Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean claimed on Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that the 2004 Democratic Party platform states that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not state that at all. Dean’s lie resulted in a gay rights group demanding its money back from the Democratic Party, even after the false nature of the statement was made known. (*) (†)
Massachusetts citizens have had their right to vote on marriage taken away by a court. Now, a well-organized effort is underway to gather the signatures of Massachusetts citizens. Then, if the signature drive is successful, the Commonwealth will hold a vote on whether marriage should be protected. (*)
Power to the people.
Fox News reports that the marriage protection constitutional amendment is not likely to move ahead soon. (*)
The issue is too esoteric and abstract for most voters, and numerous Congressional representatives and Senators will not support the amendment until there is more pressure for it from the public.
Court challenges in favor of gay marriage continue. Eventually the courts will push the issue further. Another backlash may occur at that time.
Debra Saunders points out that though John Kerry was against gay marriage during the campaign, no one ever called him homophobic. (*)
Bronagh Cassidy composes a thoughtful essay. She writes in part:
My mom was in a same-sex “marriage” for about 16 years. What I want to point out is that it’s so much harder for someone to overcome the gay lifestyle when they are in love. I think they still might be together today if Pat hadn’t died. My mom has told me that at times she had felt she needed to get away from it, but that it was so hard because Pat would cry and they were so dependent on each other. That’s why I think it is very important that we fight same-sex marriage being legalized. It will encourage people to stay in those relationships even if they come to a point where they feel they want and/or need to change.
The difference between classical marriage and gay marriage is that only one is potentially reproductive. Only that one is essential to the continued existence of the human race.
Law professor and television commentator Jonathan Turley argues in USA Today for the legalization of polygamy. (*) In a time when Muslim immigrants stream into the country, when polygamous splinter groups from the Mormon church grow unhindered, and gay marriage challenges bedrock principles, Turley’s argument strikes at the heart of the matter.
He extends the logic of gay marriage—if this is a free country, I should be free to marry whomever I want—to plural marriage.
Yet, this is not a completely free society. This is a society of law and order, not one of anarchy and barbarism. As a free and good society, we have a right to continue to exist as a society.
Critical to the continued existence of society is society’s internal structure. Cultural anthropologists have found that every society, including ours, bases itself on organizing principles.
If in the name of freedom we deny ourselves the right to organize ourselves into a society based on certain principles, we deny the continued existence of society. Nothing less is contemplated by the would-be gay marriage and polygamy revolution.
Ultimately, the reason is simple why polygamy, gay marriage, and the other challenges to marriage are wrong. Society gives us some freedom, and in return we agree to society’s fundamental rules. One of the fundamental rules is the definition of marriage. If you don’t like the fundamental rules, either endure it or move away. There is no exception for anyone.
The ombudsman of the New York Times, Daniel Okrent, admits his paper has a liberal bias. He uses as an example the paper’s coverage of gay marriage. (*)
Okrent criticizes the lifestyle pieces on gay marriage run so often by the Times for their lack of objectivity. This echoes my own criticism of the NYT several months ago. (†)
Okrent’s admission is not stunning, but it is stunning in that it occurred at all, and right in the pages of the NYT.
The public is becoming more aware of the media’s lack of objectivity on many important issues. As I discussed before (‡), there may negative consequences for the media, such as loss of public trust.
Update: 26 July 2004. Stanley Kurtz is justifiably proud of Okrent’s oblique reference to him. (§) It’s disappointing that the big media organizations have not interviewed Kurtz. He is perhaps the leading American voice in the fight to uphold classical marriage.
We would-be defenders of marriage, those of us who want to keep the definition of marriage as it is, have a major problem. We need to revise our rhetoric. We are too negative. We should phrase our arguments in positive terms. Here’s what I mean.
Gay marriage is not justified by a simple reference to equality, as Steven Den Beste says. (*) Equality requires like things to be treated alike. The gay marriage debate is over whether same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are fundamentally alike. Proponents of gay marriage fall into the logical trap of begging the question. Den Beste unhorses Andrew Sullivan with dogged, logical insistence that equality is a conclusion, not the starting assumption. Den Beste backs gay marriage on liberty grounds. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Den Beste has nothing to say on whether incest or polygamy should be allowed on grounds of adult consent.
One Fine Jay budges a little on gay marriage. (†) He still supports it, but only on liberty grounds, thanks to Den Beste’s derailing of the equality argument.
OF Jay is particularly concerned with the rumor that the Marriage Protection Act will take something away from the Constitution. He and others should know that that is not true. The Marriage Protection Act would indeed produce a constitutional issue not yet answered by the Supreme Court. The question would be whether Congress has the power to selectively limit appellate review of cases under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. (‡) Legal scholars are mixed in their opinions on this subject. As this specific question has never been addressed by the Supreme Court before, supporters of the Marriage Protection Act cannot be accused of tinkering with the Constitution. We are cautiously exploring the limits, that’s all.
American Politik (§), Den Beste, and OF Jay are greatly concerned with liberty. They support gay marriage on that ground. Their points are made passionately and elegantly.
Yet, there are compelling reasons why we should keep the existing form of marriage as the only form of marriage.
Let’s start with the value of marriage as it exists today: a man and a woman. The non-partisan Institute for American Values has produced an important document listing 21 separate reasons why marriage matters. These reasons are backed up by study upon study, veritable mounds of social scientific research. The document is a readable summary. (**)
Most of the reasons tie in to children. Children who grow up in families with both of their biological parents present, living together, and married, do better on average than children who do not have that advantage. To list a few:
These are the social scientific conclusions summarized by the Institute of American Values, above. Based on data from Europe, children raised in gay households with two adults have the same disadvantages as children who grow up in single parent or divorced homes.
Yes, some single parents do a good job. Yes, some heterosexual, married parents abuse their children. Those are cases that demand our attention, but they are the exceptions to the rule.
The general rule is that children do better on average when they grow up in households with both natural parents present, living together, and married.
Thus, it is not as Kathy Kinsley says, that we need gay marriage to protect children. (††) To most help children, to give them the most advantages, children would be raised by their married mother and father.
I have no objection to seeing the liberty of adults fulfilled That is not the real issue, though. The real issue is how to uphold the best possible family structure we can for children who grow up in the United States. Every single child deserves the best situation possible growing up.
We must institutionalize only the family structure that is most optimal for children. Every other structure, from cohabitation to single parenthood to two gay people living together raising children to adoption and to others should be respected for what they are, but only the family structure of classical marriage should be an institution.
For every child, we seek to give them the best of all possible situations. For some children, single parenthood, adoption, or foster parenthood is the best option. Usually, however, children can be with their married mother and father. We should encourage fathers and mothers to get married and stay married to one another, even if it means reforming our family laws a bit. It’s critical that, if at all possible, children be raised by their married father and mother who live together.
This critical need to give children every advantage outweighs many other needs, including some of the liberty interests of adults. This critical need justifies keeping classical marriage as the definition of the institution of matrimony.
Only the family structure that is best for kids ought to be institutionalized into our law and culture. That family structure is marriage, the institution as we have understood it for eons: the lovely coupling of biologically complementary opposites, a man and a woman, who have among their chosen duties the duty to care for any children they may be blessed to have.
Every child deserves the best, and it is to give every child the best that we ought to continue to maintain the matrimony of a man and a woman as the institution we recognize as marriage.
Note: I have attempted to rephrase the argument to uphold the family structure in entirely positive terms. I have tried to avoid using phrases like “stopping gay marriage” and “protecting kids” here. Those are negative terms. While I have used them before, I think to reach the widest possible audience, and to be true to our ideals, we should cease from further use of negative phrases. Our argument should be made entirely in positive terms.
I was partially inspired by the web log Insignificant Thoughts because there my fellow web logger did such an excellent job of pointing out how gay marriage would not harm marriage. (‡‡) That is very true, and I did not realize it before. Gay marriage would not harm marriage. The only way marriage will be harmed is if those who care about the family structure abandon it. That decision is made on multiple levels, from politics and public affairs to the personal level. Ultimately, however, it is a single decision for each person to make. I was also inspired to abandon negative language by Dwight at his excellent A Religious Liberal Blog (§§), which I recommend even though I am in disagreement with some of it.
Update: 26 July 2004. A few minor changes in wording.
I have a smart group of readers. I ask you, what is the best argument for gay marriage?
The phrases “stopping discrimination” or “equality” are not arguments. An argument would explain why those things justify gay marriage.
Making an analogy to interracial marriage is also not by itself an argument. An argument would draw the inference that gay marriage is justified, not merely make an analogy.
What is the best argument for gay marriage?
It was recently revealed that no fewer than forty percent of all children adopted in Massachusetts are going to gay households. (*)
Gays make up about 3% of the population.
There has been no explanation for why this incredibly disproportionate and unequal distribution of children is taking place. There should be an explanation.
Update: 23 July 2004. Sunny Days in Heaven comments. (†)
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas:
Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad. Study after study has shown that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father.… [T]he government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous.…
Giving public sanction to homosexual “marriage” would violate this government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children. There is no reliable social-scientific data demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples (or groups) do as well as children raised by married, heterosexual parents. Redefining marriage is certain to harm children and the broader social good if that redefinition weakens government’s legitimate goal of encouraging men and women who intend to have children to get married.
If the experience of the last 40 years tells us anything, it is that the consequences of weakening the institution of marriage are tragic for society at large.…
There is a real question about the future of societies that do not uphold traditional marriage.
(*) Indeed, no society has endured long while it tolerated homosexual marriage. History records no such society. Gay marriage treats society like a science experiment.
Maggie Gallagher quotes Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney:
“Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. . . Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our Constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world’s major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case.”
Then Mitt Romney put his finger on where the error comes from: the limited perspectives of lawyers and judges. “They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights.”
But, he went on, marriage is not solely for adults. “Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.”
The advocates tell us the skies have not fallen in Massachusetts; nothing has changed, they assure us. Romney points out that small things have already begun to change, foretelling the bigger, sadder changes to come. First, the marriage licenses change so they no longer read husband and wife but “Party A” and “Party B.” The Department of Health insists that birth certificates also change. The line for mother and father becomes “Parent A” and “Parent B.…”
In Goodridge the court ruled that something called the “presumption of parentage” is one of the rights of marriage. Until that ruling, there was nothing called the presumption of parentage in the law. The traditional marriage idea was the “presumption of paternity” — that is, the husband is presumed by law to be the father of any baby his wife has.
But how can same-sex marriages really be viewed as the equivalent of husband-and-wife unions if we cling to such outmoded, biologically rooted notions of parenthood?
(†) The presumptiveness of the claim that our civilization has been wrong for thousands of years is more than melodramatic; it is chilling.
Writer Lawrence Auster calls gay marriage “the apocalypse of liberalism.”
Being the final revelation of liberalism, homosexual marriage with its attendant denial of sexual differentiation can only be decisively turned back when we reject liberalism as the organizing idea of society. In this ultimate conflict, there will be no neutral ground.
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah:
After Goodridge, which itself came on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to individual sexual autonomy, the choice is no longer between amending the Constitution or leaving this issue to the states. The only choice is between popular resolution of the effort to protect traditional marriage or judicial resolution of this question in favor of same-sex marriage. In the face of this threat, it is flatly irresponsible for elected officials, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to sit idly by as courts corrupt our national charter and advance a social experiment explicitly rejected in state after state, and in every region of the country.
(§) A larger confrontation with the judiciary is brewing.
US Representative from Oklahoma Ernest Istook has a new idea to protect marriage against being redefined by those who want gay marriage. He wants to give the US Supreme Court original jurisdiction in legal challenges to marriage. (*)
That might work if it were limited to challenges based on federal law such as the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I’m not sure if that is more limited than what Representative Istook has proposed. It’s important to limit it to federal challenges, as the federal government currently has no special power to regulate marriage per se.
Original jurisdiction would mean that legal cases of this sort would not work their way up through the court system, but would go directly to the Supreme Court.
The advantage of original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court for all federal challenges to DOMA and the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is that such cases would then be on the national radar. There would be no surprise to the public like in the Goodridge case. It would also put the heat on the Supreme Court. If it didn’t rule the right way, more pressure for an amendment or some other confrontation with the High Court could be brought to bear. The administrative burden from what would be a potentially large horde of challenges might force the Supreme Court to issue a blanket ruling that DOMA would hold firm.
Istook’s idea is interesting and should be explored.
Maggie Gallagher talks to Cassidy, a 27-year-old American woman who was raised by two mothers.
What was it like for Cassidy being raised by two women she called “Mom” and “My Pat”?
“When growing up, I always had the feeling of being something unnatural,” Cassidy says. “I came out of an unnatural relationship; it was something like I shouldn’t be there. On a daily basis, it was something I was conflicted with. I used to wish, honestly that Pat wasn’t there.”
Why does she oppose same-sex marriage? “It’s not something that a seal of approval should be stamped on: We shouldn’t say it is a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they’ve been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their emotional needs — they want to have a child — and they are not taking into account how that’s going to feel to the child; there’s a clear difference between having same-sex parents and a mom and a dad.”
Sounds judgmental in print. But up close, Cassidy comes across as fiercely protective of her mom (Cassidy is a pen name she’s adopted to protect her mom’s privacy). Like many children of same-sex parents, she was expected to defend and protect her mothers from society’s homophobia.
Stop. I need a break. How can the parents of a child expect the child to defend them, the parents? That is backwards. What right do the parents have to expect that their child defend them when to even ask is child abuse? Of course, in reality, one of them was not her parent.
Her own troubled feelings about her family life were clearly unacceptable to her parents. Even now, the prospect of speaking about her own experience gives her the shakes.
Cassidy’s story is not science. It’s just her own feelings. Many researchers say most kids do just fine in these alternative family forms. Cassidy doesn’t buy that research, though. “I don’t think a fair study could be conducted because children currently in that family wouldn’t necessarily be open to speaking their true feelings about it.”
(*) (emphases added) Read this whole column by Maggie Gallagher.
For just a moment, put yourself into Cassidy’s shoes. What would life be like? Treated as a political football, you would be expected to deny yourself and your own humanity in order to protect the parents. You would dare not speak out because the ones who hurt you are your parents.
It’s important that people like Cassidy step forward. It’s important because the truth has to come out before gay marriage is made into a national requirement.
I say “requirement” because children have no choice in who raises them. Of course, every child would choose to be raised by his or her own father and mother, not any other person. Gay marriage means children are not put first.
Every child deserves the best. That includes all of the future children who, in this era of gay marriage, will need a father and a mother, no matter what the media or the government say. Keep Cassidy in mind while you contemplate the future.
MSNBC gives an informative and fair summary of the gay marriage issue. (*)
Now that the constitutional amendment to protect marriage from being redefined by judges has stalled for the moment (†), the focus shifts for the moment to the states. There are many efforts underway in the many states to both advance and stop gay marriage. Stateline.com is tracking the situation in each state. (‡)
The marriage protection amendment will remain an issue until it passes into law or is no longer needed.
Inevitably, should the marriage protection amendment fail to pass, the US Supreme Court will find that gay marriage is a right protected in the Constitution. The efforts of the several states to defend marriage will fall before the will of a handful of judges. To avoid what otherwise will be a certainty, defenders of marriage will have to keep petitioning the Congress for the protective constitutional amendment.
A possible alternative is a legislative solution such as denying federal judges appellate jurisdiction in these cases. That’s worth a try.
Ultimately, this will come down to a showdown, however, between the executive and legislative branches of government on the one side, and the judicial branch on the other. Most likely, neither side will budge. The resulting conflict will be harmful as our carefully mediated system of separation of powers and the judicial veto will all come into question. Indeed, what may be brewing in the overall Culture War is a struggle over the legitimacy of the Constitution itself. The Roman republic fell after about 500 years. Without vigilance, our constitutional republic may fall well before landmark is reached.
The proposed, widely-supported marriage protection amendment states:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Senators Kerry and Edwards did not participate in the procedural vote that kept the amendment off the Senate floor. The effort to bring the amendment to the floor lost 48–50 votes, with a simple majority needed, and 67 votes needed to pass the amendment.
A list of how each senator voted is available. (§)
Update: 17 July 2004. Joshua Baker makes the case that DOMA will not survive without some propping up. (**) To summarize, the pressure for a single, national definition of marriage is enormous. A scheme where marriage is radically different from one state to another—as would be the case if Massachusetts continues to have gay marriage but other states do not—is a scheme unlikely to stand for long. Thus, DOMA by itself will not endure.
Historically, America went through all of this back in the 1800s, when the Mormon Church and Utah were required to ban polygamous marriages as a condition for Utah’s statehood. Minor differences in marriage law from state to state can be sustained over time, but not major differences in the definition of marriage itself.
Noah Millman examines the meaning of marriage. (*)
Finally someone stands up for law and order. Green Party member and Village of New Paltz Mayor Jason West is charged with 19 criminal violations for performing gay-marriages in defiance of the law of the state. (*)
Thank you, prosecutors, for doing your job and upholding the law.
Civil disobedience was employed honorably in the civil rights movement. People of certain races refused to sit in the back of the bus or stay out of “whites only” restaurants despite the clear violation of law. Frequently, they were arrested. Their peaceful, nonviolent protest helped end de jure segregation and shepherded us to a more just society.
Civil disobedience today, however, is employed dishonorably.
In recent days, the mayor of San Francisco, Newsom, has purported to marry couples of the same sex in defiance of the law. Now the City of San Francisco has sued the State of California for recognition of these gay-marriages, or pseudo marriages. (*) California law definitively states that only a man and a woman shall be married.
The actions of the mayor are an outrage. Citizen civil disobedience is much less problematic than a public official’s “civil disobedience.” A public official cannot engage in civil disobedience. Any such thing is tantamount to revolution.
It is totally irrelevant whether these pseudo marriages should be legal.
What matters is that the mayor is whipping up a frenzy of social chaos and open defiance of the rule of law. He is not just a citizen. He is entrusted by the public to maintain the constitutional order. When “civil disobedience” is done by a public official, it is far beyond civil disobedience. It is an anarchistic, suicidal attack on law and government per se.
This illegal outrage cannot lead to gay-marriage. It can only lead to a breakdown of the institutions of law and order, and hence a breakdown of marriage itself.
I’m not sure whether the mayor can be arrested, sued, or legally restrained. Whatever action can be taken, however, should be taken immediately. Such a solution is necessary to remedy the problem of heightening disrespect for the rule of law that is even now rapidly spreading across the country. Left unchecked, there would be no end of obliquity, criminality, and mayhem.
Furthermore, it amazes me that there is apparently no court in California that is willing to rule on this matter. Is there not a judge in the entire state who has courage enough to rule on this matter and enjoin the mayor from further illegal action?
The rule of law is the only thing that holds this country together. It is all that prevents us from behaving like animals.
It is high time for President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger, and the justices of the California Supreme Court to take action in this matter.
Let the lawsuit filed by the City of San Francisco go forward normally. That is the proper course.
The mayor’s illegal marriage scheme is an outrage that must be quenched before this California wildfire of anarchy unleashes massive social breakdown and disruption.
Yet, we should remember that social disruption is one of the foremost goals of the paleoliberals.
Update: Citing the rule of law, Governor Schwarzenegger acts. (†) Now we need a court injunction to shut it down.
The New York Times has another lifestyle piece on gay-marriage. (*) The advent of judicially instaurated gay-marriage will lead to a gay-wedding rush in a town in Massachusetts. The caterers will be busy and so on.
It’s a lifestyle piece. Like most of what the Times prints on gay-marriage, it does not address the debate that is ongoing. It ignores what is really important. The Times write-up is all too typical of mainstream press coverage of the critical social problem of gay-marriage. The press is blind to the actual issues created by this historical, wrenching, premeditated societal alteration. The media just do soft stories and lifestyle pieces. They take the easy road. It’s gutless reporting. This gutlessness greatly aids gay-marriage advocates, because it lets them do what they prefer: continue to avoid the issue of gay-marriage. All they want to talk about is love. No one is against love. Gay-marriage concerns more than love, however. It concerns the architecture of society, and particularly how we raise children.
No revolutionary social change, not even gay-marriage, should get a free pass. We ought to have a debate. So long as the media ignores the debate, they do a disservice to the country.
Where is the hard-hitting journalism that will actually address the many controversial issues raised by gay-marriage? What courageous journalist will file that report?
Update: 12 June 2005. The then-ombudsman of the New York Times later agreed with me that his paper’s coverage of gay marriage as a lifestyle was a biased practice. (†)
Nick O’Dell makes a case against gay-marriage. (*) If gay-marriage is a constitutional right, then the legislature must no longer have the right to enact moral principles into law. In such a legal world, what non-moral justification could there be for prohibiting incest and polygamy? Incestuous and polygamous unions can produce children, after all.
First Things argues that a marriage protection amendment would keep in the hands of the people the decision of whether to radically revolutionize marriage. (*)