The ADF immediately put out a press release after yesterday's ruling on gay marriage from the New Jersey Supreme Court. It was a very strange statement. The title declares, NJ high court hands loss to marriage opponents. Then they spend most of the press release complaining about how bad the ruling is for "traditional marriage".
"If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing," said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy. "This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn't need constitutional protection. The court was right to conclude there is no fundamental right to same-sex 'marriage,' but to characterize marriage as just another option along with other 'unions' makes marriage meaningless. It's critical that people vote for marriage amendments like those in Arizona, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which prevent a court from giving same-sex couples marriage in everything but name only."
So the ruling is a loss for the other side, but it hurts our side so much that it proves the need for constitutional amendments forbidding such rulings. I'll take utterly confused nonsense for $1000, Alex. Unless of course by "marriage opponents" they are referring to themselves, which I think is quite appropriate. But somehow I doubt that. And I love this argument that if marriages exist along with civil unions, that makes marriage "meaningless." This is the single dumbest argument in the anti-gay marriage pantheon.
It's also rather offensive, I think, for those who are married. Marriage can't be meaningless unless actual marriages are meaningless, which means that they are declaring that all marriages in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Connecticut (the 4 states that now recognize either gay marriage or civil unions) to be meaningless; somehow I doubt the married couples in those states view it that way. And if they're not saying that, then they're saying nothing at all. To say that marriage could be meaningless without any actual marriages being meaningless is....well, meaningless. It's nothing more than gibberish, with no substantive or logical content whatsoever.
"In 20 states, the people have spoken by adopting amendments to protect marriage--by an average margin of 71 percent. We need such amendments to stop the kind of judicial activism found in this decision."
Isn't that amazing? Even while handing a loss to their opponents, the court was engaged in "judicial activism". Imagine what they would have done if they'd given gay marriage advocates a win instead of a loss! Did anyone actually read this press release for coherency before it was sent out?
"Legally, marriage is the state's way of protecting children by ensuring that whenever possible they are raised by their own mother and father," said Lavy. "Because same-sex couples can't procreate, this vital state interest is not advanced by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The court declined to address this issue because the attorney general specifically refused to make the argument."
Except that there are hundreds of thousands of children being raised by gay parents in the US right now. And the ADF is actively trying to prevent those children from getting the same kinds of legal protections given to other children whose parents are straight. You cannot blather on about protecting the children while you are doing everything you can to deny those protections to an entire group of children. Just more empty rhetoric from the religious right on this issue.
- Log in to post comments
You cannot blather on about protecting the children while you are doing everything you can to deny those protections to an entire group of children.
I have always wondered whether a son or daughter of a same-sex couple could bring a lawsuit against the state for denying his/her parents marriage - which directly determine the resources that child has access to in terms of insurance, healthcare and such. I don't see how this could fail, and it would be hilarious watching groups like the ADF attack the children they seem so hellbent on protecting.
Surveys indicate that public attitude toward gay marriage changes based on question wording and whether the word "marriage" is used. Results (click to see the results - http://publicagenda.org/issues/red_flags.cfm?issue_type=gay_rights) like these suggest that many people are still wrestling with the implications of same-sex marriage, so surveys on this issue should be interpreted cautiously. Want to know more about what the public thinks about same-sex marriage and other issues surrounding gay rights? Check out Public Agenda's Issue Guide on Gay Rights (http://publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=gay_rights).
Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy. For more information, go to http://www.publicagenda.org.
So, according to their logic, even heterosexual couples who cannot have a child of their own should not be allowed to marry? And adoption? Definitely a tool of the devil.
I'm just going to mosey out a week from Tuesday and fire another nail into the ADF's coffin here in Wisconsin. Along with my wife and my son.
Jiminiy Christmas, get over it.
It's also rather offensive, I think, for those who are married. Marriage can't be meaningless unless actual marriages are meaningless, which means that they are declaring that all marriages in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Connecticut (the 4 states that now recognize either gay marriage or civil unions) to be meaningless;
I may have posted this before, but still think it is meaningful here - on May 18, 2004, the day after gay marriages began being recognized in Massachsetts, where I am from, my sister, who still lives there and has been nothing but supportive of me after I came out, called me to celebrate. She asked me if I were proud of my home state, and I, of course, answered yes. Then I asked her whether her marriage was meaningless now, and she laughed, saying "oh, sure - the husband, the kids, the house, the mortgage, the car payments - all totally meaningless."
"Because same-sex couples can't procreate"? Hmm, strange statement, I don't think it is true. I have proof that same-sex couples can procreate, just not with each other, may husband has two kids of his own.
I wonder how long it will be before they can take the DNA out of a sperm and plant it in an egg, or take the DNA out of and egg an place in a sperm? This seems something that could possibly be done, and if so then gay couples could procreate. Just colour me crazy
I have a question about their excuse to ban same sex marriage: "Because same-sex couples can't procreate, this vital state interest is not advanced by handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples".
What is their explanation for why this is a "vital state interest"?
Is it biblical - go forth and procreate (or however it's worded)?
Or is it capitalistic - (and here I become a Marxist) - because the wealth in a capitalistic society always flows upward and so more and more poor people are always needed in order to sustain the demand at the bottom?
When do we realize that se have reached the number of people that the Earth can support?
I see it now, a brave new world where no woman over 50 is allowed to marry, and mandatory fertility tests for all couples about to tie the knot.
Interesting question. I am no biologist, so I don't know how realistic it is to imagine initiating fertilization in the way you described. But, let's imagine you can do it. There are still some restrictions on the process, even granting that DNA can be taken from the sex cells, and successfully placed inside a sperm or an egg, and it remain viable:
The problem is the XX/XY issue. The mother cannot donate a Y, no matter what process is used to try to fertilize one haploid egg with the haploid DNA of the other woman injected into a sperm. Therefore, females could only have more females. This isn't a big deal, I guess, but just something to keep in mind.
Now, with two males, you'd not have the same restriction -- you would just have to make sure that one of the sperm you're picking is an X sperm (remember that the male determines the sex of the child) but in theory, you could have either gender child with two males.
Oh, come on, Karl the Marxist, we're not there yet. The maximum is somewhere near 10-12 billion. We're not at 7 even yet.
Plus, poor people only exist to clean rich peoples' houses. And when they get too old to work, Adam Smith strangles them with his invisible hand.
I'm still trying to figure out how this makes my (childless by choice) marriage meaningless??
By much of the empty rhetoric spewing from the right that passes for argument these days, my hetero wife and I should not have been allowed to marry, and if the law is to protect children by having (forcing) them be raised by thier biological parents, then re-marrying after one has children should also be outlawed.
So by all counts, I'm pretty much the poster child for every thing wrong with the ADF's assertions. :)
My parents divorced when I was about 5, my dad remarried about 6 years later, and now we had 2 more kids from my step moms previous marriage....wonder how the ADF feels abou that marriage??
I think the ADF is barking up the wrong tree with the gay marriage issue. We all know that homosexuals do, and will continue to have children, such as from a previous marriage or through adoption or via artificial insemination. I think the ADF's real concern should not necessarily be gay marriage but rather the fact that homosexuals may raise children. Let's face it, just because you can't get married doesn't mean you still can't live together and raise a family.
The only way to really "protect the children" is to criminalize homosexuality to some degree. We must make it illegal for homosexuals to have contact with children under a certain age, at least in certain circumstances. To protect the children, we must remove all gay teachers from our schools. For the sake of the children, we need to keep homosexuals from adopting or even foster-parenting children. For the well-being of children everywhere, we need to either remove children from households with a gay person or remove the gay person from the household. If one parent is gay, give sole custody to the non-gay parent and put a restraining order on the gay parent. If both parents are gay, put the children under the State's protective custody until a suitable non-gay married coupled can be found. If an older sibling is gay, emancipate him/her immediately and remove him/her from the household (what teenager doesn't dream of being free from their parents control anyway?). And of course, artificial insemination should be limited to married couples who can both vouch for their heterosexuality with either a note from their clergyman or video tape evidence.
To the anti-gay marriage movement, I say "Stand up for your values" and get to the real issue. Stopping gay marriage really does very little to protect children because gay people will still have access to our children. If you really care about our nation's children, then drop the "marriage" from "Stop Gay Marriage" and stop paying lip service to protecting our children.
Geez, Bruce, you need a sarcasm tag on that- you sounded so much like an actual wingnut I had to check your blog to make sure you were joking. I do like the bit about "artificial insemination should be limited to married couples who can both vouch for their heterosexuality with either a note from their clergyman or video tape evidence"; sounds like a good setup for some jokes at the RCC's expense. "So you have a note from Father O'Riley- ohhhhh, that Father O'Riley- I'm sorry, you'll need a... different... clergyman to vouch for you on that matter."
Idea: Poll large numbers of married heterosexual couples in those states and ask them if they think of their marriage as "meaningful." One personal question, that's it. Hmmm... i wonder which way the results will tilt.
When the ADF said "NJ high court hands loss to marriage opponents." I assumed they were talking about the only people opposing marriages, the people like them who oppose same sex couples marrying. Contrary to what ADF says barring same sex couples from marriage does nothing to ensure that whenever possible children are raised by their own mother and father. As already stated it only ensures that the children of gays don't have their care-givers supported with the rights and benefits of a legal union.
The state also has a vital interest in happy productive taxpayers and if marriage makes same sex couples happy it also makes them more productive thus furthering this vital interest.