Skip to main content

I had a conversation recently over on HuffPo about marriage equality that, in the end, chilled me to the bone.

I'm a lawyer and a former teacher. I'm not a law professor, but I like to educate people about the law. So I sometimes go over to the HuffPo comment threads and try to reason out with same-sex marriage opponents just what their opposition is based on. What I'm really looking for is an explanation that would satisfy the standards of the Supreme Court's key civil rights decisions, and thereby objectively justify excluding same-sex couples from being married under the law.

The problem, obviously, is that once you frame the issue properly and explain the legal precedents and standards involved, no one can come up with a good reason why we should not allow same-sex marriage. I remember many years ago when someone first suggested the idea of gay marriage to me (being neither gay nor married, nor considering marriage at that time, I had never thought of it before.) My first reaction, after thinking about it for a few seconds, was, "Why not?" Simply put, after all these years I have yet to hear a good answer to that question.

So, essentially, that's the question I always ask at the beginning of every conversation, the question I challenge gay-marriage opponents to answer without resorting to what amounts to homophobic bigotry, religious or quasi-religious dogma or retrograde notions about "morality," all of which are inherently subjective. When I push these folks for objective reasons, or an objective correlation between banning gay marriage and whatever it is they "believe," most of them can't and they just give up.

But sometimes they don't. Follow me below the Mets-logo-on-meth for an example of one who didn't, and a long, dark journey into the sick, twisted place he took me.

The proper way to frame the same-sex marriage dispute is not gay-vs.-straight, religious-vs.-secular, state-vs.-federal, etc. It's not even about "defining" marriage. The proper framing is equality vs. exclusivity.

What same-sex couples seek is nothing more or less than the legal status of "married," with each partner legally the other's "spouse." Full stop. Now, that carries with it hundreds of benefits and privileges that exist by operation of law, by virtue of that status, that cannot be attained by private contract. And there is, of course, more to marriage than legal status, but for these purposes that's beside the point. Generally speaking, the states make "married" status available to any couple that wishes to get married, provided that (1) they both can and do legally consent; (2) they are not already married to someone else; and (3) they are not close blood relatives. There are good reasons for these three restrictions, and just about everyone is OK with them. They have either not been challenged or have been found not to offend anyone's constitutional rights.

At best, same-sex marriage opponents would add (or, really, maintain) a fourth restriction, (4) one applicant must be a man and the other a woman, which is essentially the restriction being challenged today. It could also be said that opponents seek to "define" marriage that way, because a definition of "marriage" as "one man, one woman" is really the only justification for that restriction. It would be wrong, however, to suggest that supporters of same-sex marriage want to "define" marriage. Indeed, "marriage" need not be defined at all in order for it to include same-sex couples. Definition implies restriction; proponents of marriage equality seek, at most, to remove a restriction that opponents seek to maintain. If anyone seeks to "define" marriage, it is the latter, not the former.

Nevertheless, the proper framing of this dispute is whether "married" and "spouse" status, conferred and recognized by law, should be available to same-sex couples (i.e., "equality"), or whether it should be reserved for opposite-sex couples only ("exclusivity"). [Always assuming for the sake of argument that, gay or straight, they meet the three aforementioned criteria.] This framing then becomes the starting point for evaluating exclusivity under the rubric established in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down miscegenation laws as unconstitutional. The essence of the Loving decision is twofold:

1. "Marriage," viz., the right to marry the person of one's choosing, is a fundamental constitutional right (or "liberty interest") protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any restrictions on marriage are therefore subject to strict scrutiny, i.e., they require the state to demonstrate (1) a compelling governmental interest in the restriction, and (2) that the restriction is narrowly tailored to that interest. The Court determined that there was no compelling governmental interest in limiting marriage to same-race couples only; maintaining racial purity, or the "supremacy of the white race," was not a compelling governmental interest.

2. The restriction of marriage to same-race couples only, even though it purported to treat the races equally in that the restrictions and penalties did not depend on which race you were, still violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it constituted divergent treatment by the laws based on racial classifications.

One thing I have to keep reminding opponents of same-sex marriage (let's call them "exclusivists") when I have these conversations is that the United States of America is a free country. What that means, inter alia, is that when a person seeks either a substantive right or equal treatment under the law, he does not have to justify it or demonstrate that he should have it; rather, the state has to justify the restriction and demonstrate why he should not have that right or why he should not have equal treatment. Therefore, proponents of equality do not have to justify equality; the state has to justify exclusivity. That's the essence of what "liberty and justice for all" actually means. Liberty, and justice, for all.

So, whenever I have a conversation about this with an exclusivist, I always try to push the conversation into this framing and get him or her to provide me with the following:

(1) A compelling governmental interest that justifies exclusivity; and

(2) A direct, objective correlation between exclusivity and that interest.

Many exclusivists will then cite, in one manner or another, human procreation as a "compelling governmental interest." The state, they say, has a compelling interest in promoting and encouraging procreation, and since straight couples can procreate and gay couples can't, only the former should be allowed to marry. Now, as we all know, there are a myriad of logical and practical problems and contradictions with that formulation, which I don't really need to detail here. The most obvious, which exclusivists invariably ignore, is that it does not account for infertile straight couples or those that simply don't want to have children, let alone the fact that marriage is not conditioned on procreation, nor on the capacity or intent to procreate. But all of those problems and contradictions all amount to the same basic point: That exclusivity is not "narrowly tailored" to those interests. Marriage may serve those interests, whether directly or incidentally, but exclusivity does not.

And here's where the dark heart of the exclusivist begins to reveal itself.

I had a conversation with an exclusivist over at HuffPo recently, who was especially interested in, and adamant about, human procreation as the justification for exclusivity. [Click here to read the entire thing.] It started when I wrote this:

All of the things we like about hetero marriage, including (but not limited to) procreation, will continue to be true and continue to occur if access to marriage is no longer restricted to hetero couples, who will continue to marry and procreate as they desire; the civic/legal status "married" (or "spouse") will be no less accessible to hetero couples than it already is. Hence not only is there no compelling governmental interest, but even if promoting "traditional marriage," "family," "procreation," &c. were such an interest, a law banning same-sex marriage would not be narrowly tailored to serve that interest."
A person called "las Novios" replied thusly:
You are wrong about "including procreation." No homosexual couple can procreate without resorting to some form of sex with the other gender - which, I might add, is what traditionally has defined "marriage." So no homosexual can procreate without, in some sense, "marrying" in the traditional sense.
And off we went.

As I labored to frame the discussion in the terms laid out above, dismissing a number of irrelevancies (like the "federal government defining marriage" and what-not) along the way, I had to keep reminding this individual that

Hetero marriage and procreation will continue unabated either way.
[P]rocreation and the potential for procreation will continue unabated when same-sex couples are recognized by law as "married."
[H]etero marriage and procreation will continue unabated when same-sex couples are legally "married."
[H]etero marriage and reproduction will continue unabated when same-sex couples are legally "married." Even if "encouraging reproduction" is a compelling governmental interest...legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect thereon whatsoever, therefore a ban/restriction on marriage is not "narrowly tailored" to that interest.

There are a great many ways the law can encourage procreation, but banning same-sex marriage or limiting marriage to hetero couples only is not one of them.

Same-sex marriage will not make marriage less accessible or less desirable to hetero couples, nor will it inhibit procreation or the potential for procreation, nor will restricting marriage to hetero couples encourage procreation beyond what will naturally occur anyway.

las Novios never acknowledged or refuted any of this. The longer the conversation went on, the more he would fixate on and emphasize the importance of procreation; indeed, procreation seemed to become more and more important as the conversation went on. I probably should have bailed when he wrote this:
[A]ny mating that does not result in reproduction is meaningless, so any relationship between two individuals that precludes that possibility has no validity.
I thought this was a horrible, mean, vicious and offensive thing to say, and I told him so. He didn't acknowledge it. But in retrospect I see where he was going.
Only [a] heterosexual couple can produce children. That makes them unique and there is no way that homosexual couples can be considered their equal in that regard.
Over 90% of the population is "unique"?
[T]he argument can be made that the country has a compelling interest in encouraging reproduction, so it could be argued that providing special benefits to incentivize that activity is perfectly legal.
"Special benefits"?
In the post- WWII era, special benefits were extended to veterans. ... [W]hy give special benefits to veterans and deprive the rest of the population of those benefits, essentially making them second-class citizens in the eyes of the government? ... [Because] the government felt it was in the best interests of the country to do so. You could make that same argument for heterosexual marriage - that it is in the interest of the government to encourage a system that reproduces its population.
Exclusive access to marriage is the equivalent of veterans benefits? We reward veterans for their service, so we should reward straight people for being straight? For merely having the capacity to do something they have not yet done, may never do, and are under no obligation to do? And non-veterans are "second-class citizens" because they do not get benefits that they did not earn?
[H]eterosexual couples can procreate, while homosexual couples cannot. ...[T]hat makes them special because they alone can do this, and it is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the community and the country that they do so. That specialness is worthy of consideration and ... the exclusive use of the term "marriage."
[I]t [also] might be good to give heterosexual couples special treatment, [because of] the cost they incur to bear children - physical challenges of pregnancy, loss of career parity, reduction in per-capita discretionary income, the added responsibility of serving in a custodial capacity. ... [H]eterosexual couples do disproportionately incur [these burdens], so some special compensation is warranted.
Wait ... now I'm supposed to feel sorry for straight couples and "compensate" them for bearing the "burdens" of child-bearing and child-rearing, which they individually choose for themselves and are under absolutely no obligation to undertake?
Choosing parenthood is no less a commitment to the welfare of the country than is serving in the military, so why not reward these people for shouldering the extra responsibility? ... Since heterosexual couples disproportionately shoulder these responsibilities, then they are deserving of special consideration from the country they sustain.
"Choosing parenthood" = "serving in the military"? Having children is a service to the state???
[S]pecial consideration is considered a reward for specific desirable behaviour, and sometimes it is seen as mitigating the cost incurred by a group as a consequence of following the particular behaviours associated with that group. I think both of those criteria are met by heterosexual couples.
Oh, boy.

So, just to summarize, this person is basically saying that:

1. Having children is a service to the state.

2. Civil rights are "special benefits" that should be reserved only for those with "desirable" human characteristics.

And let's not forget,

3. Any relationship between two people that lacks the potential for procreation has no meaning, no validity, and no social value whatsoever.

Not really appreciating at the time the full awfulness of his argument, I put it to him this way:

At the end of the day, your describing marriage as "special benefits" just for hetero couples, given so as to encourage procreation, with or without any consequences for inability, failure or refusal to procreate, illustrates what this really comes down to.

Remember, -nothing- -will- -happen- to hetero marriage or human procreation if same-sex couples can legally marry. Nothing else will change. Assuming you understand that, what you're ultimately saying is this:

Although the "benefits" will remain unchanged, they will no longer be "special."

He didn't really dispute this, except to reiterate and double down on what he'd already said, viz., that heterosexuals are "special" and thus deserve to be rewarded, and exclusivity is an appropriate reward. I finally challenged him:
If you could convince me ... that hetero couples would be less inclined to procreate if they did -not- have -exclusive- access to civil marriage status, I might begin to agree with you, at least to the extent that the discrimination you advocate has a rational basis.
His reply:
I have never suggested that heterosexual couples would be less likely to procreate if they did not retain exclusive status as "married," but I feel that is too narrow of a criterion to determine whether they should be granted special consideration.
Ignoring the second half of that sentence, I replied:
If that is the case, then your entire argument fails. Your position is premised on a direct, objective correlation between exclusivity and procreation. Not between marriage and procreation; between -exclusivity- ("special benefits") and procreation. If no such correlation exists, then the entire argument is invalid.
And that was the end of it.

I had to re-read this thread a few times before I truly realized what a sick, twisted view this person was harboring and advocating. In challenging him to justify exclusivity, I had him justifying and advocating for marriage itself instead, and when I pressed him to connect his justification for marriage with a justification for exclusivity, not only was he unable to do it but he ended up spouting off these horrifying beliefs.

I posted this because it's been on my mind a lot the last few days, and I wanted to lay it all out in one place. Thanks for reading the whole thing.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  debate sparring against you (4+ / 0-)

    seems like it'd be a fool's errand.

    effort points awarded to your virtual opponent for trying to keep up, but you really did pin him/her to the mat.

    "i hear you're mad about brubeck ... i like your eyes. i like him too." -donald fagen

    by homo neurotic on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:54:34 AM PST

  •  the best argument available to SSM opponents (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    homo neurotic, ancblu, VClib

    relies on the precautionary principle: we don't know what broader cultural changes SSM could cause or contribute to, so we should be cautious in changing longstanding cultural practices and, as a result, defer to legislatures.

    of course, anyone familiar with environmental law knows that US jurisprudence gives short shrift to the precautionary principle.  and while it would (or should) be enough to satisfy rational review, there's no chance of that argument prevailing under any heightened standard of review (even "rational review with teeth")

    •  It's hard to imagine how rational-basis review (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      librarisingnsf, ancblu, ozsea1, madhaus

      would apply here, since the Court has already decided that marriage is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny, and gender classifications are subject to "heightened" or "intermediate" scrutiny. Indeed, the only way to get rational-basis scrutiny on either the Due Process or Equal Protection questions would be through a definition of marriage, i.e., a judicial declaration by the Court that "marriage" is defined as "a legal union of one man and one woman," therefore it's not a fundamental right unless that criterion is met. Meaning, the "liberty interest" being sought by same-sex couples is not "marriage" but something else.

      The problem with that is that such a definition appears nowhere in the Constitution, and if either Congress or a state enacted such a definition, the question would come right back to the Court as to whether that definition violates Due Process or Equal Protection. So either a declaration by the Court or a Constitutional amendment defining "marriage" as hetero only would be required to avoid heightened scrutiny. Really, I think, the latter is the only way it could be done. There's nothing to stop the Court from unilaterally declaring that that's the definition of marriage, but it would have no basis in law or in the Constitution for doing so.

      •  I don't read JW suggesting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, ozsea1

        that Rational Basis applies.

        It seems that the issue you discuss is that exactly that presented in DOMA -- the legislative definition of marriage as between a man and a women.  And on this question, the USSC has granted Cert.

        Advocates of marital equality would likely all agree that heightened scrutiny is required under long-established constitutional jurisprudence.  But then, I would have upheld the ACA on the well-established Commerce Clause grounds as well ... so who knows what this Court will do.

        I suspect we have Kennedy and perhaps even CJ Roberts on this one.

        The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. H.L. Mencken

        by ancblu on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:22:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neither do I (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu, librarisingnsf, ozsea1

          I was just commenting further on the topic generally.

          I would have upheld the ACA on Commerce Clause grounds as well; there's no definitional reason why the word "regulate" cannot include mandatory participation. The Court just made up a distinction that exists nowhere in law and nowhere in the Constitution.

          I suspect we'll get Kennedy and Roberts as well.

      •  I'm not quibbling w/ a higher standard of scrutiny (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ancblu, VClib

        Note that some lower courts have held that RR is the appropriate level of review.  Scalia's hypothesis, of course, is pretty well spot on: the real jurisprudential work is done in defining the scope of the right asserted, and most of the rest follows from that (ie, is the right to marriage or the right to gay marriage).

        •  I didn't think you were. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu, ozsea1

          And you're right. The only way heightened or strict scrutiny can be avoided here is if we're talking about a different "liberty interest." If a gay marriage is not a "marriage," then the former may not be a fundamental right.

          •  And it would be (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            librarisingnsf, ozsea1

            an Olympian feat to distinguish on a principled basis the essential liberty interest in same-sex marital equality from that presented in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that recognized the marital right as a fundamental constitutional right -- as you have pointed out.

            The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. H.L. Mencken

            by ancblu on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:03:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Could you explain (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster, ozsea1

          what you mean by "Scalia's Hypothesis."

          My personal view of his constitutional construction and interpretation is that its dependent on the novel theory of "textualism" -- i.e. divining original drafter's intent by a literalist reading of the text that is justified only when filtered or supported through his idiosyncratic (read: ideologically) interpretation of those contemporary times.

          He postures and believes himself a purist, but his own personal ideology is his particular judicial hallmark.

          The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. H.L. Mencken

          by ancblu on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:57:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Scalia has said that many cases are won (0+ / 0-)

            and lost based on how the scope of the right asserted is framed.  here, for example, is the right to be analyzed the right to marriage - in which case we're in strict scrutiny land - or the right to gay marriage, in which case many courts have said we're in rational review land.  

            this isn't normative jurisprudence (scalia isn't saying that this is how analysis ought to proceed), but descriptive jurisprudence (this is how many cases do proceed in the real world)

    •  Yes ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster

      it seems the "best" counter-argument would be political in nature that favors a state-based and incremental approach to reflect and move no faster than the evolving views of the Republic.

      I've seen this advanced quite frequently, but it simply founders blindly on the shoals of Federal Preemption, where states are prohibited from infringing upon constitutionally-based and fundamental rights of all citizens -- such as the right to marry -- irrespective of historically recognized status based distinctions such a race and gender.

      The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. H.L. Mencken

      by ancblu on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 12:12:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent Diary (2+ / 0-)

    and the focus is correctly placed on equality for all consenting adults to the fundamental right to marry, irrespective of race, creed, color, national origin or GENDER.

    I find that so many opposed to marital equality simply can't get their heads around the idea that the limitation of marital rights to a female-male couple necessarily imposes gender-based discrimination and for no justifiable government purpose.

    The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety. H.L. Mencken

    by ancblu on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:59:24 AM PST

  •  There is no benefit to society in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, johnny wurster

    arguing logically with someone like your opponent here. It's not like you are going to change his mind, or have your own changed. The only rational reason to engage in a debate with such a person is if that debate brings you pleasure; it should entertain you in some way. So if you enjoyed conversing with this person, good job. If not, it was your mistake.

  •  A question for you.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, ancblu

    As you know Islam allows a man to have up to four wives.

    Based on existing U.S. law, any such marriage must be by mutual consent, and by adults.  There can be no compulsion allowed.

    Should there be laws against such plural marriages in the U.S., with all rights and privileges that accrue, and if so, what is the justification other than it is culturally alien to us.  

    And then, if you say that it should be legal, examine other proscriptions that are based on the dominant group of a foreign country, and think about which of these you would accept or continue to outlaw.

    I fear that your tight legalistic reasoning may not help you if you choose to expand your evaluation of practices that may be acceptable in other societies, and like same sex marriage are not yet done so here.

    We allow a parent to mutilate a males genitals but not a females, something I happen to agree with, but I have difficulty in making the kind of tight legal principled argument that you have spelled out here for my stand.

    •  The only relevant question is (4+ / 0-)

      whether there's a compelling governmental interest in limiting marriage to couples, instead of expanding it to three or more people.

      I haven't studied this issue so I'm not familiar with any judicial challenges or precedents. If I had to guess, I'd say that the manner and the mechanisms by which American law confers and recognizes "married" and "spouse" status, and gives them legal significance, are designed and intended for couples, in the sense that a person can have only one "spouse" at a time, and allowing people to have multiple spouses simultaneously would eventually create problems and inefficiencies that the state simply wouldn't be able to handle.

      For example, only one person can claim a right of inheritance if someone dies intestate (or, in the case of New York, a right of election if someone dies leaving a valid Will that excludes his/her spouse). If someone has multiple spouses, then you have multiple spouses competing for that right. Now, that may be manageable if there are two or three spouses, but what if there are 10? 20? 100? Or the entire population of the state? If we did not restrict marriage to couples, and anyone could be married to any number of people at once, then theoretically we could have every person in America married to every other person in America at the same time; everyone is everyone else's "spouse" and vice-versa.

      Of course that's an absurd slippery-slope result, but it indicates that there would have to be limits to how many people you could be married to at once. So, is it 2? 3? 5? 10? 50? And what principled reason would there be to make it, e.g., 3 instead of 4? 10 instead of 11? 37 instead of 38? The question is not so much where you draw the line, but why you draw the line there.

      (Of course, if we allowed one man to marry multiple women but not vice-versa, that would be an impermissible gender classification. If we allowed a man to be married to multiple women, or a woman to be married to multiple men, but not a mish-mosh of multiple men and multiple women all combined into a single "marriage," there might not be a justification for that, and it could still lead to some of the same problems.)

      Maybe the reason to arbitrarily limit people to one spouse at a time is that there really is no better, more reasonable, more practical, more workable, more efficient, more beneficial number at which to limit it.

      •  If someone can figure out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        good solutions to all the PRACTICAL problems, I personally have no objection.  But I don't know of any examples of polygamy in a society where both sexes had legal equality.  Problems would include:

        If Bob is married to Carol and Alice, and Alice decides to also marry Ted, does she need consent from Bob and Carol?  Does it give Ted a legal relationship to them?

        Who gets spousal benefits such as insurance?  who's responsible for debts?  Who inherits?

        Who's legal next of kin?

        Who are the legal parents of children born to polygamous unions?  How do you work out custody & visitation in case of a divorce?

        If Carol divorces Bob, is she still in a marriage with Alice and/or Ted?  How do property settlements get worked out?

        Same-sex marriage merely takes the existing framework and includes same-sex couples in it.  Polygamy would require a new framework, which doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing, but it's a different question.

        I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

        by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:16:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  We do reward child-bearing parents (4+ / 0-)
    Wait ... now I'm supposed to feel sorry for straight couples and "compensate" them for bearing the "burdens" of child-bearing and child-rearing, which they individually choose for themselves and are under absolutely no obligation to undertake?
    The Federal Child Tax Credit is $1000 per child per year.  I think the key here is that procreation is rewarded by the state, not procreation within straight marriage.  But yeah, the state does reward procreation and helps underwrite the raising of a child via the tax system (this isn't counting free public schooling for any child who wishes, and free lunches for those who need it).

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 01:32:44 PM PST

    •  Of course the state rewards procreation. (3+ / 0-)

      And I don't think anyone has a problem with that. I didn't even bring that up, in part because las Novios wasn't talking about rewarding actual procreation. He was talking about rewarding heterosexuality, because it has the mere potential for procreation. He compared it to veterans' benefits, which is ridiculous because veterans get rewarded for what they did, whether their service was voluntary or not. What he was talking about was rewarding people for what they might do, but have not done and may never do, just because they have the capacity to do it, without putting them under any obligation to actually do it (viz., "earn" the "reward").

      It didn't occur to me until today that he was talking about "special benefits" and "special treatment" and "special reward" for what amounts to over 90% of the population, which he somehow thinks of as "unique." The whole thing is perverse.

  •  Well my thought (0+ / 0-)

    is that he wasnt to reward (straight married) for procreation.  The rewards for procreation are there (and there ONLY for those who procreate), regardless of who raises the child.  Doesn't that fit his claim better than his argument?

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 02:03:25 PM PST

  •  It's always interesting when you boil down (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ebohlman, ancblu

    the essence of their argument.  I got into a back-and-forth with someone who actually tried the asinine "it'll lead to marrying children and animals" argument.  Most of the people who make that argument aren't really dumb enough to think dogs are going to magically gain the ability to consent.

    She finally admitted that if GLBT people got the same rights she had, she wouldn't "feel respected."  Civil rights were a zero-sum game to her:  if someone else got more, it must mean that she had less.  I was so flabbergasted that all I could think to say was, "Other people's marriages are not about YOU."

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:20:44 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site