I have long opposed the redefinition and nullification of marriage, the central building block for society. Indeed, as a U.S. senator I co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment. As a citizen, I actively campaigned against the judges in Iowa who ordered gay marriage there. I also was one of the first to step out and encourage the leadership of the House of Representatives to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court when the president refused to do so. Unlike others in this race, I believe it is the role of the president to weigh in when states try to redefine the meaning of marriage. Marriage is defined in the federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; any state that redefines marriage is wreaking havoc not only with the definitions of the federal law and the majority of states, but, even more importantly, with the single most important and time-tested institution of every successful society.
Can someone please define for me what harm our society will actually suffer if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes. Marriage will no longer have any rationale beyond the emotional. People will marry less and divorce more as a result of marriage being purely two people who really really like each other and want to share benefits.
It will legitimize homosexual practices so that people who object or their children in school will be called bigots. Sex will further be divorced from its primary function.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, in states or areas in which gay marriage is illegal, do you have evidence showing that any of your predictions have come true? What more, I think that it's odd to claim that a law which encourages and spreads marriage amongst traditionally non-married segments of our population would lead to LESS marriage.
You're right about the people who object to homosexuality being called bigots, though. The only problem is that you don't seem to understand that this is perfectly appropriate.
Finally, I should point out that you don't have the right to define what 'the primary function' of sex is. Some of us have been engaging in it for years, with a likely different 'primary function' than what you would envision.
Arguing with guys like you is fun; it's like hunting an endangered species. My grandkids won't ever get the chance to, all I'll have are stories to tell them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour grandkids will so lucky. I'm sure you'll stand out for them even if they have four grandfathers (or maybe more, if we through in gay polygamy--I'm sure we'll discover that at some point).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what if they did? Do you think I find that concept challenging, or that I would somehow be lessened by it?
While I'm a straight, married guy myself, I wouldn't care if my kids or grandkids had same-sex marriage in-laws. Why would it even make a difference? Because they might "gay" my kid up somehow, or some claptrap like that?
There are too many kids in the world today who have NOBODY who loves them or cares for them; I don't see the logic in getting wound up over small differences in light of this fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou'll be lessened by it, because "family" will mean less when it means nothing more than "people who like each other (for the moment)".
Go check out the rates of abuse between stepparents and stepchildren, and compare that to the rates of abuse between biological parents and children.
It is simply not true that everyone can "choose" who is and is not their family - sooner or later, two people choose differently, and the whole family is going to be put under enormous stress. Family bonds are forever, but legal bonds aren't - and emotional bonds are fickle.
But like so many left wing social experiments, this one presumes that people will just be nice and get along - and when that proves unrealistic, what happens? Will you criminalize the act of having the wrong sort of feeling toward your ex-spouse's ex-brother's ex-wife's ex-daughter? "Hey, you be nice - the law requires you to pretend that you're still related to that person!"
(But when the government, not biology, determines who is and is not related - or even what it means to be related - how can such a statement have any meaning?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You'll be lessened by it, because "family" will mean less when it means nothing more than "people who like each other (for the moment)"."
You are incorrect, for it is MY personal opinion which determines this, not yours. And I say that neither I nor my marriage will be lessened by ANY outside decision, made by anyone. You don't have the authority to make that determination.
"(But when the government, not biology, determines who is and is not related - or even what it means to be related - how can such a statement have any meaning?)"
Neither the government NOR biology determine who is related. People do. Your entire argument that 'familial relations' are bound by genetics is a flawed premise to begin with, and don't describe the reality of the situation.
I have 2 different relatives who are married to their same-sex partners, and both have kids. So I have lots of personal experience with this. Neither of them have any sort of issue whatsoever, and certainly not moreso than my straight relatives. I highly doubt, based on your language here, that you have any practical experience dealing with the actual effects of gay marriage upon a family; which in my experience, has been practically nothing at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, Mr. Savage, any infertile or sterile person must be deprived of marriage? All post-menopausal women shall be forbidden from marrying?
And did you know that committed unmarried couples cannot have joint bank accounts for fear of having to pay gift taxes on their bank deposits?
And you really, really think that two heterosexual people will refrain from getting married because homosexuals can get married?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Gerald: infertile couples have traditionally been subject to laws criminalizing adultery, for precisely the reason gay marriage makes clear.
Will gay couples be okay with accepting strict adultery laws that make it a crime to make a baby with anyone other than the person you married?
It is more accurate to compare gay couples to adult incest than to infertile couples, because gays aren't infertile and because adult incest, like homosexuality, is arguably a "victimless" crime.
The reason they are banned from marrying is not because they cannot reproduce, but because there are negative consequences if they do (in one case, we would be encouraging adultery, and in the other, we would be encouraging inbreeding).
We have a right to refuse to sanction and subsidize unions whose issue is in conflict with the well-being of society. Besides, children deserve better than to be born in such circumstances - "gay marriage" grants rights to gays, but only at the direct expense of the children who lose rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"infertile couples have traditionally been subject to laws criminalizing adultery, for precisely the reason gay marriage makes clear."
Let me ask you to clarify this - does your argument hinge on the propriety of the criminalization of adultery?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy argument relies on the fact that granting gays a "right" to found a family is granting them the "right" to commit fraud.
Right now all children have certain basic rights. All states recognize that a child has the right to a relationship with both biological parents. Exceptions - that is, the act of severing that tie - can only be done by a judge, and carries two burdens of proof - need and fitness.
By granting gays the right to make a family - and bestowing our blessing upon that family - we are sanctioning the act of bypassing those protections. The rights gays are claiming are rights stolen from their very own children - "loving", eh?
An infertile couple might commit adultery, but the law does not expressly sanction what they have done, and could very well penalize what they have done.
But you cannot give a blind man the right to a driver's license, and then argue that he's not allowed to use it to drive. That is why state ID's exist: because some people are eligible for some, but not all, of the benefits of a state-issued license.
Gays may qualify for the benefits one grants a life-partner, but I have yet to see a single good argument as to why being gay should grant a couple the right to treat their offspring as transferable goods.
Legally tampering with family trees should be done only when it is best for the CHILD - due to an unforeseen, not-deliberate accident.
And btw any parent - gay or straight - who deliberately creates a situation with the intent of causing his child to be motherless or fatherless, is NOT a good parent, but an abusive one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they are not a family, why should they be exempt from paying gift taxes?
The family subsidies exist because they are one unit.
Gays are not and cannot ever be a family. Any attempt to change the definition of family to accommodate gays does not change what a family is - it only creates laws interfering with the family as a social unit, transferring power away from the stable social unit that has been the successful basis of society for centuries, toward a new social experiment - one where government, not biology, determines how people shall be grouped.
Remember: you cannot give every person a "choice" about who is and is not their kin. This is the reason family is so stable to begin with, because when two people want different things, biology is impartial (there is a right and a wrong way to treat your mother, your sibling, or your baby's mama), but "choice" means power struggle.
So, yes, the fact that gays aren't capable of becoming kin is in fact relevant. For one thing, they can't have a family unless another family, somewhere, is broken up (and already they've demonstrated they are perfectly willing to create and destroy a family simply for the purpose of scavenging its parts).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Gays are not and cannot ever be a family."
Bigoted assertion which is factually untrue.
The rest of your post is pretty disgusting, really
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn order to make a family, gays need to put their rights "as gays" above the child's best interest.
Notice how all gay custody arguments shift the burden of proof away from the standard heteros are expected to meet - that the custody arrangement they want is best for the child.
Instead, gays argue that they have the right to any custody arrangement they want, until and unless you can prove the child is harmed.
Gay marriage relies on forcing children to pretend that men and women are interchangeable. If men and women were interchangeable, gay marriage would not be required.
Gay marriage fails if measured according to the selfsame standards gays use to measure their own "rights".
No child should be forced to live a lie. The "two mommy charade" is based on lies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In order to make a family, gays need to put their rights "as gays" above the child's best interest."
Yet another bigoted, factually untrue assertion.
"Gay marriage fails if measured according to the selfsame standards gays use to measure their own "rights"."
No, it doesn't. You simply have a poor understanding of logic, and are willing to twist it to meet your ends.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it hilarious and totally appropriate that almost every one of your arguments relies on the idea that the person disagreeing with you is "bigoted." So anyone who disagrees with you is just an evil hater, huh? So tiresome ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"No child should be forced to live a lie. The "two mommy charade" is based on lies."
Again, the absolute certainty with which you make these pronouncements is staggering. My daughter often plays with two friends who are the children of a lesbian couple. Guess what? Those two children have two mommies. And better, more devoted mommies you are not likely to meet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's nice. Too bad they are missing the male parent that every child needs and deserves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Gays are not and cannot ever be a family."
People can see with their own eyes that this assertion is untrue. It's this attitude that people are rightly rejecting in ever growing numbers.
Will every state ultimately reject it? Will it take ten, twenty, fifty more years before this attitude fades into obscurity? I do not know, but I think it is likely to happen sooner rather than later, and I applaud it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is just a really silly argument. We don't require, and there's no reason to require, a fertility test before a marriage occurs.
Opposite-sex couples are, as a rule, able to produce children. Same-sex couples are completely unable to produce children. These facts are quite enough rationale to treat the two differently in the law. Marriage exists in the first place because babies come from male-female coupling.
Do you really, really think more couples will have children within wedlock after society announces that marriage has nothing to do with producing children?
The out-of-wedlock birth rate is already over 40%, should society have no interest in that issue?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse