Cal Responds to Todd's Comments

(And this is the edited version. Imagine how long the unedited version was. I love this kid! LOL) Interesting observations, Todd! My response: Domestic Violence Laws True, Ohio’s Domestic Violence Statute was indeed nullified by that state’s marriage amendment. However, Ohio lawmakers could easily rewrite their statute, and even look to Wisconsin for inspiration! Here adult household members can qualify as domestic violence victims in addition to family members and caregivers. Any collection of individuals within the same dwelling is a household. In fact, 2001 Wis. Act 109 expanded our statute to include dating relationships, defined by law only as “a romantic or intimate social relationship between [two] adult individuals.” So it’s disingenuous to equate Ohio and Wisconsin domestic violence laws; there’s no way they could be hurt by the amendment. For more, see: State Bar of Wisconsin Church Hair-Splitting Your second point is bizarre, to say the least. Fair Wisconsin states: “Members of these churches will be singled out for discrimination under the Wisconsin Constitution.” You complain that I summarize “Members of these churches” as “Churches and congregations” and call this a “nontrivial difference.” Now, I said congregations, which means members, obviously, and if someone is being singled out specifically because he belongs to a particular church, how on earth is the church itself NOT being singled out? The “difference” in question is a textbook example of trivial; a pity you neglected to explain its significance. Eminent Domain’s Relevance As I said, it was an example of how our legal system has degraded to the point where lawyers & judges can take any law and twist it not only beyond its original meaning, but in direct opposition to its original meaning, no matter how unambiguous the language. Perversions and abuses of any law should be fought by fighting the offending lawyers and judges, and restoring common sense into our legal system. UW Madison’s Relevance UW Madison’s moonbat professor was only part of my original point, that the college doesn’t feel particularly bound by state values OR LAWS. You completely ignored the second (and stronger) part, so hopefully it’ll be a little clearer this time: Narcotics are ILLEGAL, but Madison only offers ONE FLOOR OF ONE DORM as substance-free. Isn’t Madison, “as an agent of the state,” to use your own words, “compelled to abide by” the state drug laws? Madison’s inability to offer same-sex partner benefits isn’t so definite. Legal Protections Todd, I think I can help you out with an alternative to “pay[ing] lawyers thousands and thousands of dollars” for legal arrangements. The fine folks at Socrates offer a range of books and software on do-it-yourself legal contracts and arrangements, most of which are priced at or well below that $70 city clerk fee. You can also find similar products at your local office supply store. The freedom, opportunity, and tools are all there; it just takes some work. Impending Lawsuits You say that lawsuits will follow this amendment because the Alliance Defense Fund has already filed similar suits, and the ADF’s Glen Lavy has “no doubt” the ban would prohibit domestic partner health care. As proof, you link to Fair Wisconsin’s blog, which links to Stateline.org, where Lavy is actually said to have no doubt that the amendment would “nullify any court decisions to grant employee partnership benefits to state workers.” Hmm, a bit more “nontrivial” than the discrepancy you called me on above! By simply saying it “would prohibit domestic partner health care,” you declare ALL such plans under attack. But Stateline’s version applies only to court decisions and state employment, not intrusion into private employers’ voluntary practices. And according to Fair Wisconsin, the Michigan lawsuit they cite applies to “government programs,” not private. Can you clarify Lavy’s original remarks, Todd? Equality and Marriage Todd, you’re right that “encouraging gay men to marry women or gay women to marry men is a horrible idea”—which is why I did nothing of the sort. I simply stated the reality that Americans of all sexual preferences are equally free to enter into the institution of marriage—equally free to marry any American of the opposite sex. My argument had nothing to do with sexual compatibility and everything to do with equality of opportunity. True, Glen Lavy did say that “it was clearly the intent of state lawmakers and voters who approved these bans to stop employers or anyone else from treating gay couples like married couples,” or as I’ve been putting it, pretending non-marriages are marriages. I have shown how homosexuals in modern America are not nearly the second-class citizens liberals claim them to be, but if I wasn’t clear enough initially, I concede that not every legal benefit of marriage passes over to same-sex relationships. Still, let’s put this in perspective. Columnist Tammy Bruce (who happens to be a lesbian) notes: “Society has been the benevolent parent for a very long time. And it has been amazing, and a testament to the American character, that despite being a people of faith who have legitimate concerns about the gay lifestyle, Americans have made this the best place on Earth for gays and lesbians, where we are free to live incomparably rich lives.” Homosexuals are entitled to the pursuit of Happiness just as heterosexuals are, but it is perfectly reasonable to treat a non-marriage for precisely what it is: not marriage. In fact, when the sacred nature of marriage and its essential societal purpose are considered (see my original post), it is more than reasonable; it is necessary for this unique institution to have unique benefits. Attack on Marriage from a Minority within a Minority “Strong families make for strong, stable societies […] the deep and intimate love between two people is what stabilizes marriage and inaugurates families. It is when the couple ceases to love, appreciate, delight in, and respect each other that marriage and family break down.” Hear, hear! That’s why America needs to have a frank discussion about how homosexuality would impact marriage. The most essential aspect of any marriage is faithfulness and a commitment for life. And while infidelity is certainly on the rise, the major 1994 National Health & Social Life Survey found 75% of men and 90% of women have never strayed from their spouse. But a study led by Dr. Maria Xiridou and published in the medical journal AIDS in 2003 found that in the Netherlands, which recognizes same-sex marriage, homosexual men in “steady partnerships” still have an average of eight “casual” sexual partners annually (those without steady partners have an average of twenty-two). I guess that’s why “steady partnerships” over there usually end at two years. Evidently this is fine with Toronto sociologist Rinaldo Walcott, who, upon Canada’s recognition of same-sex marriage, worriedly asked if gays would “now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating.” Or take Mitchel Raphael, editor-in-chief of Toronto gay magazine fab: “I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever.” Understand why so many Americans see an attack on marriage? “Okay, Calvin,” you might say, “you pull out some statistics and two quotes that reflect badly on the gay community, but they’re really not representative of the people we’re talking about.” Well, Focus on the Family and the Institute for Marriage & Public Policy have done some interesting homework on how many homosexuals actually take advantage of the victories won by gay activists in the US and around the world: - Marriage o Netherlands 6.3% o Belgium 14.7% o Massachusetts 10.2% - Civil Unions o France 7.38% o Germany 0.59% o New Zealand 0.47% o Vermont 1.17% - Domestic Partner Benefits o New Jersey 3.75% o California 9.4% o Tasmania 0.97% “But those are right-wing groups with political axes to grind!” you’re probably saying right now. How about the New York Times? On August 31, 2003 they found that in the first two months of gay marriage in Canada, less than 9% of Toronto’s 6,000 registered permanent partners took out marriage licenses. Boy, they’re not exactly rushing to take advantage of their newfound “liberty,” are they? It’s as if black Americans decided that the back of the bus and failing segregated schools weren’t so bad after all following Brown v. Board of Education! It seems by and large homosexuals aren’t so interested in marriage. One wonders, then, why the activists are so vocal. Simple: because while the majorities of gays around the world really are just going about their lives, unconcerned with marriage, the vocal, activist gay minority really does want to change marriage and society in the ways the aforementioned Mr. Raphael described. With all this in mind, Americans have every right—indeed, every duty—to put their foot down and defend marriage’s true, specific meaning, for that is what truly makes for “strong, stable societies.” Children: Heart of the Issue In my original piece I wrote that “therein lies the responsibility of marriage: new life. Children. Children need the influence of a mother and a father to grow into mature, well-rounded adults.” You speak of “the ability to provide children with two legally recognized and responsible parents,” as one of the “basic essentials” gays can’t have in America. Here is the heart of the issue, and why society has a compelling interest in recognizing, and promoting via benefits, real marriage and real marriage alone. Again we turn to the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg: “The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them ‘discriminatory’ as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society—including, but not limited to, the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (i.e., the presence of both a mother and a father). Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society.” The male and female sexes each have unique traits that both complement and temper one another when they join in holy matrimony. This is vital to the healthy development of a child. Kids with a married mom and dad have lower rates of poverty, out-of-wedlock births, school failure/expulsion, drug abuse, arrest, and health/emotional/behavioral problems. The studies show it (for instance, see Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy), but it’s really common sense—just take a look at the average inner city where fathers are nowhere. The gay line is that kids just need love from two committed people. The truth is that it’s the ingredients, not the amounts. This is just a fundamental fact of the human race’s design. And that is why marriage’s sanctity is an equally fundamental fact. The bottom line: it’s not about any of us adults or what we want; it’s about the children, and what they need growing up. (For more on sexual orientation and parenting, take a look at this report on Family Research Council.) Conclusion Thanks for the input; hopefully I’ve cleared up a few things about this debate and my original post. I leave you with the following observation from Tammy Bruce: “Gays ultimately need to stop looking to government for unconditional love and approval of who we are. Andrew Sullivan, a political commentator and writer many of you know and respect, wrote a piece for Time magazine where he actually equated governmental recognition of gay marriage as a necessary element to all gay people feeling accepted and wanted. He claimed that anything other than marriage will ‘build a wall between gay people and their own families.’

“While his story was personal and moving, the argument was, frankly, nonsense, and representative of the general mentality among the gay elite. It also gives the government and other people’s opinions far too much power over the quality of our lives and effectively eliminates our own responsibility for our happiness.

“Part of the fight for gay marriage is based in Sullivan’s lament—that it is only governmental recognition of who we are that will make us whole. Let’s get real—the only thing that will make gay people whole is personal acceptance of ourselves by ourselves. Instead, we are still looking to Mommy or Daddy, now in the form of Society, to tell us we’re Okay. To sanctify, if you will, our lives and relationships.”