A group called The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is proposing to modify Washington state’s marriage laws to better comport with a recent anti-gay-rights marriage ruling by the Washington state supreme court:
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would… require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled.
Initiative 957 is actually the first of three planned initiatives; “The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.”
The Defense of Marriage Alliance (“DOMA” – hee hee) website explains:
Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.
I don’t know if this is politically wise or foolish, but I do think it’s hilarious. Elizabeth at Family Scholars doesn’t agree:
Absurd. No one says marriage exists for the “sole” purpose of procreation. But some of us do say that gutting marriage of any legal or cultural relevance to encouraging men and women who make babies together to stick together for the sake of the baby and each other — that gutting marriage of that could be a very bad thing for children overall.
But there’s no logical reason to believe that state recognition of same-sex marriages would have that effect, any more than state recognition of infertile couples’ marriages currently has that effect. Recognizing same-sex marriage logically requires rejecting the view that heterosexual reproduction is the sole purpose of marriage; but it doesn’t require rejecting the view that encouraging women and men to become committed parents who stick together is one purpose of marriage.
Elizabeth goes on:
Also a weird touch of envy that heterosexual sex MAKES BABIES.
Thank goodness queers have heterosexuals like Elizabeth around to use their magical gay-mind-reading powers to let us all know what queers are really thinking! Why, without heterosexuals like Elizabeth around to tell us what the gays are thinking but not saying, we might actually have to listen to what non-heterosexual people say! The horror, the horror!
But I really want to address Elizabeth’s contention that “No one says marriage exists for the ‘sole’ purpose of procreation.” If that’s not precisely what anti-gay activists have been saying, they’re certainly coming awfully close. Here’s Elizabeth’s friend Maggie Gallagher wrote, in a Weekly Standard piece entitled “What Marriage is For”:
Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. […] The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up.
Next, here’s what Margaret Somerville — one of the best-known and best-respected academic opponents of equal marriage rights — says marriage is for (pdf link):
Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life.
Here’s what On Lawn — who frequently commented in support of Elizabeth’s anti-marriage-equality views, back when Elizabeth’s blog accepted comments — wrote on his blog yesterday:
It is the 800lb gorilla in the room that marriage is about responsible procreation. Every benefit and provision of it intersects in that single purpose.
Next, here’s what the Family Research Council blog says:
“Is marriage solely for the purpose of creation?” My tentative answer: Yes and no. I agree with natural law thinker Robert George, who says, “Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of person that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect…” He adds: “Although not all reproductive-type acts are marital, there can be no marital act that is not reproductive in type.”
A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry–both gay and straight–must be willing and able to engage in “marital acts”, acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.
Blogger Thomas Shawn:
Human nature defines the properties of marriage as between a man and a woman with the primary purpose of procreation and the education of children.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Marriage exists so that the spouses might grow in mutual love and, by the generosity of their love, bring children into the world and serve life fully.
These are hardly unique or even unusual examples, and many of them represent the intellectual leadership of the anti-equality movement. The best thing that can be said in defense of Elizabeth’s statement is that not all these people are saying that procreation is the “sole” purpose of marriage; there’s some wiggle about whether these folks consider reproduction the “sole” purpose or merely the “primary” purpose.
But if Elizabeth’s argument is based on the word “sole,” then Elizabeth’s case is awfully weak. After all, DOMA’s argument doesn’t change much if we strike the word “sole” and stick in “primary” instead. (“And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole primary purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.”)
Other blogs yakking about this ballot proposal: Shakespeare’s Sister, Bring It On!, Pam’s House Blend, Goosing the Antithesis, Lunkhead’s Diary, Eclectism, Feministing, and the Republic of T.
It seems reasonable to me. The state would need to create a civil union provision, to preserve the civil rights of people who do not intend to have children, but – unlike some of the family scholars crowd, I guess – I don’t mind having the courage of my convictions. Marriage is, or should be, primarily about kids. I’ve no real objection to restricting the label to procreative heterosexual couples.
Be careful what you wish for.
Robert —
What about procreative homosexual couples? What about adoptive (?!?) homosexual couples?
All “It’s about the children!” arguments ignore that many lesbians and gays have children, either from previous straight relationships, through adoption, or through the use of the same reproductive technologies straights use.
Lesbian and gay couples are just like straight couples, right down to the point that there are many same-sex couples out there raising kids.
I’m not opposed to limiting certain “marriage rights” to couples who have children, particularly in the area of taxation and inheritance. I grew up in a state that had forced inheritance, meaning, children couldn’t be disowned (except for certain actions by the child, such as abandoning a parent or failing to ransom the parent if captured by pirates …) I think that couples which don’t have children — queer or straight — should lose a portion of their estate on death to the state. Raising kids, whether done by same-sex or opposite-sex couples, is an expensive proposition and should be borne by all of society, since all of society is who benefits. And that burden should fall upon everyone, including those people, straight and queer, who don’t raise children of their own.
Is marriage a religious institution?
Maybe I’m just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop our belly aching about the issue of “gay marriage” until our work is done, and we have all the same rights that we deserve. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that even many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some equal rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions to me are not equal. It is a concilation prize. It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about politics. Even the politicians that are in favor of calling our civil unions marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and also what is right and what is wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. Beside we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state. That’s the wonderful thing about our country.
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I’m sorry, I’m only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part is, no one even has to get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil, but that may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nations history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being unfair and not following the principals set forth in that document Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408
No one says marriage exists for the “sole” purpose of procreation.
One thing I’ll say for Elizabeth is that she will never let the truth get in the way of her prejudice. This is just another in a long series of, to be charitable, egregious mistakes on the facts for her.
If the petition comes near me, I’m signing it and then I’m voting for it when/if it shows up on the ballot.
So you’d be ok with annulling the marriages of infertile couples?
I’d be OK with it not being called a marriage, if the rest of the family law for that state were adjusted to preserve the civil rights of the people of the state.
What about procreative homosexual couples? What about adoptive (?!?) homosexual couples?
I don’t oppose adoptions by gay folks, but we don’t need to order society around that particular choice. There aren’t any procreative homosexual couples; I assume that you mean lesbian where one partner is inseminated by a third party or fathers a child with a third party. Same scenario as gay adoption; your right, but that isn’t the form of child-rearing our society must protect.
Wouldn’t this legitismise polygamy too? Since if you had children with more than one partner you’d be married to both, and unable to seperate from either.
Think how many wives sperm donors could have….
I’m inclined to agree with Robert but for the opposite reason – confining marriage to a purely procreative act would go a long ways in rendering the concept obsolete in our declining-population age. Of course, marriage has also evolved over the centuries, and in today’s conception it is more about the commitment of the couple to each other than about the kiddies, or lack thereof. We could sort of put out a sign that says ‘STOP HERE – marriage is a bundle of legal rights to subsidize the incubation and/or making of babies from this point on’, but with all the popular baggage the word has, that dog won’t bite. I find it a teensy bit problematic if the message out there is that couples without children can’t make that last symbolic step because they can’t be ‘really’ committed to each other.
Committed couples, after all, must subscribe to FRC dogma, and let creationists with notepads into their bedroom and make sure never to have more than five-second sloppy humps in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.
“Absurd. No one says marriage exists for the “sole” purpose of procreation. But some of us do say that gutting marriage of any legal or cultural relevance to encouraging men and women who make babies together to stick together for the sake of the baby and each other — that gutting marriage of that could be a very bad thing for children overall.”
Yes I know. Blah blah blah dee blah ‘cultural relevance’ blah ‘I’ll skirt around the claim only so far as it can screw the queers’ blah ‘but not literally because that would the Virgin Mary cry and then that shower curtain will grow a weird fungus’ blah. But I think it’s sort of interesting that she emphasizes that men and women who ‘make babies together’ – always the poet – STAYING together, is the main purpose of marriage. Makes you wonder, what’s her position on shotgun marriages? I mean, if it’s nitpicky word games she wants…
So would you annul all heterosexual marriages in which the children were adopted or conceived through IVF using donor sperm and/or eggs?
Yes, under the circumstances we’re discussing here.
Who knew that IVF was a form of child rearing? I thought it was a form of procreation, but hey what do I know?
So if your spouse had become infertile after her earlier pregnancies, you think that she should have been forbidden from marrying you? If the two of you had been unable to produce children, your marriage should have been dissolved?
Of course, that would be fine in your magic pixie world where an identical institution under a different name already exists for those denied access to “true” marriage. Sadly, the rest of us don’t get to live in your magic pixie world, where the courage of your convictions means denying people the legal rights of marriage in order to force a word to meaning something it doesn’t mean.
This is honestly the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. If anything like that ever got passed, I would first throw up, and then move to Canada.
I agree with Eva Key. This is outrageous and everytime I hear something stupid that is being planned by Right Wing nutjobs, I begin to think I really do need an escape plan to Canada.
First off, for me, personally, while I do know that I eventually want to get married when I meet Mr. Right-for-Me, I’m not 100% sure I want kids. I can hardly handle my dog. (But I’m young, so who knows; my opinions might change). Why should I be forced to be on a 3 year time line to have kids? What if Mr. Right-for-Me and I aren’t financially stable enough for kids in 3 years of marriage? What if one of us loses our job within that time period? Or goes to get another degree? Or what if we just want to take a few years to be newlyweds and travel? I want to make sure if I have kids it’s because i WANT them, and because I am emotionally and financially prepared to give my kids a GOOD home, not because the state is telling me I have to have them or else get my marriage annuled. Holy crap.
I can’t even believe this is an actual issue. I mean, someone, or multiple someones, actually wrote this down in black in white and thought, “Hey, forcing people to have kids or else they have to get divorced–sounds like a good idea! Let’s do it!” As if 2 people in a marriage don’t have enough stress already. Can you imagine the conflict in a relationship as that 3 year clock gets closer and closer? And I’m not even going to touch on the issues of gay rights, issues for infertile couples, problems with polygamy, etc. etc. b/c I could be here forever.
Oh yeah, one more thing, if our definition of “marriage” is entirely dependent upon, and reduced to, a sperm making contact with an egg and being fertilized, then that’s just sad.
If the two of you had been unable to produce children, your marriage should have been dissolved?
Under the terms of this law, sure.
Don’t mistake my willingness to live under such a regime (if it were consistently, humanely and fairly applied) for advocacy of same.
Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry–both gay and straight–must be willing and able to engage in “marital acts”, acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.
*coffeespew*
Dear Family Research Council: have you tried sharing this statement with disability groups? I bet it’d be real popular with them.
Okay, fair enough. Over in hypothetical universe, I wouldn’t have a problem with my relationship with my spouse being formalized differently because we don’t have children and you do.
The problem I have is with distinguishing coupled bio parents from coupled non-bio parents. I think that any regime that legally distinguishes bio parent couples from non-bio parent couples is likely to be fundamentally flawed (to whatever extent it makes the distinction). A couple who are raising children together need and deserve formal social support that a couple not raising children together don’t (child raising is hard work and benefits society as a whole), but a couple raising children that one parent gave birth to and the other parent sired do not need or deserve any additional support from society than a couple who are raising a child that one parent contributed to biologically, but the other didn’t (step-kids or sperm donor or egg donor), or where neither parent contributed biologically (adoption).
DJ & Eva,
Relax. This is being put forth by a pro-marriage equality group. The purpose is both to point out the hypocrisy of the anti-equality forces as well as to gain a review of the lame (from what I’ve read) Washington State Supreme Court decision against marriage equality.
So far, I’ve really only met one anti-equality crazy (John “Sperm & Eggs” Howard) who would seriously support this in the real world.
Indeed. The distinguishing you point is out is probably due to the prejudice in favor of heterosexual unions which biologically produce their own offspring. It harkens back to the notion that adopted families, step-families, etc. are somehow “damaged” goods which have failed the ideal nuclear family ideal and are therefore lower in social priority.
“It seems reasonable to me. The state would need to create a civil union provision, to preserve the civil rights of people who do not intend to have children, but – unlike some of the family scholars crowd, I guess – I don’t mind having the courage of my convictions. Marriage is, or should be, primarily about kids. I’ve no real objection to restricting the label to procreative heterosexual couples.”
Just courious Robert….Who the fuck do you think you and the state are to restrict the right of people of chosing to live in an non procreative union and call it marriage if they want?
Sergio – I am, in fact, Batman.
Your outrage that the state would dare regulate the private lives of its citizens is well-founded. But you’re going to need a time machine, and a map of Sumeria, to strike at the root of the problem.
Where does it say this is put up by a marriage equality group? I would be relieved if it were so, but I don’t see anything on the website implying that it’s not sincere.
From Amp’s original post:
The Defense of Marriage Alliance (”DOMA” – hee hee) website explains:
Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.
Chesna,
Did you even bother to read the first two paragraphs that show up when you click the link? Here they are:
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
See? It says it in the first 11 words on their page.
You know, there is a serious point to the ‘marriage is about procreation’ line. Not all that long ago if two heterosexual people were having sex the woman would probably get pregnant after not that long. Because of childbirth and childrearing the woman would then be placed in serious financial trouble were it not for marriage. I’ve a little sympathy for this. Yes it’s Patriarchal, but plenty of women would be in serious poverty if they hadn’t had the claim on the financial resources of their husband that marriage gave them.
I know you won’t like me pointing this out, but that’s where the “able to have and raise children” comes from – gay couples just don’t find themselves accidently pregnant as a consequence of sex. Hetrosexual women do, and have historically needed some protection because of this. But, this is looking like a serious anachronism at the moment.
With contraception and abortion, the inevitablility of pregnancy from heterosexual sex just isn’t there. The whole thing, frankly, is looking like a pork barrel where the married use their status to get lots of cash redistibuted to them from single people. Both the champions of traditional and SSM are on exactly the same side here. The whole debate is really just a minor squable in the grand scheme of things.
nik,
The other major difference between “not so long ago” and now is that now women are allowed to own property and to work. Yeah, it’s got a long way to go to be equal, but it’s a major advantage.
Focusing on procreation assumes that it doesn’t much matter what happens afterward; if you can’t breed, but are willing to adopt a child, too bad; you don’t get the benefits of marriage even though the purpose of those benefits is to get you to stay together for the sake of the children.
For example, all couples who wish to marry–both gay and straight–must be willing and able to engage in “marital acts”, acts that are reproductive in type.
Is this supposed to be FRC-speak for “vaginal intercourse”?
Ok, I reread the link and I’m glad this isn’t actually being planned by the Right, but it does scare me to a certain extent that there are some supporters of it, especially considering this is a lefty blog. :)
Re: Nik’s comment on women previously needing to be supported through marriage if there were “accidents:” His argument assumes that marriage is a solution to financial stability. First off, it assumes that the man has the financial means to support the woman he has impregnated, when he could easily be unemployed, unskilled, lazy, or otherwise financially unstable. Even though men had more opportunities for gainful employment earlier, it certainly wasn’t a guarantee for any fiscally secure lifestyle. This theory further assumes that marriage is the only way of creating financial stability for a woman who now has to raise a child (which, clearly isn’t true. see: child support payments).
Also, for supporters of this measure, doesn’t it seem illogical and actually detrimental to create a system that encourages people to have biological children in order to obtain a legally recognized marriage when there are already hundreds of thousands of children who are living in foster care, who might not be adopted because of the marital requirements of such a system?
gay couples just don’t find themselves accidently pregnant as a consequence of sex
Neither do elderly couples, couples where one or both persons are sterile, or couples where one or both are disabled so that vaginal intercourse doesn’t happen.
Not really. Unmarried women have always been allowed to own property and work.
So far, I’ve really only met one anti-equality crazy (John “Sperm & Eggs” Howard) who would seriously support this in the real world.
Thanks for thinking of me Jake. I’m not surprised that my position is still unclear to you, since you never stick around in a conversation long enough to listen and learn.
Married couples have a right to conceive children, but they do not have to. Marriages cannot be prohibited from procreating. Same-sex couples should not have a right to conceive children. Same-sex couples should be prohibited from proreating.
Only natural meiosis should be allowed, only the joining of an unadulterated egg from a female and an unadulterated sperm from a male. The genetic engineering required to do same-sex conception is unsafe and unethical and shouldn’t be allowed.
Not really. Unmarried women have always been allowed to own property and work.
Not really. It has, until recently always been legally and socially acceptable to discriminate against unmarried women at work–in hiring, wages and on-the-job treatment. It was also acceptable to restrict the ability of unmarried women to own property (for example, by declining to issue them credit).
But to address the point you’d rather avoid, it has until quite recently been the case that in American marriage, the wife was (legally) subsumed into her husband, rather than having equal standing as she does today. This is a change not only from centuries of Anglo-American law and culture, but from millenia of human tradition. Funny you don’t see the Traditional Marriage crowd whining about that (openly).
John Howard sez: “Only natural meiosis should be allowed, only the joining of an unadulterated egg from a female and an unadulterated sperm from a male. The genetic engineering required to do same-sex conception is unsafe and unethical and shouldn’t be allowed.”
So, would that mean that you’re against infertile opposite sex couples using invitro methods to get pregant? And why do I doubt that you are really concerned about the “safety” of same sex couples getting pregant?
Hi, DJ. It’s partly the safety, but you’re correct, I’d be against it even if it were safe, because it would create an industry where none is needed, because it is true that Love Makes a Family. It would send the wrong message to families that adopt or use donor gametes to conceive, that biological connections are necessary for a loving family. And it would open the door to other forms of genetic engineering and genetic enhancement, creating a Gattaca situation of natural people and enhanced people. But that’s all overshadowed and rendered irrelevant by the safety issues, which are paramount and cannot be avoided.
The only way to avoid that Gattaca outcome is a law that limits conception to an egg and a sperm, similar to Missouri’s Amendment Two that passed in 2006. Few people realized that it contained an egg and sperm clause, and as far as I could tell, no gay rights groups objected to it prohibiting same-sex conception. Perhaps that’s because they knew they could go to New Jersey, where it is legal and research is progressing quickly. We need a national egg and sperm law, and then we’ll see if gay rights groups start objecting to it. I propose that we enact it as part of a deal that also creates federal recognition for civil unions that do not grant conception rights but do grant all the other benefits and protections of marriage.
And we can save Ampersand some trouble (my posts are all automatically moderated here) if we take this conversation over to my eggandsperm.blogspot blog post on this subject. My eggandserpm.org website has lots of links if you want some more info about same-sex conception.
I can’t see why you would interpret my remarks like that when I was the one pointing out that *unmarried* women were able to work and own property. That wasn’t a point I was avoiding.
Coverture’s actually very interesting from the point of view I was talking about – i.e. marriage is just pork barrel politics. As you say a woman’s legal personality was subsumed with her husband’s during marriage. So things like women inheriting pensions and estates from their husbands without being taxed was very logical from this point of view – there wasn’t any change of ownership – legally speaking they were the same person.
But it’s very hard to justify these advantages when women can own property independently and look after themselves. Enormous amounts of property are inherited every year by women who outlive their husbands and aren’t touched by the tax system. It’s like the oppresive legal aspects of marriage have been stripped away, but the advantages have been ossified.
nik, you kind of went off the board there with the example of inheritance and pensions. A woman isn’t legally ‘covered’ by her husband if he’s dead, after all.
Again, the “they can’t make babies” argument is nonsensical in a world where nobody has to make babies to marry, and “it’s Tradition” is equally nonsensical when we’ve jettisoned many other, seemingly ironclad traditions.
I just find it so fascinating that John Howard has actually built an entire political philosophy around his use of the slippery slope fallacy.
I mean, looked at in the right light, that’s freaking amazing.
First off, I was under the impression that Gattaca was a sci-fi movie with Ethan Hawke. Please let me know if it has any actual scientific meaning.
Secondly, *pregnancy*and *child birth* have inherent risks in them by themselves. Invitro fertilization isn’t incredibly risky, especially not when compared to other medical procedures. I could get some stats on this, but I’m totally swamped with work and I cannot justify the added procrastination. I can say, however, that 4 of my close friends have had invitro fertilization, 3 of them are heterosexual, and they and their babies all came out fine. Oh, and none of them genetically modified their offspring to look like Ethan Hawke, or Uma Thurman, if that matters.
Under coverture a woman and her husband are the same legal person. So she didn’t pay inheritance tax on the husband’s death. Why? It’s already ‘her’ property (even though her husband controled it under their joint legal personality). A situation where a woman married, her property got covertured, her husband died, and she got taxed when her property got transfered back to her would be perverse. The reason being that you can’t inherit from yourself.
But post-coverture you’ve two legal people. Both own property seperately. And a widow does inherit. Why isn’t she taxed like everyone else?
If you want to understand the modern nature of marriage I think you should look here. Marriage went in a very interesting direction at this point. And for all the arguments between advocates of ‘traditional’ marriage and SSM they’re both totally orthodox and in complete agreement on the fundamentals.
John Howard is a rare example of consistency of position – although even his anti-marriage equality comrades view his position as extreme and a bit over the edge. I apologize to him both for incorrectly identifying his position on the issue as well as never resuming the conversation we started last year. In my defense, I have never in my life been as busy as I have been for the last year. I’m hoping that will be changing soon. But then, I’ve been hoping that for ages.
One reason she doesn’t get taxed is that there used to be a lot of “protect the poor widow” laws regarding the distribution of property. Which didn’t extend to widowers until we started having a lot of lawsuits over the subject.
The reason being that you can’t inherit from yourself
If that were true, there would not BE inheritance laws regarding widows. If the wife “is” her husband after death, then the owner of the property did not die, any more than a business ceases to exist when a founder dies.
“Couverture” is not a verb, btw.
DJ, everything is risky. That doesn’t mean we allow everything. For example, all driving is risky, yet we don’t allow people to drive 100mph the wrong way on the highway. And I’m not talking about IVF, I’m talking about genetic engineering of the sort that would be required to conceive a baby with two female parents, or two male parents. We don’t have to allow that. It has been scientifically proven to be ridiculously risky in animals – and not to the parents, to the person that will occupy that body that the parents commission and the technicians produce.
And Gattaca is scientifically proven to be a mavie about a possible future. Have you seen it?
Are you in favor of allowing labs to start creating people however they want, or do you think Congress should prohibit non-meiosis conception, and we should only allow it if it is proven safe and wise? If you’re in favor of allowing it, then you won’t care what it has to do with marriage. I’d agree, if we allow it, we should certainly allow same-sex marraige, and indeed we do allow it, so I don’t understand how there can be 49 states that don’t allow people to marry that are allowed to conceive together.
Same-sex couples should have civil unions, and not have the right to attempt to conceive together.
Thank you for your car driving example. It perfectly illustrates what I’m trying to say. Car driving is risky, yes? People can get into accidents and possibly kill themselves or someone else. But we don’t ban it completely just because it has risks. Instead, we *regulate* it. We make minimum age requirements and make you take an eye test and a written test and a driving test to ensure that you can undertake the risks and dangers. The same argument can be made for doctor assisted reproduction. The doctor makes the patient aware of the risks and dangers, informs her of the process, and then assesses whether she is a good candidate for the procedure. The mere fact that the procedure is risky should not preclude someone from obtaining it. The same argument could be made about *any* relatively new procedure. Example: A few years ago, I found out I had a tumor which turned out to be an extremely rare form of cancer. I was presented with a new treatment at the time that had only been practiced for about a year, possibly less. But, to me, weighing my options, I felt it was worth the risk, and a more favorable alternative than chemotherapy. Over 6 years later, I’m fine. If doctors couldn’t practice any new procedures, or had to have certain percentages of success rates, that severely limits patients’ options in choosing what is best for them, as an individual.
As for Gattaca. Sigh. Yes, I’ve seen it. It’s a horrible C-list movie, but I will concede that Ethan Hawke and Jude Law are quite handsome. It’s important to note, however, that it’s science-FICTION. The *fiction* means it’s not real. I’ve also seen Toy Story and I’m not afraid of children’s playthings coming to life.
But, just to humor your Gattaca concerns, John, I just find it very ironic that you are so concerned with the paranoid possibility of the segregation and differential treatment of future humans that have been scientifically constructed, and yet, fail to exert the same sort of concern over the discrimination which is currently occuring on this earth by people who have been born by your own preferred sperm and eggs method. Your advocacy that same sex unions should be limited to civil unions, and that same sex couples should not be allowed to conceive children, shows this prejudice. So, instead of rolling up a snowball of paranoia and tossing it down the slippery slope of an imagined future, why not live in today and try to ensure equal treatment now?
Hey, as long as we don’t have to be as stupid as the breeders, that’s fine with me. Attempt to conceive… together. Snort.
Maybe you could explain to us what I’m doing wrong with the dildo, ’cause as good as it gets, I haven’t been able to get the damn thing to ejaculate.
Technology, my ass. You’re just looking for the slimmest of excuses to shore up your bigotry.
Why’s it funny, Q Grrl? There’s no theoretical reason why two women couldn’t conceive. Two men would be trickier, I gather. John’s got monomania on the subject, but he’s quite right about the technology and the potential for this to happen.
DJ, your response is so wound up with contradictions it is about to explode. On the one hand, you talk about how it should be allowed, on the other hand, you say it is fiction. You are right it should be regulated, that is what I am attempting to do. Currently, any form of it would be unsafe and shouldn’t be allowed. It isn’t science fiction that it is unsafe, it is science fiction that it is safe. You actually seem to oppose regulation, you seem to want it to be made safe and available, with the only “regulation” being that the would-be parents are informed of the risks. We have no way of predicting what the risks are, except that we know they are intolerable and there is no reason to subject a person to them (they aren’t born by the brave parents who are too self-centered to consider adoption). It would just be stupid and foolish to attempt to make a baby from two people of the same sex. Why do you want to be able to do that? Explain why it is so important to have the right to attempt same-sex conception, please. Explain why it is more important than equal benefits and protections for same-sex couples.
If people are willing, I’d like to bring the discussion of John Howard’s ideas on this thread to a close; I don’t really see any point to it, and my experience is that debate with John tends to drive any other discussions out of a thread.
Second the motion.
Forget Gattaca.
Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979), Scene 7
Pingback: Jewess » Blog Roundup: Ducking punches, Muslim Zionists, Marriage for Procreation and No More Wigs
Gattaca concerns:
People are already privileged based on skin color, eye color, hair color, height, weight, etc. Always have been.
Designer babies are already being created.
So I guess I’m not getting the point.
Is the point that this is ok for straight couples but not gay couples? That it isn’t ok at all?
You can’t stop it. As long as couples are willing to pay huge dollar amounts for a baby, there will be suppliers jockeying for the dollars.
A family is two or more people who are committed to each other and work toward the common good of the family unit.
Everyone has the right to form a family and to enjoy the benefits thereto.
To impute to those who oppose same-sex marriage the argument that “gays can’t reproduce” as a reason that they should not be able to marry (i.e., the purpose, or one of the primary purposes, of marriage is to produce children, and since gays can’t reproduce they don’t qualify) is merely a distortion of their arguments. That is, it is a classic strawman argument. The only people making this “absurd and flawed” argument are the SUPPORTERS of same-sex marriage, such as The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. I’ve never seen those who oppose same-sex marriage make this argument.
Marriage relates courtship and spousal selection to reproduction precisely because the FACT of human reproduction implicates the political necessity that is the ORDERLY perpetuation of the nation and society.
Because reproduction is a FACT and will have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad, the mechanisms of marriage and family law seek to regulate the selection of spouses and stabilize the relationship once the selection is made because of the POTENTIAL OF MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER TO CREATE SOCIAL DISORDER when they do reproduce.
From experience, it is taken as given that stable mother/father relationships are the most beneficial arrangement for raising children, and marriage seeks in an important way to assure children the support from the father responsible for their existence, which rationalizes the conferring of rights and benefits as an inducement for heterosexual couples to achieve this objective.
Same-sex relationships have NOTHING AT ALL to do with either the natural, biological purpose of spouse selection or the political purpose of it as well. Sexual relations between members of the same sex and the relationships that might derive from these have at best a NEUTRAL EFFECT on society in the best of times, and a negative effect when population declines menace a nation. Therefore, it would be IRRATIONAL to confer the status of marriage upon a relationship that is forever separated from the purpose for which it is intended.
The state purpose of marriage is to bring ORDER to the particular human activity that is procreation. It is not an obligation to reproduce.
Pingback: The Procreation Imperative at The Republic of T.
http://www.ValueALLfamilies.com
Please go to this website. It shows how James Dobson of (Focus on the Family) uses gays for political advantage. Karl Rove had Dobson on his speed dial. Just another way for Republicans to divide and conquer. The “marriage amendment” will not only make “marriage” illegal for gay Americans but also ANY kind of legal civil unions. What everyone seems to be leaving out is the second sentence of the marriage amendment. It states “ALL legal rights associated with marriage can not be given to gays.”
In Michigan this month, 375 gay Americans in committed domestic partnerships just lost their health insurance because of the 2004 Michigan “marriage amendment.”
This is not what America stands for. It is simply prejudice against gay people. We need to grow up and vote for things that matter. Bashing gay people should not be top of the list. The “caveman” thinking of the Republican party has got to go.
Yabba “W” Doooooooo
Extinguish the CAVEMAN in 2008. Vote Democratic!!!! We the people means ALL the people.
http://www.valueALLfamilies.com
Google: Michigan gays lose health insurance
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=1344&q=michigan+gays+lose+health+insurance&btnG=Google+Search