Advocates for same-sex marriage plan to introduce legislation in the Maryland General Assembly today [Tuesday] that would abolish civil marriage ceremonies now confined to heterosexual unions in the state and replace them with domestic partnerships for all couples.
The bills represent an unusual new tactic in the effort to push legal rights for gay couples through the House and Senate during the legislature’s 90-day session. Sponsors of the measure say they are attempting to address head-on the concerns of lawmakers who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
Under their proposal, all couples — straight or gay — would be on equal footing with secular unions. Religious marriage in churches, synagogues and mosques would be unaffected, as would existing civil marriages.
The word “marriage” would be replaced with “valid domestic partnership” in the state’s family law code.
“If people want to maintain a religious test for marriage, let’s turn it into a religious institution,” said Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), the bill’s Senate sponsor.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I have been arguing for this for a long time. Marriage is a religious institution and does not belong to the state.
Oy vey!
This is another example of political correctness run amuck. Marriage has endured for centuries without these innovations. The gay lobby wants “rights” for behavior, not rights based on uncontnrollable traits such as race. One thing I have always been taught about something that is successful, if it’s na broken, do na fix it. Until the secularization of society rolled full steam with the boomers ( I am one too) everything seemed to work just fine. Then we got into the “me” generation in the sixtys and society has gone to hell in a handbasket since then. Whose fault ? Ours.
Marriage isn’t a religious institution. It’s an organizing principle for society. Specifically, marriage is the only known institution in the history of man which has been shown to successfully civilize children. It works because it is an imposed standard. It limits the freedom of human beings to act in their own self-interest, and (not surprisingly) that is why the institution is under increasing attack in our increasingly autonomous society. It doesn’t matter what you call it – marriage or civil partnership. It constitutes a redefinition of the basic organizing principle of our civilization. As we redefine the institution to cater to specific desires, we will destroy its ability to perform its required function. And the people who want to redefine marriage know that. In fact, that is the whole point.
carl
What about polygamy, then? Why is this not allowed? Or sibling or parent-child ‘domestic partnerships’?
Carl,
It is hard to imagine how you could be more right about the matter. Thank you.
Carl, you’ve nailed it. Marriage isn’t a product of a particular religion which would cause the invocation of the establishment clause of the first amendment when it seeks government sanction. The logic of the Senator would require States to abolish oath taking to tell the truth in courts of law because the obligation to tell the truth has a religious component(natural law).
Of course, marriage doesn’t belong to the state. It would be more accurate to say that the state belongs to families, which are defined by natural law(marriage of one man and one woman). The state owes its existence to families and has a first duty to promulgate laws that strengthen families.
Now there’s some progressive thinking. I can hardly wait for the expansive view of what constitutes a domestic partnership in MD. Based on that almost anything will go — gives a whole new meaning to the “Free State.
The animus behind this proposal, which masquerades as “fairness”, is in reality a deep-seated malice and hatred of what is normal. They cannot, or will not, enter into a true marriage themselves, and will not be content till they have stopped anyone else from having a marriage either.
For this reason they seek to banish even the word “marriage” from the legal & societal sphere, withering it into an exclusively religious notion. Then they will proceed to ignore it, arguing that “marriage” is for all practical purposes meaningless.
Wilfred: what are you talking about? Scratch lots of heterosexual marriages and you’ll find lots of different ways people play….
Carl is right – but he doesn’t describe exactly why exactly. Marriage is also about property. Establishing property rights is a check on envy and restricts desire.
Conservatives mistakenly put homosexuality and polygamy in the same camp because they think it is all about satisfying desire. It is a bit more complicated.
Polygyny invites us into a more brutal society, where rich men get all the wives, and poor men get nothing – except invitations into the military. There is a good economic – and social reasons to restrict polygamy and permit domestic partnerships.
“Polygyny invites us into a more brutal society, where rich men get all the wives, and poor men get nothing – except invitations into the military. There is a good economic – and social reasons to restrict polygamy and permit domestic partnerships.”
Gawain, we’ve been round this a hundred times. Of course polygyny – or polyandry, let’s not be sexist – is sinful – but what does the state care about sin? or incest? Why is that prescribed?
According to the GAO, ” …as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.”
GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act (January 23, 2004). [A .pdf of this may be found [url=http://tinyurl.com/38dmhc]here[/url].]
The Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage†as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wifeâ€; it defines “spouse†as referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife.†The Act requires that these definitions apply “{i}n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.†1 U.S.C. § 7.
In short, I think this proposed Act would be unconstitutional since it would require persons who wanted to get married to do so in a religious ceremony.
OMG — Marriage was ordained by God! Does any of this language sound familiar:
Whew…I feel better now.
[blockquote] Carl is right – but he doesn’t describe exactly why exactly. [/blockquote]
I disagree, John Wilkins. I described exactly the reason. Marriage is traditionally an imposed standard. It is a binding covenant relationship. Vows are imposed. They are not written by bride and groom to conform to personal whims and desires. A standard is presented and the couple is expected to meet the standard.
This offends the autonomous Zeitgeist of our current culture. We do not like imposed standards. We wish to redefine them to suit our own purposes. And this inevitably pulls marriage in the direction of contract law. It becomes simply a legal agreement which provides mutual benefit. Should this arrangement become not so beneficial for one or both parties, then it becomes severable. But marriage as we know it cannot survive when one or both parties will stay only so long as their “needs” are being met. The central question of marriage cannot be “What have you done for me lately.”
At the center of marriage is social regulation of sex – sex being the one unique activity (theoretically) which separates marriage from all other relationships. Marriage used to serve as public permission to go forth, have sex, and reproduce. This defines the allowable context sex – a monogamous lifelong heterosexual relationship possessed of a willingness to receive children. But this also offends the current Zeitgeist. We [i]really[/i] don’t want anyone telling us when and with whom to have sex. And we [i]really Really REALLY[/i] don’t want anyone telling us we have to accept the responsibility of children as a condition of having sex. So marriage and sex and children have been separated in our culture – to the detriment of all three.
This is the standard that has been rejected – the natural covenant relationship of relational permanence, monogamous sex and consequent children. Homosexual marriage of any sort does not and can never represent an extension of that standard. It is an outright rejection of the standard. And that is why it is so dangerous. It represents the natural extension of designer relationships and designer sexual preference. In fact, that is precisely why it is so defended – because those who wish to liberate themselves from the strictures of marriage see quite clearly that their sexual liberty is directly connected to the sexual liberty of homosexuals.
carl
Let’s start with the obvious. Humans beings reproduce sexually. Furthermore, the optimal human reproductive strategy isn’t complete once you’ve found a partner of the opposite sex with which to reproduce. You must also bond with your partner and maintain a close relationship over a period of decades. Human progeny require, biologically, psychologically, and socially, an extended period of nuturance that is best administered by the parties with the greatest interest in the matter; namely, the parents. Human societies recognize this reality and in varying ways attempt to foster, regularize and promote the complex of behaviors that constitures the successful propogation of the human species.
This complex of behaviors is what we, along with every other culture throughout history and prehistory, have always called marriage. It is both a social and biological reality. But while there are inevitable social implications of marriage that vary, for good or ill, in each culture, fundamentally marriage is a biological feature of human nature, rather than a contingent social structure. In fact, as the primary social structure, it is the basis of all other social structures, if not of human existence itself. For we, as social animals, could not long survive in the absence of the social structure marriage provides.
Whatever position you take on the moral and social status of same sex unions, equating them with the biological fact of male-female marriage is both erroneous and pernicious. Society is inconceivable apart from male-female marriage; but the same cannot be said for formalized same sex unions. Securing the rights of same sex couples by denying the distinction between same sex unions and marriages is as mistaken as attempting to secure the rights of children by denying the distinction between children and adults.
Charming: Equating reproduction and marriage is faulty logic. Marriage was instituted by GOD, and, up until recently, was upheld by the applicable government as a way to handle man’s (as from the Latin, HOMO, meaning either sex) capacity to want too much of a good thing for his/her own good. Using a purely heterosexual example, look at the number of current co-habiting hetero couples. As a female who barely survived the feminist movement (and, OK, I have a sarcastic streak), I was fairly shocked to find out that men weren’t nearly as interested in “committed” relationships of any sort, as the “free love’. Free love has unintended consequences, and I’m not just talking about pregnancy. I finally had to come to the conclusion that God was right (yet again!), and learn to do things His way. However, I don’t hear heterosexual unmarried couples crying for the same “rights” as married couples. I find this telling. It would seem that they are, at least, taking responsibility for their actions, and living with the consequences.
BTW – this is my beloved state’s legislature doing this. I wonder if they are up for re-election? Somehow, I doubt it. [removed]void(0);
As noted above, the is an attack on the notion of “normal.” If a one to one relationship can be established between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, it will then follow that if one is normal, so is the other. There is of course no real logic to this because it ignores the simple fact of the bell curve, but it is precisely this that such legislation wishes to override. Carl must have sid somewhere that the establishing of standards and normality are closely related; our perception of the normal is often at the root of what we will accept as a behavioral standard. The union of a man and a woman in that complex long term relationship in which one binds him/herself to the other by assigning a significant portion of his/her/identity to the other is in fact normal. We do this so that the forces that drive a man and a woman apart have a compensatory centripetal force, that is, each is the possessor of other’s identity that, together, makes a new identity greater than either alone. This is marriage. We can be taught to override this binding force – in, let’s say, Restoration England when adultery was the norm – but we don’t have to be taught to love – that is, give each into the other’s possession – we simply need a force to bring man and a woman together to give love a place to start; this, in mankind, is what infatuation is for. And it’s normal says the bell curve.
But homosexuality is abnormal and nothing can alter this fact, not even legislation in Maryland. LM
As the saying goes:
“Skeleton Key To A Wacko World.”
No, I didn’t end my post with something the elves would find objectionable, I just couldn’t get the smileys to work!
As a recent study in Canada showed, the business about homosexual marriage (by whatever appellation you put on it) is a sham. Very few homosexuals opted for it. It is all about making homosexuality normative in the eyes of the state.
I was listening to a fairly recent edition of Mars Hill Audio Journal (#87, I think) the other day, and the subject was civilization and the state. The interviewee was saying that Plato (or perhaps another Greek philosopher of about the same era) held that the family — husband, wife, and children — was the fundamental element of society. We Christians know that marriage was ordained of God — but it was ordained before the Fall, and it shows what God intended for humanity. Heterosexual marriage has been recognized as foundational by all cultures for millenia. We cannot “outgrow” that fact. It is an inherent part of human nature, not a “social construct.”
Destroy the family, and society is destroyed. It takes a little while for that destruction to show up, but it does. My wife and my daughter-in-law are both elementary teachers, and both can tell heartrending stories of kids without any stable father figure who are lost souls, and will take others down with them in due course. And every year, it gets worse…
#21: “We Christians know that marriage was ordained of God…”
Um, no, we don’t know that.
#22. I do.
When you are young and active, the arguments for and against marriage of a man and a woman seem foolish. “I will do what I want to, with whom I want to,†seems so wonderful when you are younger. When you grow old like my wife and I are, marriage takes on a whole different meaning that is true love and not affection or sex. It becomes devotion! You love each other for what has been as well as what is now. Our cancers may kill us soon, but our love for each each other can’t. Never have we been as happy!!! For we know that our love is based on Christ’s love and will endure beyond the grave.
Our joy now is our children produced by love, our grandchildren produced by the love and devotion passed to them from us. God’s plan for families knows these eternal truths and we’d best follow them for the sake of generations to come.
#22
Um, yes, actually we do know that. Mark 10: 6-9.
Which reminds me, we are approaching the feast-day of St Valentine. In the 3rd Century A.D., during the reign of Roman Emperor Claudius II “the Goth”, marriages were outlawed. The notion was, married men were less willing to enlist for Claudius’ wars. St Valentine was martyred for secretly marrying Christian couples.
It is slowly dawning on me, [i] none [/i] of these present heresies are new.
Marriage is ordained by God, but scripture seems to illustrate all sorts of marriages. I won’t go through the examples, but my elderly ladies were shocked at the different types of relationships people engaged in. Even though they were straight.
But why is marriage ordained by God? Pretty simple: it brings peace. the alternative to marriage is violence and envy.
Not every homosexual will opt for marriage. Let them still be protected by civil society. But those who do believe in fidelity, honesty, the benefits of caring for one person, should be rewarded for leaving the world of promiscuity and predation.
But polygamy leads to violence, and it is in the interest of the state to restrict polygamy for that reason.
But I don’t think that the telos of any relationship should be procreation. The telos is friendship with God. And a gay person suppressing their natural inclinations will act out. Better to be who you are honestly, before God.
[blockquote] Better to be who you are honestly, before God. [/blockquote]
John Wilkins,
A broken relationship with God is not defined by a lack of honesty or authenticity. There are many honest, authentic people who call evil good with honest and authentic intent. It counts for nothing then to appeal to honesty, and authenticity. They do not constitute a meaningful standard. Besides, no man will stand before God as he honestly is. A man in his natural honest authentic state is an enemy of God – unwilling and incapable of doing what God requires. There is none righteous, not even one.
carl
As an aside, but a very worrisome one, this law as proposed would install sharia’ marriage law for Muslims in Maryland, and they would very soon be demanding, probably successfully, that polygamous civil marriages be registered, since their religious community allows them. Would Maryland also involve itself in the rights of civil partnerships after dissolution of the relationship? Again, Islam has very specific laws about this.
I have Muslims friends here in Cairo, non-practicing Muslims, married nearly 49 years (they jokingly refer to theirs as a Catholic marriage). Their son, a US citizen, was hassling his father about his not fasting in Ramadan. The father shut him up by saying that, all right, he will observe all his rights and responsibilities as a Muslim male. He will find a new young wife, marry her, and divorce his wife of 49 years, giving her the required three months’ alimony. End of family discussion, because the younger man loves his mother.
Enduring marriage on the Christian model is foundational to Western civilization. We’ve already tinkered with it in allowing “no-fault” easy divorce and remarriage, and society is suffering the consequences. Removing societal standards entirely will blow our culture away.
From my own experience and what I know of my family and friends, who are predominantly Christian, marriage is the essential and best way to live in every way. I never made much difference in the world when single, just plodded along. We are called to serve God and others and bring his Kingdom into this world every day by using our gifts. It starts in the family with my wife and grown children, then grandchildren, family and friends, and grows out from there. We are older now, happy and fulfilled and have truly become two people and one entity at the same time. I have several single friends. They may get along, even be successful; but for the most part they are lonely. All this single life-style hype in the West is about being young, rich and beautiful. Well, not everyone is young and rich and beautiful. Marriage is a gift from God, and everyone should be as blessed as I am.
#26 John nothing is stopping gay people from leaving the world of promiscuity and one night stands etc. Being married doen’t prevent heterosexuals from being promiscuous. How does polygmy lead to violence?
Marriage is in essence a category that is prior to the State. If we cede to the State the power to alter the essence of marriage we will regret it permanently.
This bill that Raskin has introduced is one of a spate of pieces of legislation offered in the Maryland General Assembly. Aside from the proposal to write discrimination into the State Constitution by prohibiting marriage equality (back for the fourth year in a row in one form or another), each of the other bills seek to clarify the distinction between civil authority and religious authority.
A number of posters on this board have offered their reasoning and in some cases scriptural support for Religious Marriage. But, how do any of these arguments apply to the thirty-five per cent of Maryland couples who get hitched each year in a non-religious ceremony that is officiated by civil authorities such as Clerks and Judges? There is even a bill proposed in the House of Delegates by the Chair of the Judiciary Committee to expand the range of civil officers so that judges who sit on the State’s tax courts can officiate.
On a side note regarding Senator Jaime Raskin, he testified two years ago before a Senate committee reviewing one of the many anti-gay Constitutional Amendments in his capacity as a law professor; this was prior to his election in 2006 to the Senate. He was being pressed by one of the social conservatives on the committee to address biblical grounds for marriage. He observed to her that when she was sworn in as a Senator she had put her hand on a Bible and pledged to uphold the Constitution rather than on a copy of the Constitution to uphold the Bible.
The main bill (to which Senator Raskin and 48 other members of the General Assembly are co-sponsors) is aptly entitled the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act I believe its aim is to protect the First Amendment rights of congregations and religious authorities who decline to authorize same-sex marriage ceremonies while at the same time affirming Maryland’s and the US Constitutional provisions of equal protection of the law. Moreover, those religious communities who have discerned that they will authorize religious marriage ceremonies have their First Amendment protections guaranteed, as well.
#32 Aren’t “…the First Amendment rights of congregations and religious authorities who decline to authorize same-sex marriage ceremonies” already protected? And why does “.. Maryland’s and the US Constitutional provisions of equal protection of the law.” need affirming?
#27 – Carl – I understand you are speaking theologically from a position that needs more explanation. “enemy of God” isn’t quite right. You’ll have to demonstrate to me how Job, for example, is an enemy, or Solomon, or David. Weak before God? Perhaps. Proud? Yes. An enemy? “I have called you friends,” Jesus said.
I’m confused that brokenness with God is NOT defined by trust and honesty. That is an odd statement: not trusting God loves is NOT an example of brokenness? Seems to me that is the nature of Sin: a eagerness to hide from God.
I’m sympathetic to a critique of authenticity and honesty. But then, one can say the same about anyone who claims authority: even those who claim marriage is ordained by God. Perhaps we should concentrate on those who choose a religious ceremony rather than worry about those who the state supports – for good reason. Partnership is much cheaper than taxes, and better for both straight and gay people, empirically.
#33 The guarantee of religious freedom applies to both sides. And as to the equal protection issues, civil marriage is a civil right.
I’ve stayed out of this one so far because Carl and the others are doing a great job standing up for marriage. I just have a few comments.
#26 John Wilkins: Just what are these “all sorts of marriages†that you speak of; are you just referring to the fact that some were monogamous and others are polygamous? The Bible also speaks of sexual relationships outside of marriage as well as other sins; that does not mean we should use those sinful behaviors as examples of how to lead our lives just because they are mentioned in the Bible. That the complete picture of man is given, warts and all, is one of the many things I love about the Bible. The sinful behavior of people, even Patriarchs and kings, is told without any white-washing.
You say that you “don’t thing that the telos of any relationship should be procreation.†Simply put, you’re wrong on that. Procreation is definitely one of the ends of marriage and has been since creation. “Be fruitful and multiply,†does that sound familiar? At #13 stevejax excerpted from the 1662 BCP and the procreation of children is first on the list. Even in the 1979 BCP, marriage is given as “intended by God for†the procreation of children, even though it was demoted to the end of the list. I could go on but I think the point has been made. Christian marriage can help us in our path to God; it is a means of grace, reflecting the union between Christ and His bride the Church, and it is for that reason that Christian marriage is a Sacrament; but procreation is still one of the ends.
#32 F&C;: You claim to want an argument applicable to civil marriages. However, from your comments it is obvious what your views are and why such arguments will not convince you. There is a fundamental difference in view that separates your and my definitions of marriage. If one holds to a view that marriage is only about the state granted legal benefits and has no other purpose then there is no grounds on which to oppose the Maryland bill to denigrate marriage to a mere “domestic partnership.†On the other hand, if marriage is about something more than that, if it has a purpose or end beyond that then the definition of what marriage is depends also on what that other end is. Traditionally, and not just in a Christian or religious society, one of the chief ends of marriage has been procreation. Now many have pointed out already that marriage and the family is the fundamental unit of society (Hakkatan in #21 referenced Plato, hardly a Christian) and that is because of the procreative aspect of marriage. Homosexual relationships are inherently sterile; they cannot of their own means produce children and a family. If there is no family produced, thus no perpetuation of the fundamental unit of society, why should the state as a representative of society confer any benefits to a relationship that does not benefit society?
Also, I believe your reading of “equal protection of the law†is erroneous. The 14th Amendment does not guaranty equality of privilege, only equal application of due process and the exercising of rights (i.e. suffrage, speech, assembly, to bear arms, against self-incrimination, &co;. ).
Scripture certainly illustrates all sorts of relationships, but not approvingly. It’s polygamy that’s somewhat approved, but even there, it’s shown to be dysfunctional.
As to what relationships are violent, gay friends have often remarked on the violence they experience. I would like to see honest research on the subject, but that’s hardly likely in today’s media climate. The John Wilkins of the world would be screaming “homophobia” at the top of their lungs.
Civil marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is a fundamental right and because of that the government cannot forbid it; however, the government does not have to recognize nor confer any legal benefits to it. Once again though, homosexual relationships are not marriages nor can they be. Since marriage creates the family and thus society the government has an interest in promoting marriage and supporting it. Society does not benefit from homosexual relationships so why should society promote it by the positive grant of privileges?
#36, James G, “Homosexual relationships are inherently sterile; they cannot of their own means produce children and a family.”
I understand the theological and sociological basis for this argument, James, but carrying it further would mean that the marriage of two elders, both beyond the age of procreation, is somehow less valid? Using procreation (or at least the ability to procreate) as the basis for withholding marriage from some (elders, those who are sterile for whatever reason, as well as homosexual men and women) would deny the blessing of the church (or the extension of legal rights by the state) also denying the possibility of a relationship which is life-giving, God-loving, and spiritually enhancing.
#38, James G: And I also think that your definition of family is too narrow. Families enhance the stability of society — and while I [i]might[/i] be convinced that families need two parents (though I cannot be convinced that they be of opposite gender), and while I acknowledge that there are far too many instances of dysfunction among one-parent households, I also know of too many instances of [i]highly[/i] functional one-parent households.
PadreWayne: You know that the “marriage of two elders†is a red herring. Come on, you can do better. Oh, and please define “life-giving.†To me life-giving = the generation of children. A family is composed of parents and children; a husband and wife are one flesh. That a family may be reduced to a single parent and child/ren through death or other factor does not make it any less a family and you know that.
To those who honestly want elderly couples addressed: PadreWayne’s argument is a typical attempt to distract by posing an argument to a position that was not taken. By stating that homosexual relationships are inherently sterile does not therefore mean that all sterile relationships are thus not marriage. Homosexual relationships fail the test for marriage because they are inherently incapable of satisfying at least one end of marriage. Heterosexual relationships (as a generality) are procreative. Because of that generality and because of the other ends of marriage (mutual help, etc.), heterosexual couples that cannot procreate (barring a miracle) because of age or sterility may still marry; just as a man born with 11 toes is still a human even though humans have 10 toes. It’s an argument from types, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_(metaphysics)]look it up[/url] people. And just so no one tries to pull the “what about couples that get married with the intention of never having children?†argument; a couple who attempt to marry with the intention of opposing one of the ends of marriage (procreation) cannot validly marry. That is not marriage it is concubinage.
Actually, James G, I don’t consider the marriage of two elders to be a red herring. You cite the inability of homosexual people to procreate being an argument against their marriage. I simply bring up another class of people who also cannot procreate.
For life-giving, I include aspects of personal growth, and perhaps “life-enhancing” would be a better term for me to use. I would not limit “life-giving,” however, to the generation of children: HIV drugs are life-giving. The Eucharist is life-giving. A spiritual, emotional, psychological enhancement of one’s life not available on an individual (i.e., self-created, self-induced) basis.
I do not argue that a family is composed of parents and children (or, possibly, grandparents and grandchildren, aunts/uncles and nephews/neices). Non-Western societies have all sorts of arrangements — it does not make them less “family.” Moreover, I do not see that “a husband and wife are one flesh” means that [i]family[/i] requires two parents of opposite gender. Moreover (again), would you say that, for example, a family of two women with an adopted child (or a child generated by one of the women) are not, ipso facto, a family?
[i]You[/i] took the position that procreation is a requirement for marriage. I brought up a class of people who cannot procreate (bar Abraham and Sarah possibilities!). Homosexual relationships are sterile to a point — two women (as above) can have the natural child of one of them. (In a relationship of two men, one can certainly father a child, as well…) (But of course, neither arrangement can produce a child on its own. Therein I agree with your use of “sterile.”)
I’m not sure I agree with your final argument — that a young, otherwise fertile couple marrying with no intention of having children is an invalid marriage.
I really think the procreation argument is the red herring, James. Unless one is Roman Catholic.
[#34] John Wilkins,
This is what I mean by natural authentic man. All men are born this way – children of wrath. Absent the regenerating work of the Spirit, this is how all men remain. The men you mentioned – Job, David, the disciples – they are all new creations in Christ Jesus. But that is not an appelation which can be applied to every man. Nor can it be applied to a man who does not yet believe. This is they way we – all of us – honestly are. All it buys us is wrath and judgment and condemnation.
carl
[blockquote] For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Romans 8:5-8 [/blockquote]
[blockquote] And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. Ephesians 2:1-3 [/blockquote]
PadreWayne: I am.
PadreWayne: No, I argue that a homosexual relationship being sterile is one factor that renders them incapable of marriage. You intentionally obfuscate by bringing up heterosexual couples that are sterile fully well knowing that they are ontologically different from homosexual couples.
I limit “life-giving†to the generation of children in the context of marriage. I would agree that the Eucharist is indeed life-giving; “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh…†John 6:51. Also, I find your comparison of HIV drugs and the Eucharist truly disturbing. (As an aside: most HIV-drugs are cytotoxic – they kill cells. They are used in the same way that chemo is used to treat cancer, in hopes that the virus is killed or diminished without causing irreparable harm to the person)
We are speaking of family as the fundamental unit of society, a limited sense. If you want to use family in an expanded sense (extended family, adoptive family) then we are no longer dealing with the fundamental irreducible unit of society. Why not extend the meaning of family further to a group of friends, a community of religious, or any other group held together by “bonds of affection†(the AC anyone?). A valid expanded use does not make a limited use any less valid. To address your specific examples: a natural (or adoptive) child of a person in a homosexual relationship is the child of that individual only; that individual and the child are the family. That does not deny that there is a relationship between the child and the other member of the homosexual relationship, one that is full of love and in many ways positive, it only means that that person is not the child’s parent. In the limited sense of family the non-parental member and the child are not a family. (The case of a child who is adopted by both individuals in a homosexual relationship is a legal fiction like the attribution of person status to property in civil forfeiture. Further, in the case of step-parents because the spouses are one flesh the step-parent is therefore the parent of the child as well. The two spouses are one as the Lord and his Church are one; therefore what is one’s is also the other’s just as what is the Lord’s is also the Church’s and what is the Church’s is also the Lord’s.)
#44 — Thought that might be the case 🙂
#45 — I was not intentionally obfuscating, but if you insist that I was, I see no need to argue further on that point.
I do recommend you check out +Thomas Breidenthal’s (TEC, Dio Southern Ohio) [u]Sacred Unions[/u] for further conversation regarding holy relationships.
Peace, brother!
PadreWayne: I will take you at your word and I apologize for saying you were intentionally obfuscating when you were not.
Is [i]Sacred Unions[/i] a book or is it an article you can link to?
# 36 wrote: If one holds to a view that marriage is only about the state granted legal benefits and has no other purpose then there is no grounds on which to oppose the Maryland bill to denigrate marriage to a mere “domestic partnership.â€
The authority of the legislature is to govern civil marriage, (or domestic partnerships), which is about regulating behavior, providing benefits and establishing social order in civil society.
The basis for examining civil marriage as a civil right in light of equal protection law is that access to benefits and rights along with the assumption of responsibilities is part of due process.
I won’t duplicate what PadreWayne has written about the procreation argument other than to add that social conservatives were really serious about the procreation test to qualify for a civilmarriage liscense, then couples in Maryland would plunk down their ten bucks to the County Clerk and be required to submit the results of a fertility test for each partner to get the liscense.
“benefits and rights” – What rights are being dealt with in a homosexual relationship?
Benefits are a positive grant from the state; you still have not given a reason why the state should give benefits to homosexual relationships.
# 49 “benefits and rights†– What rights are being dealt with in a homosexual relationship?
Benefits are a positive grant from the state; you still have not given a reason why the state should give benefits to homosexual relationships.
Partners in a same-sex relationship are citizens in a civil society, entitled to the same protection of the law as partners in opposite-sex relationships. Each of the bills proposed in the Maryland General Assembly (save for the discriminatory Constitutional amendment) observes that all should play by the same rules and be accorded the same benefits from the State that are afforded through civil marriage.
I actually whole-heartedly approve the State removing itself from marriage at this point. Stop giving benefits to married people if it’s going to cause the gays to get their panties in a bunch and start insisting on institutional nonsense. Because that is just what “gay marriage” is, non-sense.
Going beyond mere Judeo-Christian religion for a moment, we find marriage as a religious institution in cultures looong before governments begin to get involved. A pagan man rightfully married a pagan woman (or ten) in imitation of the gods, the sky father’s union with the earth mother being played out on earthly stage. While pagan society might have allowed for all sorts of pairings (or triplings, quadruplings, etc) outside of marriage, any idea of legitimizing these couplings before the gods would have been considered ridiculous.
It takes a thoroughly secularized society such as that of Plato, or the late Roman Empire, or Babylonian Captivity Roman Church, or ours, to seek legitimacy for homosexual union. But, then, thoroughly secularized societies legitimize all sorts of nonsense, while keeping the public contented with bread and circuses.
#25 “It is slowly dawning on me, none of these present heresies are new.”
“There is nothing new under the sun”– of course, I don’t know how true that could possibly be, seeing as how it was written by a Jewish man before the dawning of the “Common Era” and therefore must be suspect.
F&C;: Maybe the reason you are not addressing my questions is because you do not understand what I am asking you. Let me clarify:
I am asking you on the basis of what reasoning should the MD Gen Ass positively grant benefits to homosexual relationships. You respond that homosexuals are “…entitled to the same protection of the law…†which really doesn’t answer the question. Now I think you are trying to say that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships and therefore should have the same benefits. For that to hold then you must show on what basis the two are the same (that is mathematically equal; one can be substituted for the other because they are fundamentally, essentially, and substantially the same). If you cannot show that the two are the same then on what basis (what positive benefit to society) should homosexual relationships be given benefits?
It is my contention that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are fundamentally, essentially, and substantially [b]different[/b]. One proof that they are different is that homosexual relationships are inherently sterile. Another proof is based on complementarity between the sexes. I would elaborate on this but that then I’d have to start talking graphically about anatomical structures and that would not be keeping with the decorum of this site. Just do a search on Natural Law and complementarity and I’m sure you can find the argument elaborated.
To further clarify: the arguments we are dealing with are not religious they are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology]ontological[/url]. You keep bolding “civil†as if to make a distinction. Basic logic should apply to the civil sphere so make your argument logically so we can stop talking past each other. Either prove that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are the same thing or give the positive benefits that merit civil recognition.
Faithful and Committed,
You wrote:
I won’t duplicate what PadreWayne has written about the procreation argument other than to add that social conservatives were really serious about the procreation test to qualify for a civilmarriage liscense, then couples in Maryland would plunk down their ten bucks to the County Clerk and be required to submit the results of a fertility test for each partner to get the liscense.
See my post #15 for a defense of the view that marriage is linked to procreation. The fact that some couples are infertile doesn’t weaken my case. Society doesn’t link marriage and procreation because it is the case that every heterosexual is fertile, but because society recognizes that marriage is a particularly important and desirable reproductive relationship that only heterosexual couples, in virtue of human biology, can engage in. The intent of confining the benefits of marriage to potentially fertile unions is not primarily, or even secondarily, to exclude members of actually infertile same sex unions. The intent is to recognize and foster a particularly valuable behavior that same sex couples simply don’t and can’t engage in.
Your mistake is to view marriage chiefly as an institution intended to procure rights and benefits for a select class. But while it’s true that marriage is to some degree institutionalized and formalized in this respect, it remains ultimately a behavioral and cultural response to the biological facts of human reproduction, rather than a social structure instituted to secure rights and benefits.
Society fosters and rewards this behavior because without it, society itself could not exist. If society doesn’t foster and reward same sex unions in the same way, it’s because these relationships are less necessary to well being of society; not to mention the continued existence of the human race.
But it doesn’t follow from this that society should go to great lengths to establish that every marrying couple is capable of procreating. For starters, the tests are costly, time consuming, intrusive, and not completely reliable. Secondly, the small minority of certifiably infertile heterosexual couples don’t intend to, and have no interest in, redefining marriage to rule out procreation as an essential feature of the marriage relationship. So why bother with your hypothetical fertility test?
Partners in a same-sex relationship are citizens in a civil society, entitled to the same protection of the law as partners in opposite-sex relationships. Each of the bills proposed in the Maryland General Assembly (save for the discriminatory Constitutional amendment) observes that all should play by the same rules and be accorded the same benefits from the State that are afforded through civil marriage.
But that’s the problem. Regardless of what the General Assembly decides de jure, all couples, de facto, don’t play by the same rules. There are important functional differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples. Most notably, the latter sort of couple benefits society to a much greater degree than the other sort. Therefore society is at the very least prudentially obligated to reward and recognize heterosexual marrriage in ways that it doesn’t for homosexual unions, even if it recognizes that homosexual unions merit of legal recognition and protection.
I’m not arguing against such recognition and protection. I’m just saying it should be appropriate to the sort of relationship in question. The fact that both heterosexual and homosexual are, or ought to be, faithful and committed, isn’t a sufficient basis for conflating them. After all, parent/child relationships are faithful and committed (and, importantly, society recognizes this relationship even when these goods are absent) but no one would say that we ought to equate this relationship with marriage.
PS, Crabby in Maryland, I’m not equating reproduction and marriage. I’m linking them.
#52 writes: Either prove that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are the same thing or give the positive benefits that merit civil recognition.
Two couples live side by side in the same neighborhood. Neither has children; that is a matter of choice for the opposite-sex couple and a basic biological fact for the same-sex couple. They pay taxes, although the opposite-sex couple has the option of choosing whether to file jointly or as singles while the partners in the same-sex couple must lie each year when they fill out their tax forms by declaring themselves to be single — even though they have been in relationship for the same number of years as the opposite-sex couple next door. Besides, everyone they know in the community knows that they are not single. They are a couple and have been recognized as such for as along as their opposite-sex neighbors.
When ill health hits either household, the partner in each relationship is there to offer comfort and support. Although, the ambulance driver may deny to the same-sex couple the opportunity to give comfort as an ambulance speeds to the hospital while no questions would be asked of the attending spouse of the opposite-sex couple.
If financial burdens press upon one partner in the couple, the other picks up the slack. In each household, they deal with the day to day maintaining a household. The town recycling truck picks up the refuse from each household the same way twice a week. Both couples are engaged in community events and contribute to civic projects such as community charities. On a social level, both couples attend the same neighborhood potluck gatherings and come Sunday morning, they kneel down a pew apart from one another. Both couples are generous givers at the church and do a lot of the grunt work that often goes unnoticed.
So, why did it cost $40. for the opposite-sex couple to get a marriage liscense in their Maryland County (ten bucks for the paperwork and thirty to pay the Clerk of Court) to confer upon the opposite-sex couple over 200 civil protections while the same-sex couple next door had to spend two grand in lawyers fees to craft documents for protections such as wills, medical powers of attorney, and so on? And in spite of the fact that, the same-sex couple will still be left vulnerable even after shelling out lots to lawyers because there is no guarantee that medical authorities will recognize that medical power of attorney document. And there is still a chance a disgruntled relative will contest the will when one of the same-sex partners dies.
Meanwhile, next door, if one of the partners in the opposite-sex couple dies, the surviving partner will be able to determine whether to take the social security allocation he or she has earned or that of the deceased spouse. And even with the best drawn will, the survivor of the same-sex couple will be paying inheritance taxes on the property that both members of the partnership had owned together while the survivor of the opposite-sex relationship will be able to enjoy a transfer of property without paying taxes.
So, can you tell me in concrete terms rather than ontological abstractions why are the individuals in the opposite-sex couple entitled to rights and protections denied to their neighbors?
Charming Billy writes in # 53: Regardless of what the General Assembly decides de jure, all couples, de facto, don’t play by the same rules. There are important functional differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples. Most notably, the latter sort of couple benefits society to a much greater degree than the other sort. Therefore society is at the very least prudentially obligated to reward and recognize heterosexual marrriage in ways that it doesn’t for homosexual unions, even if it recognizes that homosexual unions merit of legal recognition and protection.
I’m not arguing against such recognition and protection. I’m just saying it should be appropriate to the sort of relationship in question. The fact that both heterosexual and homosexual are, or ought to be, faithful and committed, isn’t a sufficient basis for conflating them. After all, parent/child relationships are faithful and committed (and, importantly, society recognizes this relationship even when these goods are absent) but no one would say that we ought to equate this relationship with marriage.
In my view, your position on civil marriage (or domestic partner) protections is that they serve as a carrot or stick to reward or punish behavior. I would suggest instead that there is a different ground; that is the obligation of civil society to enact laws in accordance with its Constitutional system. In the State of Maryland this involves treating citizens equally, among other factors. That is a matter of justice, not rewards and punishments.
Your other claim is that same-sex couples do not follow the same rules as they participate in civil society as do opposite-sex couples. My position is that the rules for participating in civil society are pretty much the same, and I have detailed them above in my homely, hypothetical anecdote of two couples residing next door to one another: you pay your taxes, keep up your yard, support the raising of the next generation, contribute to the community welfare and good order–and so on. Ain’t much difference between straight and gay households in how responsibilities are performed.
Lastly you suggest that opposite-sex couples confer benefits upon civil society that same-sex do not. I assume by this that you suggest that this is through procreation without benefit of medical intervention. Indeed, procreation is one aspect of nurturing the next generation, but it is not the whole. Perhaps, a better term is one used by the psychologist, Erik Erikson when he wrote about generativity. That is a matter of nurturing the next generation, but it goes beyond opposite-sex connections and popping out babies. Contributing to generativity is one of the rules of civil society and it is observed by the whole range of ways that we — same-sex or opposiste couples — do things that nurture the generation.
The last line of my post for # 55 should read: the whole range of ways that we–same-sex or opposite-sex couples– do that will nurture the generation that follows us.
The debate over homosexual relationships and concomitant deprivation of civil rights devolves into semantics. Vanity is disguised as compassion. I would make a very small query, if;
The word “marriage” would be replaced with “valid domestic partnership” in the state’s family law code.
What does this protend regarding Maryland’s incest law which currently prohibits “marriage”?
Does this mean that “valid domestic partnerships”, “..within 3 degrees of direct lineal consanguinity or within first degree of collateral consanguinity prohibited” (Md. FAMILY LAW Code Ann. § 2-202 (2002) becomes unconstitutional?
#57 asked: What does this protend regarding Maryland’s incest law which currently prohibits “marriage�
Each of the bills that pursue the language changes — whether to civil marriage or domestic partnership (the Raskin bill around which this thread was begun) direcetly address this question.
I do not think this is a mere semantic argument. The proposed language changes clarify substantive distintinctions between civil marriage and religious marriage, or civil domestic partnerships and religious marriage.
If each of the bills address the question of incest then may I presume that a “valid domestic partnership” will be available to everyone including those who desire relations with a same sex individual but not to those who desire relations with a close relation? (assuming both are consenting adults). Is this discrimination toward those who may be of mind to keep things in the family?
Can someone explain the difference between two unrelated men who wish to commit themselves to each other and not be denied the same rights and priveleges afforded current definitions of marriage and two related men who wish to do the same?
What would be the grounds to deny a “vaild domestic partnership” to anyone with anyone?
#54 F&C;: I guess your refusal to answer my questions is due to inability but I will respond to your specious example anyway. I’ll start by asking how your hypothetical homosexual couple is any different from a pair of spinster roommates who do not engage in [i]extra curricular activities[/i]? Your contention is that society should grant benefits two a pair of non-related individuals who live together for no reason other than that they engage in unnatural activities.
Your specific examples of difference in treatment are just emotional appeals and fallacious to boot. For a serious medical condition a spouse is no more likely to be permitted to ride in the ambulance than anyone else. If you object to the cost of crafting powers of attorney and such compared to a marriage license then get the license fee increased or find a cheaper lawyer. Also, a hypothetical doctor ignoring a medical power of attorney is not a legitimate argument because it necessitates a scenario that may or may not occur. You might want to check out a list of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies]logical fallacies[/url] so you don’t keep making them.
As far as contesting a will goes, the same scenario can occur in any death, not just the death of a homosexual. Social security benefits are a positive grant of the state and not a right (despite all the political rhetoric) so there is no necessity to grant any survivor benefits to anyone. Why not extend survivor benefits to a person’s best friend and roommate in the nursing home as well since you want the government to be so generous as to give it to homosexual relationships? Finally, if both parties hold title to the real property, vehicles, bank accounts and such then why would there be a transfer of property when the survivor already legally owns said property?
To address your final point, society has granted to married couples certain benefits in order to promote marriage because marriage is beneficial to society in many ways. As has been shown in so many of the comments above, one of the chief benefits to society is the continuation of society through procreations. In “concrete terms†the hypothetical childless couple (an extreme minority of married couples) is receiving benefits through a kind of overflow. They are receiving the benefits society has given to marriage without in turn benefiting society to the same degree as marriages that produce children. Call it a loop-hole.
#60 begins: I’ll start by asking how your hypothetical homosexual couple is any different from a pair of spinster roommates who do not engage in extra curricular activities? Your contention is that society should grant benefits two a pair of non-related individuals who live together for no reason other than that they engage in unnatural activities.
I believe that what you have described here with the two spinsters is commonly called a “Boston marriage” but where in civil law does it stipulate that partners to civil marriage must have sex with one another? Could there not be opposite-sex couples, as well, who decide to be celibate and yet seek a civil marriage liscense?
With regard to the second half of the quote above, you mistate my position: I did not at any place assert that society should grant benefits two a pair of non-related individuals who live together for no reason other than that they engage in unnatural activities.
My contention, implied by my homely, hypothetical illustration of the opposite-sex couple and the same-sex couple who are neighbors, is that if both couples are act in ways that benefit society in the same manner, civil society (or the State) should treat them the say way. I made no claim about behaviors being natural or unnatural. Nor do I think such a distinction applies to my hypothetical situations. The implication that same-sex “extracurricular behavior,” (your phrase) as being unnatural might have been a valid cultural assumption once upon a time, but I don’t it wins universal support as a premise for civil law. State after State, after all, repealed outdated sodomy laws that had been based in that assumption. And finally, the Lawrence case in the US Supreme Court disposed of that as a premise for civil law in the minority of States that had not repealed by 2003.
Why should be State confer rights and protections on one couple, and not the other? You suggest in concluding your posting that:
society has granted to married couples certain benefits in order to promote marriage because marriage is beneficial to society in many ways. As has been shown in so many of the comments above, one of the chief benefits to society is the continuation of society through procreations.
I assume you mean civil marriage since that is the aspect of marriage that the State has authority to regulate. My response to your claim is the argument I offered in #56 that generativity is a more meaningful contribution than simply making babies. There, you can see how I observed that procreation is one part of generativity, but there is much more to nurturing the next generation–and same-sex couples, individuals and opposiste-sex couples all play a role.
You refer to the promotion of marriage. I would prefer to to think in terms of affirming the value of relationships that are interdependent, mutual, and life-affirming. I would also observe that the civil society has a great stake in promoting stability and physical and psychological well-being. Both of these goods have been fostered by civil marriage. So, why should the State be concerned exclusively with the stability and well-being of its citizens who contract opposite-sex relationships?
#59 What would be the grounds to deny a “vaild domestic partnership†to anyone with anyone?
These criteria are all spelled out in the legislation: age, not being in another marriage or domestic partner, and all of the familial relationships in Maryland Family Code that presently govern civil marriage. It is hardly a matter of permitting domestic partnerships of anyone with anyone.
Also, remember that Raskin’s bill in the Senate and House bill from Schuler apply the same standards whether the relationship is male-male, female-female, or male-female.
#61 F&C;:
“Where in civil law does it stipulate that partners to civil marriage must have sex with one another?†– It’s called [i]consummation[/i], without it a civil marriage is subject to a civil annulment. It’s been a part of the common law tradition of England and America since the beginning so I’m sure it’s in Maryland law somewhere.
“The implication … as being unnatural might have been a valid cultural assumption once upon a time…†– Unnatural means contrary to nature; it is not dependent on any cultural assumption but is a reference to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law]Natural Law[/url]. The actions of legislatures or even SCOTUS does not make homosexual acts any less unnatural.
Once again, yes we are talking about [b]civil[/b] marriage. You may think that [i][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosocial_development]generativity[/url][/i] is “a more meaningful contribution than simply making babies.†but you have not demonstrated how homosexual relationships exhibit [i]generativity[/i] to a sufficient degree to warrant a positive grant of benefits. Nor have you demonstrated why the state should concern itself with a minority of a group that constitutes less than 3% of the population at best. Since time immemorial the state been “concerned exclusively with the stability and well-being†of a state of life that the vast majority of the population exists in and it is only because of a vocal extreme minority that that has changed in recent times. You can think in “terms of affirming†whatever you want but why should the government affirm a relationship that provides no benefit beyond that given by the individuals involved in said relationship, would at best affect an extreme minority of the population and that is objected to by a significant portion of the population?
#63
About natural law: It is not universally accepted and the link you povided reflects the wide range of approaches to it. Moreover, I have not found in talking to legislators that many of them base their voting decisions in natural law. However, for the sake of discussion, suppose we stipulate that natural law served as a basis of core American documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US Constitution. Jefferson and Madison and their colleagues were, after all, products of the Enlightment and the Deist notion that inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were endowed by a Creator (understood rather differently today since Deism is no longer the ascendant theological ideology). That does not mean, however, that the application of those principles to particular cases is unchanging. Were not the likes of Jefferson and Madison slaveholders who hardly extended rights to their slaves? Over time, civil society evolved to a different understanding of the premise that “all men are endowed….” and changed attitudes about race. Take a stroll around the State House in Annapolis and you can see in the monuments dedicated to Marlyland’s most famous (or infamous as the case may be) jurists –Roger B. Tawney who penned the Dred Scott case and Thurgood Marshall of more recent fame — how our civil society has evolved. Agencies such as the US Supreme Court do indeed change our understanding and reflect changing cultural assumptions.
Today’s civil rights movement for civil marriage reflects a similar process of changing attitudes toward relationships. This is also part of a much larger evolution in understandings of what constitutes a viable relationship. In that regard, the focus on the construct of consummation is found rarely in civil law. Raskin’s bill presently before the Senate simply changes the wording of each section of Maryland’s Family Law that refers to marriage by substituting domestic partner. Neither consummation or procreation is includes as a test for validity for civil marriage–or for a domestic partnership.
For the most part, it seems to me that this is more likely found in Canon law. But, of course, that governs religious marriage, not civil marriage.
why the state should concern itself with a minority: I have never seen provisions in law that indicate a quantitative threshold for application of justice. Can you point to a constitutional principle that indicates that rights and protections are the entitlement of the majority, exclusively? We can agree that a vast majority of the population enters opposite-sex relationships, but why should that preclude equal protection of the civil law for the minority?
about procreation and generativity as the warrant for extending benefits Again, I am struggling to think of where in our Constitutional system provisions are made that one gets rights by acting in ways beneficial to the community. Rights aren’t earned. Given your endorsement of natural law, should you not argue instead that rights are not “earned” by the merits of individuals but by the fact of all men being equal as their endowment from the Creator? Were this a theological controversy, we might think by analogy of justificatioin through grace versus works.
about the objections of a of a “significant portion of the population.” That portion in opposition to civil rights protections for same-sex couples seems to be a dwindling number. The most recent Maryland polls have shown a signficant decline in opposition to protecting same-sex couples over the last several years as the question has been working its way through our Court system and now the legislature. Actually, a majority of Marylanders now favor civil protections (granted some prefer civil unions over civil marriage).
BUT, such a change in the numbers is not the reason for extending civil rights. Madison noted profoundly that our Constitutional system does not base granting of rights to the whim or caprice of a majority. Indeed, our Constitutional system protects minority groups from the tyranny of a majority. In Federalist Paper 51, Madison observed the value of protecting one group of citizens against the injustices of another, especially a majority group. In his words: “If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
#55 Faithful and Committed
Indeed, procreation is one aspect of nurturing the next generation, but it is not the whole. Perhaps, a better term is one used by the psychologist, Erik Erikson when he wrote about generativity. That is a matter of nurturing the next generation, but it goes beyond opposite-sex connections and popping out babies.
Generativity is an interesting concept and I think a good possible basis for recognizing some domestic partnerships. The word is new to me, but I can’t say I’m unfamiliar with the idea behind it: my definition of marriage in post #15 as a long-term complex of social, biological, and cultural behaviors implies that marriage is both a “generative†and procreative relationship. As you can see, I took pains to explain that my idea of marriage was far more than “simply making babiesâ€, as you wrote in post #61.
I would submit that “generativity†undermines your case for equalizing all domestic partnerships. For starters, the notion of generativity strengthens my particular case. If generativity is the basis for according recognition and protection to relationships, then potentially procreative heterosexual relationships have greater social benefits and responsibilities than nonprocreative relationships. Therefore society is therefore justified in granting these relationships more protections and benefits.
Secondly, the notion of generativity is a hierarchical notion that prioritizes, privileges and presupposes procreation (alliteration fortuitous.) It is useful notion precisely because it emphasizes that the procreative endeavor involves a complex of behaviors, some of them not directly concerned with childbirth and rearing. However, generativity can’t be understood properly without recognizing that responsible procreation ranks higher than, to use your example, keeping up the yard.
In short, one can’t even employ the concept of generativity without acknowledging the priority of responsible procreative relationships.
In my view, your position on civil marriage (or domestic partner) protections is that they serve as a carrot or stick to reward or punish behavior. I would suggest instead that there is a different ground; that is the obligation of civil society to enact laws in accordance with its Constitutional system. In the State of Maryland this involves treating citizens equally, among other factors. That is a matter of justice, not rewards and punishments.
It’s a matter of justice, I agree, and justice, legally and practically, is administered by means of rewards and punishments. You say that it is just for the state to conflate homosexual unions and heterosexual unions and administer benefits accordingly. I say that the state ought to recognize the just difference between them and administer benefits accordingly. We’re on the same page here.
I also agree that the state ought to treat citizens equally. That is not where we part company. Where we disagree is that you believe that heterosexual and homosexual unions, provided they meet certain requirements, are equal before the law. I believe they aren’t.
F&C;: Three final points.
First, Madison was [b]not[/b] a Deist. I know this is immaterial to the discussion but it’s one of my pet peeves. Jefferson, Payne and Franklin were Deists but the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians. Specifically, Madison was an Anglican, though I won’t hold that against him. Also, Madison originally opposed the addition of a bill of rights because he felt the checks and balances and the states would be sufficient to protect the people’s rights. Thankfully the cry for a bill of rights was triumphant and Madison introduced 12 amendments, 10 of which became the Bill of Rights.
I spoke of [i]consummation[/i] and civil annulments as a principle of English and American common law; I am not familiar with the specifics of Maryland law. Catholic Cannon Law does not required consummation for the validity of a marriage; a non-consummated marriage may be dissolved but it is still a valid marriage.
Finally, there is no civil right to marriage; see my post #38. You can couch your argument in terms of a “civil rights†struggle but just misappropriating terms from the civil rights movement does not make the push for homosexual “marriage†equal to the struggle of blacks and others. I think SF recently posted a [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9904/]video[/url] on point. I have continuously spoken of “benefits†and never of “rights†regarding civil marriage; the two terms are not synonymous. There is no injustice or denial of rights due to non-recognition of homosexual (or any other) relationships. As you pointed out above in #61, anti-sodomy laws have been struck down so there are currently no legal prohibitions to keep homosexuals from doing as they please, there is just no positive grant of [b]benefits[/b].