DOMA was Actually a Pro-Gay Move.

February 12, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Commentary, Thought of the Gay

I recently read the article “The Land of the Till Murder” written by an African American author in 1956 for Ebony magazine.  I was so moved by the words of the author, I thought I would share them:

So he fights integration on every level, puts up more and bigger white-colored signs, enacts more laws, writes new ones when these are found unconstitutional, forms more economic pressure groups, boards more bullets, taps more phones, listens to more speeches painting the “horrors” of integration.

And the tension rises, thickens, tightens, until the grip of it is agony and something must be done to relieve it and sometimes the relief is found in violence. — Ebony (April 1956): 91–96; By Clotye Murdock.

I felt as though articles I’ve read or even written more recently mimicked the words of Clotye Murdock.  Each time LGBT people are successful on one law, another is passed that reads “differently” in order to fit the requirements of the constitution, then that law is deemed unconstitutional by the Courts and another law is put into place.

In the mid-1990’s, it appeared that Hawaii would become the first state in the United States to recognize same-gender marriage.  The fundamentalists began screaming for the Federal government to do something before we fell into a horrible pattern of sin (similar to the argument against racial integration).  Pressure was on for an amendment to the United States Constitution.  Clinton then did something that enraged LGBT people; he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) into law.  Although obviously an unconstitutional action, DOMA remains in full force and effect today (with the small exception of an Internal Court Order of the 9th Circuit deeming it “unconstitutional”).  In spite of this, DOMA may be considered the smartest pro-gay action of any president.

I can hear it now: how can you consider DOMA to be “pro-gay”?  What sort of activist would say such a thing?  Frankly, at the time DOMA was passed it was VERY likely that the United States would ratify an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage.  Such Amendments, although repealable, are much more difficult to pass and even more difficult to repeal.  In fact, to repeal the constitutional amendment, ratification of an Amendment repealing it would have been required.  Such ratification of a Constitutional Amendment to repeal a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage would require either a 2/3 votes of the legislature (2/3 House, 2/3 Senate) and acceptance by the state legislatures or a Constitutional Convention [which has never been used to amend the U.S. Constitution].  With DOMA, we can argue the case in Court and the Court’s have power to repeal it without the super-majority requirement.  This is not to say that the laws provided for in DOMA are in any way, pro-gay; however, the repeal of DOMA will certainly be an easier hurdle than a repeal of a Constitutional Amendment.

Right Wing Showing More Signs of Weakness In Anti-Marriage Arguments

January 14, 2009 By: jaysays Category: LGBT News, Marriage Equality

A lack of support in the first push to add a same-gender marriage ban to Indiana’s constitution makes no difference to the right in their efforts to deny homosexuals equal legal protection.  The first proposed amendment was largely criticized for potentially denying domestic partnership benefits to same-gender couples that would otherwise be permitted by their employer.  As if to say, “O.k… so we will give gays those rights, but not any more,” the legislature is at it again – this time in a shockingly bipartisan push.

Although Indiana already has a law banning same-gender marriages, supporters of the measure note that Courts are overturning such legislation all over the country.  Thus, the basis for them to push forward with a constitutional amendment seems to be that the current law, because it is discriminatory and violates Due Process, might be overturned – so to protect it, we have to make it part of the Constitution.

The argument is indicative of a cause suffering from its own lack of rational thought and legal backing.

One of the strongest and most believed lies has been that providing civil marriage benefits to same-gender couples would result in churches being forced into performing religious ceremonies recognizing those relationships and such would be a violation of their religious freedoms.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Reverend Al Sharpton responded to this allegation by stating:

Even though we live under the law in a secular democratic society, religious groups must still be able to maintain their spiritual and moral option to either give or withhold a religious or sacred blessing to such unions.

He went on to declare:

However, the government should not have that option. It must affirm the human and legal rights of everyone.

The desperation in the voices of marriage inequality supporters can further be illustrated by their continued arguments (by way of the American Family Association *which would be more properly called the Anti-Family Association* that same-gender marriage will:

  • bankrupt social security (which same-gender couples pay into);
  • result in children being taught about homosexual sex in school;
  • result in the violation of the sanctity of their own marriage;
  • lead to instant, drive-through divorces similar to obtaining a hunting license;
  • “Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.”
  • “The culture war will be over.”

Some of the above are paraphrased, some are direct quotes when paraphrasing cannot do the ridiculousness of the argument justice.  To expose this blatant lie, let’s ask: what is the “culture war”?  The phrase “culture war” is generally used to describe the conflict between progressives and traditionalists and includes such hot debates as censorship, abortion, separation of church and state, gun control, and homosexuality. Obviously, the introduction of same-gender marriage will instantly dissolve the conflicts surrounding gun control, censorship, abortion and church involvement in state matters.  [insert sarcastic tone here].

It is unfortunate that “religious values”, which are generally respected, are being abused and degraded by the spread of LIES.  Yes, I’m calling them liars, a word I seldom use.  Liars are sinners… and since I am an atheist and thus free from “sin”, I can cast that stone.

The AFA is lying to you, they are trying to scare you, they are trying to use our fears against us and they are losing.  They are losing because we have been a country ruled by fear for far too long and people are recognizing those tactics when they hear them.  People are asking questions and getting make-shift, unreasonable answers.  People are calling the AFA out on their lies and demanding they support their allegations – and they can’t.  Keep asking questions, keep demanding answers and expose these groups for the power hungry, lying people that they are.

See: New proposal to ban gay marriage protects partner benefits | IndyStar

What I’ve Learned Thus Far – The Nationwide DOMA Protest (cont.)

January 12, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Community Outreach, LGBT Action Alerts

After my last  post describing my adventures in downtown San Antonio while attempting to gather signatures to the Open Letter to Obama, I took to the streets again.  It was about 10:30 p.m. when I, along with three others, pulled into the parking lot near a local gay bar.  The crowds were coming at full force and we could have used several more people to try to obtain everyone’s signatures.  It was windy and cold, but our reception was warm and tender… for the most part.

We split into two groups of two people, each with pads of signature pages, the letter and pens.  As people walked toward the clubs, we would stop them and ask for their support.  Many were anxious to get inside into a warmer climate, but those that took time to hear us out were grateful for our involvement and some offered their stories.  One kindly gentleman took a look at the letter and advised me that it hit very close to home for him as he had lost his job due to his sexual orientation.  He told me about his lawsuit and how difficult it was for him.  We discussed the Tennessee man who was recently fired for his sexual orientation as well.  I learned that, in spite of my very comfortable and supportive employment, I wasn’t immune from the reality of sexual orientation discrimination in my own employment.  After our conversation, he thanked me for what I was doing.  It was a very touching experience and I learned that in my zeal to make a difference, I must not forget compassion.

I then spoke with two ladies who were members of our military and serving under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (“DADT”).  We discussed the policy and the efforts to revoke it – and the likelihood that the Obama Administration will do away with the discriminatory policy [at 4:15].  I then inquired as to the murmurs I’ve heard from other military personnel that DADT protects LGBT soldiers from discrimination and aggressive acts by other members of the military.  They were stunned by the representation and completely disagreed with the argument.  They did state, in summary, that lower ranking military members may feel that way, but the truth of the matter was that the DADT was not a protection but a discriminatory policy.  I learned that we must continue to work to repeal DADT and hold the Administration accountable should it remain in effect.

Many LGBT people have made several comments that the African American community is not supportive of LGBT rights and issues.  While working the streets downtown, we approached three African American ladies in a group.  They had a small child with them.  They listened to us and reviewed the letter.  As one of them read the letter, she saw the portion which requested that DOMA be repealed and said, “That’s what I wanted to see.”  She grabbed the pen, pointed it out to her friends and they all anxiously signed the letter. Overall, the “group” that was seemingly the most responsive and most interested in the issue was the African American population.  Not one African American we approached refused to sign the petition.  One of the ladies was wearing a shirt that said, “All we need is love.”  That is what I learned from them.

I noticed that many of the younger people had no interest in signing the petition, even young LGBT people at the clubs.  Most were in too big of a hurry to meet up with their friends inside or stated things such as “I’m not political”.  The older generation (late 20’s and above) seemed much more receptive and had many stories to tell about things that have happened to them.  I learned that, until it happens to you, you probably won’t care too much about it.  I also learned that I miss the ignorant bliss of youth.

Many of the LGBT people I spoke with had never heard of DOMA and required a bit of a history lesson on the subject.  I learned from them that we have a lot of educating to do of our own community.

Some of the more trivial things I learned were: that when it is cold outside, you should wear gloves even if you don’t think you need them; when people have to “pee” you shouldn’t ask them to sign a petition, even though you have no access to a restroom and have had to go for over an hour; that you can never have too many pens; and that people wear too much cologne to the clubs.

Perhaps the most defining thing I learned was that I am s till frightened.  I thought I had overcome my fear of reactionary people and what they may do to me as a gay man, but instead of being the strong, self-assured person I thought I was, I was shaking inside everytime I approached a heterosexual couple and asked them to support LGBT equality.  In that I learned that I was “heterophobic” by the strictist definition.

How I Scare Lesbians – The Nationwide DOMA Protest

January 10, 2009 By: jaysays Category: Community Outreach, LGBT Action Alerts

The National DOMA Protest was conducted today.  I made it to the rally point and met up with the handful of people that showed up.  With letters in hand we took to the streets of San Antonio and began asking for signatures.

After approaching many presumably heterosexual people and a few people who declared their homosexuality, I noticed a lesbian couple (complete with hand holding) and approached them and asked whether or not they would sign the petition to support gay rights and repeal DOMA.  I was flabbergasted when they told me firmly, “no.”  I was so flabbergasted that I didn’t even say my typical, “thank you anyway, have a beautiful day” or any other nicety.  I just stood their – staring blankly.  Two of the people obtaining signatures with me were standing nearby.  I turned and saw their puzzled looks as well.

The night before, I took to the streets handing out fliers near the local “gay” district.  As I approached a group of presumably lesbian women in front of a local gay bar, I attempted to disarm them with a big smile, a pink piece of paper, the lesbian friend nearby and a huge “Hi!”  They scattered.  I turned to one and said, “Would you like to participate in the DOMA protest tomorrow to support gay rights?”  She rolled her eyes at me and said, “no… thank you,” in what was likely the most condescending tone anyone has ever spoken to me in.  The one remaining woman was likely humoring me with her “interest.”  Ultimately, it became clear she had no intention of attending.

But, not all was lost.  An adorable couple and their little girl (roughly 5 or 6 years old) stopped to sign the letter and talk with us.  While her parents were reviewing the letter, the little girl was asking all sorts of questions to her parents about what we were doing.  She was trying to read the letter her mother was holding and said, “Is that so gay people can get married?”  Her mother responded with a yes and the little girl says, “FINALLY!”  My heart glowed with joy.

In a conversation with another couple (also adorable) I began my speech about the first section of DOMA and how it violates Article IV Sec. I of the U.S. Constitution and that even its author, Bill Barr, supports its repeal.  After talking for several a couple of minutes, the young lady looks at me and says, “Can you dumb this down a bit?”  We shared a laugh and I advised its generally in support of “gay marriage” and hate crimes legislation.  Her husband (or boyfriend) said, “If I sign this does it mean I have to marry someone of the same sex.”  I quickly advised him, “No.  But if your interested I do know some people.”

Over all, the experience was positive – for me, it was an excercise in confidence.  Each time I approached someone I was essentially coming out of the closet all over again.  The most negative response received that I’m aware of was “God doesn’t like homosexuals.”  I wasn’t there at the time, but I’m sure I would have simply asked, “Does God like chocolate?”  Just to find out if they knew the answer.

Stupid Things People Say About Gays: Marriage Sacred to Everyone but Gays

December 03, 2008 By: jaysays Category: Stupid Things People Say About Gays

Finding a good opening line for the Stupid Things People Say About Gays series isn’t always easy.  Particularly, because I get angry sometimes while wading through the pile of crap people consider to be legitimate arguments.  I want to start off with vicious words – sometimes even profane, but instead – take a look at this common and stupid misconception about gay civil marriage:

But I do not think that they should be allowed to redefine the definition of an act [marriage] that is sacred to millions of people. – BabyJoel

Again there is confusion over civil marriage and ecclesiastical marriage.  But because I like to make points, let’s assume for a moment that I would agree that marriage, because it is “sacred” to millions of people, should never be redefined.  I would then need to define marriage very specifically, as throughout history it has changed over and over again – to the point where the original purpose of marriage (which was property rights not breeding rights) has become unrecognizable.  Depending on your locale and what time frame you lived in, some more sacred traditions of marriage might have been as follows:

  • You would not have met your husband/wife until your wedding day, and if you did it would have been brief.
  • Your parents would have negotiated your marriage, planned your wedding, and your wedding guests would escort you and your new spouse to bed for consummation.
  • Too much affection in the marriage would be considered “sinful”.
  • Too be married, no formal ceremony, ecclesiastical or otherwise, would have been required – simply move-in together.
  • You couldn’t marry someone outside of your race.
  • A blood test would be required before you could get married.
  • Your marriage would be based upon financial gain and power for your family, not on your attractions or emotions.
  • The bridegroom would be 30 something and the bride a teenager.
  • Should your husband decide to, he could sell your children [which were actually his children as he was the “man of the house” and had dominion over it and all things within it].
  • Your husband could have numerous wives (possibly even 700 of them like Solomon).
  • Your wedding ring would be a symbol of a successful “bride sell”.
  • If you were part of the Oneida colony (1948) every woman and every man would be married to each other and your breeding would be “scientific.”
  • Instead of the husband divorcing the wife, he would kill her.  The wife wouldn’t have either option without severe legal repercussions or, more likely, death.
  • Marriage impediments were so strict that many could not marry because of a families affinity for another (the parents of one family being close friends with the uncle of another would be enough to keep two people from marrying).
  • Your children would be “necessary labor power”.
  • Marriage would be a relationship founded on sexual inequality – man’s dominance over woman.
  • The Full Faith and Credit clause would not have applied to divorces and remarriages.  [Note:  This occurred in the 1940’s and, had it not, could have resulted in someone being legally married in one state to someone and legally divorced in another state to the same person – thus potentially resulting in bigamy in one state and full legal compliance in another].
  • Marriage and divorce would be civil, private matters not under the influence of the church (by the way, this was by U.S. law and was later “redefined”).
  • Under 17th Century Puritan Law, your marriage would be “no sacrament” and purely secular (again, U.S. law which was later “redefined”).

To further illustrate some more technical points regarding the history of marriage from a historian who has, well, “been there done that”, I refer you to the very smart, Hendrik Hartog, who wrote:

Fifteen years ago there was a significant literature of critiques of marriage and rejections of argument for gay marriage, from within the gay and particularly within the lesbian communities. Those critiques were shaped by statements of the form: Why would we want to buy into this historically unequal, oppressive institution designed for the subordination of women? I may be wrong, but it is my impression that such critiques have disappeared in the last few years. There are many possible explanations for that disappearance, but I suspect that one reason for the disappearance of the critique is the change in the meaning of marriage, as the egalitarian changes of the past generation have become normative and predictable parts of the legal landscape.

What Gay Marriage Teaches About the History of Marriage.

Does the States Interest in Gay Marriage Serve?

November 21, 2008 By: jaysays Category: Stupid Things People Say About Gays

I have focused heavily on the religious right in my arguments about gay marriage and have neglected the non-secular arguments.  Today’s quote is in reference to a purported non-secular argument and reads as follows:

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.  — Adam Kolasinski

The most harsh point in his argument is where he places the burden of proof.  In law, burden of proof is everything, almost.  In his example, he argues that because “homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society… there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage…”  However, there is no burden of proof in marriage law on heterosexual couples to prove their relationship will benefit the states interest.  Let’s look at due process and equal protection under the law.

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) was a historic case in the battle for civil marriage rights for whites to marry blacks (or blacks to marry whites).  Loving states:

These statutes [statutes banning interracial marriage] also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. [emphasis added]

I make note, albeit somewhat sarcastically, that Loving does not say “pursuit of happiness between a man and a woman.”

Loving goes on to affirm that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Marriage is law.  To deny any person the equal protection of the law, without due process abridges “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  In order for the law to deny such civil right, the State holds the burden of proof to show that such relationships would detriment society.  Mr. Kolasinski’s efforts to shift the burden of proof on those denied such liberties is false, misleading and improper under the 14th Amendment, Loving and good common sense.

Mr. Kolasinski is a Doctoral Student of Financial Economics.