Here here, very well thought out commentary. I've also noted that marriage today is lined with discriminatory privileges given out to a segment of society based upon the gender of the committed couple being different, and therefore should not hold constitutional merit. The argument you lay out is exactly correct. Either all marriages lose their state granted privileges or those privileges must be afforded to all committed couples regardless of gender.

Mike,

You said: "First they reinforced the conservative idea that government has a role in dictating morals."

I'm afraid that ANY law, by definition, is the dictating of morality. Whether a law is passed that only allows certain people to marry, or a law that allows everyone to marry, those are both moral positions. As soon as you say "gay couples SHOULD be allowed to marry" you are making a universal moral claim. All statements that contain "should" or "ought" are moral claims.

You said: "The Constitution is built for these kinds of debates. It cuts right through the religious rhetoric and emotional partisanship."

Unfortunately, it is just as easy for rhetoric and emotional partisanship to arise from Constitutional debates as from religious ones. Just look at the rest of your paragraph after the sentence I quoted. Your talk about "equal rights for all" is both rhetorical and emotionally charged. Trust me, you don't really believe in equal rights for ALL, indiscriminately, or else you would be in favor of abolishing our judicial system altogether. Certain people choose to engage in activities that the State has decided are not acceptable, and they are not allowed to engage in those activities, for the benefit of society. This issue isn't the same as racism, since we aren't talking about treating people differently for simply being who they are. We are talking about treating a certain activity differently than another activity. Thus the debate is over the correctness of the activity and its effects on society. (Note that I have not argued against gay marriage here. I have simply pointed out that your argument fails to understand the real issue and uses rhetoric without actually proving your point).

Thus your argument that either gay marriage is allowed or all marriage must go is fallacious. The traditional (heterosexual) institution of marriage is one of the only things that the State DOES have a vested interest in. Why? Because it produces the next generation of citizens via procreation. The State doesn't care what sexual practices you engage in on your free time (expect for behaviors that are deemed harmful, such as pedophilia), but they do care about the next generation. Many European countries are already feeling the effects of "liberal" (I don't mean liberal solely in the context of American politics) views of family and marriage in a rapidly declining birth rate. The same trend can be seen slowly moving in here in America, and our population is only being kept steady by religious families who are still having more than one child and by the influx of immigrants from Mexico.

The point is, traditional heterosexual marriage is important for more than just religious reasons. Its impact is social and economic as well, and whether or not two gay people wish to move in together, visit each other in the hospital, wear wedding rings, etc, is of no consequence to the real issue. I full support the right of gay couples to do those things, but civil unions will grant them those rights. The (at least) 2,500 year-old institution of marriage, the backbone of society, need not be fundamentally changed.

Despite all I've said, though, I actually AGREE with your argument! You're right that this Newsweek article was totally wrong-headed. And you're also right that the only way for gay activists to win this debate is to make the "equality for all" argument. But I find this telling. As I pointed out already, this argument amounts to nothing more than rhetoric. In other words, then, the only way for them to win this debate is to make rhetorical and emotionally charged pleas for equality, and hope that enough people will be swept away and not notice the lack of substance.

David,

Thanks for the comments.

Marriage as we institute it today is nothing like the the 2,500 year-old "practice" of marriage. First, it has not always been a state institution. Second, the "practice" has morphed dramatically. It once embraced polygamy as normal (and still does for some). It was once mostly about property rights (as the woman was viewed as property). The rules were once more concerned with the payment for the property and the effects that had on inheritance and property exchanged in the transaction. It was once a central part of cultural preservation by negating cross cultural marriages. It was once a central part of racial segregation as it was used to restrict interracial marriages.

It would be an extreme revisionist view of history to claim that marriage as we practice it today is consistent with the many ways it has been practiced for 2500 years. These particular points in the article were VERY GOOD. I liked the article very much. But as I suggested, those arguments won't sway bigots or those blinded by christian or islamic fundamentalism/ignorance. You're mind is set.

The better question would be to ask why you insist on collecting the same taxes from homosexuals? Should homosexuals pay the same social security tax if we who benefit from those payments do not grant their partner benefits after they die (like we will provide for your wife)?

Shouldn't you be upset that our nation allows homosexuals to drive on publicly funded roads? Should we allow atheists to marry if marriage is an institution formed by God? Should we require homosexuals to serve jury duty?

Mike,

You've confused several different claims, and I apologize because I probably wasn't clear enough.

I'm not claiming that marriage in America today is identical in every respect to marriage 2,500 years ago. But that's not the point. Despite all the peripheral things you mentioned that have changed, the one thing that has NOT changed in all that time is that marriage was and is viewed as a special institution because it produces children, and hence has always been a necessarily heterosexual union. This has always been understood by non-Christians as well as Christians, which is why I chose the number 2,500 (i.e. centuries before the advent of Christianity). Plato and many other pagan philosophers recognized that only one type of sexual union was "according to nature." And even in Pagan Rome there were laws on the books prohibiting "unnatural" unions (obviously those laws were rarely observed by the upper classes).

In other words, it is a fallacious argument to say that because marriage has not always looked like it did in the 1950's that somehow non-heterosexual relationships are now OK (and again, I still haven't argued against homosexual marriage, I'm simply showing that the arguments being offered to support it simply don't work).

I actually favor tax benefits for homosexual couples, as well as the right to visit one's partner in the hospital, etc. Again, these arguments are mere rhetoric and emotional appeal. They can be solved by fixing civil unions, which again I support. It has nothing to do with changing the definition of an ancient institution that both Christian and Pagan alike have understood to be necessarily heterosexual by nature.

You said: "Shouldn't you be upset that our nation allows homosexuals to drive on publicly funded roads? Should we allow atheists to marry if marriage is an institution formed by God? Should we require homosexuals to serve jury duty?"

At this point it seems as though you are grasping at straws, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't understand the first and last question, as I fail to see what the marriage issue has to do with gays serving jury duty or driving on public roads (If it has to do with paying taxes, then you're really out on a limb, since I'm sure you wouldn't argue that unmarried people shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads). As for the second question, I have purposefully left the religious aspect out of my comments, arguing that the State has a vested interest in regulating marriage for social and economic reasons, so I'm not sure how this could have even come up as an issue (unless you weren't really reading my comments and have already made up your mind on the issue, as you have accused me of?).

If you'd like to read a full-length and scholarly approach to the question of defining marriage from the perspective of Natural Law and History (without reference to Christian theological beliefs) you should read this blog post: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/natural-law-the-two-kingdoms-and-homosexual-marriage/

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on his arguments (as well as my responses to your comment). Thanks for being willing to dialog!

David,

I'm not "grasping at straws". I'm simply pointing to other equally absurd ideas that DO correlate to banning gay marriage.

Here is the deal, you are simply trying to answer a different question (one about the morality of homosexuality). All these points are very similar (jury duty, taxes, using public roads, and rights to marry, etc). They all point to things we require of citizens and benefits we give them. We simply cannot grant them to a select group without offering them to all any more than we should ask for service from only a select few. That is all we should be looking at. This is the only issue in question.

you asked "If you'd like to read a full-length and scholarly approach to the question of defining marriage from the perspective of Natural Law and History"

No, I'm not interested in that debate. It is a different issue. I'm only interested with granting the same rights to all citizens. My whole point is that marriage has nothing to do with "natural law". Neither does it have to do with procreation. I know plenty of infertile couples who marry and we grant them all the same rights and privileges that go with marriage. If you were true to your logic, you would need to REJECT marriage to infertile couples. Would you also reject marriage for those past the age and ability to conceive? Should my grandmother be allowed to remarry at the age of 80? She clearly cannot reproduce.

David,

In addition, your argument that "banning gay marriage would somehow increase the population", doesn't fly. Those gay people are not going to somehow become ungay and get married. Neither are straight people going to become gay if we grant people the right to have gay marriages. Your choice to ban gay marriage cannot in any way increase the population so that particular argument is completely invalid.

However, your argument that the institution of marriage was enforced by the state to benefit society IS VALID. I'd suggest that monogamy does benefit and stabilize society. It could do that for the gay community just as well as it could for the straight community. Marriage is proven to increase life span and create more stable and law abiding citizens. There is no evidence that this would not also be true in the gay community.

Mike,

1. I'm going to assume that I'm just dense, because I still can't see the connection you're making between marriage and jury duty. What does being heterosexual or homosexual have to do with paying taxes, serving jury duty, or driving on public roads?

2. You seem to be missing some inconsistencies in your position. You say you aren't interested in reading the article I linked to because that's not the debate you want to have. And yet just a few lines later you assert: My whole point is that marriage has nothing to do with "natural law". Well, if that is your point, then you should be VERY interested in reading and responding to the article I gave you, since he argues explicitly that the civil institution of marriage, as far as the Sate is concerned, has everything to do with natural law, morality, etc. etc. If you're just going to assert things without listening to (at least somewhat) reasonable arguments to the contrary, then I can't see there being much point in discussing this topic any further. And that would be very sad, as this is an important issue.

3. Marriage is not ONLY about procreation, it is about social stability and a host of other things, as you said. But it is very much in dispute whether or not homosexuality is natural, morally neutral, emotionally stable, etc. I'm not arguing that homosexuality IS NOT those things, I'm saying it is in dispute (which at the very least makes your claim that there is "no evidence" false).

In any case, what I have tried to show you is that you can't simply make your rhetorical cry of "equality for all!" and assume that that will solve the problem. You can't ignore the question of what marriage is, if in fact it is and ought to be a heterosexual institution, etc. At this point I am perfectly open to being shown that there is no reason whatsoever to deny homosexual couples the privilege of traditional marriage, but your unwillingness to answer the important questions and respond directly to my arguments will make that very difficult.

1. good assumption ;)

What does being heterosexual or homosexual have to do with paying taxes, serving jury duty, or driving on public roads?

Paying taxes and serving jury duty are obligations of American citizens. My point is that we don't exclude homosexuals from those obligations. Neither should we exclude them from the privileges and benefits of citizenship. You brought the word "dense" into this. Even if you disagreed, you'd have to see the connection. The entire debate is about denying rights, privileges, and benefits of certain citizens. Any attempts to prove that homosexuality is "unnatural" are useless (even if you were right). It wouldn't matter if you did prove that point. That's why I'm not interested. You'd need to prove homosexuality is a CRIMINAL act. Without criminality, you can't take away rights. Any other discussion simply skews the issue and that was my original critique of the article in question.

2. I'm not interested in debating the value of rap music either. It is a different topic that has nothing to do with this topic. Your attempts to divert the topic are what keeps people from having quality discussions about these issues.

3. Again, you are arguing a different topic. You'll need to make a case about why you can provide benefits to one group but not another. You haven't done that.

"equality for all!" - those are your words not mine. That could be a rhetorical cry IF I had reduced my argument to that simplistic rhetorical statement.

rhe-tor-i-cal –adjective
1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.
2. marked by or tending to use bombast.
3. of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric.

Instead of rhetorical statements, I've pointed to the central constitutional foundations of America RATHER than making simple rhetorical statements. American law requires this equal treatment. The "separate but equal" argument (the civil union argument you'd prefer) has been stricken down before as it should be here.

If you think equality is empty "rhetoric" then you need to read the constitution and study the history of its use.

really well articulated thoughts, thanks.

Nicely done, sir.

Get the government out of my marriage. I don't want some senator handing out the sacraments, so why would I want a judge signing off on my marriage?

I've got a couple of posts on the exact same topic, if you're interested in like-minded ego stroking. :)

Mike,

If you are honestly concerned about nothing more than granting equal civil and economic privileges to gay couples, then what's wrong with civil unions? I know that civil unions do not grant all of the benefits you would probably want in all States, but I would agree with you that that they should. So what's the problem? Why must marriage be fundamentally redefined?

If you argue that it is because "marriage" is really no different than "civil union" at its core, and that marriage is a civil right no different than driving on public roads or collecting social security, then I would argue that you are wrong. Why? Because of the religious, moral, spiritual, etc., component of "marriage" that, at the end of the day, has nothing to do with tax benefits and ownership of property. You can continue to ignore this by saying that I am "arguing a different topic", but that simply won't fly.

IF, just for the sake of argument, you granted my point that marriage is fundamentally a religious institution (or that the heterosexual nature of marriage can be argued for from a Natural Law perspective that both religious and non-religious people could agree with), don't you see how that would completely destroy your arguments about equal civil rights? If you can't, then I suppose there's no point in continuing the discussion.

If you can, then at least tell me what your position is: Do you (1) believe that there is no essential difference between marriage and civil union, or (2) believe that there IS a difference, but still argue that gay couples should be allowed to marry?

If your answer is (1), then you MUST respond to the religious, philosophical, Natural Law, etc. arguments, and not simply claim that they are a different topic. If your answer is (2), then please explain why this ancient, religious institution should now be redefined, or why it should be extended to gay couples, without reference to purely civil or economic rights such as tax benefits and the like.

I look forward to your response.

(by the way, I came across another response to this Newsweek article that is more even-handed than some other conservative responses, and actually criticizes conservative evangelicals. You might want to take a look, it's really the best response I've seen: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/12/of-course-she-says.html

David,

I'll respond in a completely new post when I get a few minutes to spare.