Same-Sex Marriage and the Meaning of Words

In reading through the comments on my recent post about the electoral result in Maine (The Lessons of Maine), I could not help but notice that many defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage argue that marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, that there's no reason to change that traditional definition, and that gays and lesbians should be satisfied with having all the rights married people have, without insisting on re-writing the dictionary.

I have several thoughts about this. First, of course, gays and lesbians do not have "all the rights married people have." Only eleven states currently recognize civil unions (or same-sex marriages). The other thirty-nine do not in any way grant gay and lesbians "all the rights married people have." Moreover, because of the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), even those states that do recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions cannot grant gays and lesbians "all the rights married people have," because many of the most important of those rights are determined by the federal government, which refuses to recognize the legality of either same-sex marriage or civil union, even when they have been legally recognized by a state. Thus, the assumption that any gays and lesbians in the United States have "all the rights married people have" is unfounded.

But that is not a fair response to the objection. The objection basically argues that gays and lesbians should work to get "all the rights married people have," but in doing so they should not ask for the word "marriage" to be extended to their relationships. They should be content, in other words, to achieve the substantive content of marriage, without also asking for the name. What, after all, is in a name?

So, let's suppose we were to limit the word "marriage" to relationships among same-race individuals. Civil unions between a black and a white or a white and an Asian could not use the word "marriage." What, after all, is in a name? Or suppose we were to confine the word "marriage" to Christian marriages, and used the word "civil union" for Jewish and Muslim marriages. No big deal, right? Or suppose we were to define the word "marriage" to include only Protestant marriages, and relegated relationships among Catholics to "civil unions." Surely, Catholics wouldn't object. After all, what's in a name?

The point, of course, is that words do matter. Words can insult, degrade, shame, and hurt. Moreover, words shape reality. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if we artificially give different names to two varieties of roses, over time we would come to think of them quite differently. And in the same-sex marriage context, there can be no mistaking the implication of the use of a different word. It is, and is meant to be, insulting, degrading, shameful, and hurtful. As the Supreme Court observed in Brown v. Board of Education, "separate but equal" is inherently unequal.

Those who object to changing the traditional definition of "marriage" will point out that the examples I posited earlier are all distinguishable from the same-sex marriage situation, because we have not traditionally defined mixed-race marriage, or Catholic marriage, or Jewish marriage as anything other than "marriage." Therefore, my examples contracted the traditional definition to exclude what were once included, whereas in the same-sex marriage situation the opponents argue that the traditional definition should not be expanded to embrace gays and lesbians. However specious, or superficial, this distinction might seem, it is not wholly without merit. It is somewhat different to take away a right than to refuse to grant it. in the first place Tradition counts for something.

But for how much? Certainly, in the law, the meanings of words change constantly. The meaning of the word "search," for example, changed over time. At one point, the Supreme Court held that wiretapping was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, because wiretapping does not involve a physical invasion of the target's home. Forty years later, however, the Court held that wiretapping is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, because it involves an invasion of the target's privacy. I could offer endless similar examples, including such elemental terms as contract, property, torture, obscene, divorce, rape, harassment, militia, and equal.

Of course, the meanings of common words change constantly as well. "Nice" once meant ignorant; "awful" meant amazing; "girl" meant a young person of either sex; "brave" meant cowardice; "bad" once meant bad; and "gay," well, gay once meant carefree. The point is that there's nothing sacred about definitions. They change.

The real question, then, is why some people are so hung-up about the definition of the word "marriage." If someone truly supports granting gays and lesbians "all the rights married people have," why would she bristle at throwing in the word that goes along with the rights? Tradition can't be the answer, because we're really not all that wedded to traditions that hurt and insult people. We've learned to change from coloreds to Negroes to blacks to African-Americans; we've learned to change from chairman to chairperson or chairwoman or chair; we've even learned to change from fag to homosexual to gay. So, what's the big deal about "marriage"?

The answer, I suspect, is that many people think of "marriage" as a religious rather than a legal term. If Christians suddenly started celebrating their birthdays as "bar mitzvahs," it would probably upset some Jews, who would see it as insulting. If atheists started wearing crucifixes to signify their atheism, it would surely perturb some Christians, who might see it as blasphemous. The real flash point about the word "marriage" is that some people strongly associate the word with their religious understandings, and those understandings most definitely do not embrace same-sex relationships. Thus, even if they are willing, as good citizens, to grant gays and lesbians "all the rights married people have," they can't stand the thought of seeing a "sacred" word, and concept, brutalized.

This is a real dilemma. Certainly, such people have no constitutional right to have the state adopt their religious definition of "marriage." Although they may have a strong religious identification with the word, the word has long had a secular meaning and, indeed, has never belonged to any particular religion or even to religion generally. "Marriage" in our society is a secular term. It may coincide with religious beliefs, but in the law it is not a religious concept, nor could it be. Religious organizations and individuals are authorized to officiate at weddings, but the legal concept of marriage is entirely secular. The phrase "by the power invested in me by the state" is revealing. It is the state that bestows legal recognition to the marriage, not the religion.

Those with religious objections to calling same-sex unions "marriages" are essentially insisting that the state must adopt their religious definition of a legal concept. That is fundamentally incompatible with the separation of church. It is not for religion to define legal concepts.

As I see the situation, there are two plausible solutions to this dilemma. First, those who think gays and lesbians should have "all the rights of married people" but want to deny them the word "marriage" must understand that the distinction is untenable. It is demeaning and insulting to gays and lesbians in the same way any system of "separate but equal" is offensive and hurtful, and it is ultimately grounded in religious beliefs that cannot properly be the basis of legal meaning.

Second, both gays and lesbians and those who object to applying the term "marriage" to same-sex relationships can agree to strike the term "marriage" from our laws. Instead, all legal marriage-like relationships would be described as "civil unions," whether same-sex or opposite-sex, and different religions would then be free to use the term "marriage" as they see fit, without government involvement or endorsement. Of course, even this would insulting to gays and lesbians (in the same way that closing the municipal swimming pool to avoid racial integration was insulting to blacks), but it might nonetheless be a compromise worth considering.

 

Comments

[Geoffrey R. Stone - Huffpost Blogger]

Because several of you have speculated about how I would respond to Mr. Howard's proposal, I thought I should tell you: I see no reason whatever to link these issues. I have no idea whether it will be possible someday to create a child using two eggs or two sperm, but if it does become possible I see no reason to prevent it (assuming it's medically safe). In my view, this is really no different in principle from in vitro fertilization or curing cancer through scientific advancement or increasing the natural lifespan through better medicines and medical procedures or enabling man to fly by inventing airplanes.

[OdinsEye]

Marriage and procreation have squat to do with one another. Even in ancient times the only procreation aspects of marriage only dealt with inheritance or leadership (leadership was thought back then to be genetic).

Marriage can encompass any of three aspects: religious, legal, and social. In the US, the legal aspects cannot constitutionally be based on the religious aspects.

If two persons are married by a clergyman/woman who does not have a state license to perform marriages, then the marriage is only recognized by the church and the social circle thereof.

If two persons are married by a judge, justice, or magistrate, the church does not have to recognize that marriage (ask any Catholic), although in society at large it is usually recognized.

If two persons live together for a long period of time and present themselves as a married couple, then society can treat them as married even if the law and the church do not. Such is the basis of a common law marriage. If it becomes necessary to make it legal, they can petition for legal recognition based on the social acceptance.

If adults love and are devoted and commited to one another, there is no reason why they should not be able to get legal recognition of that commitment, be it race, ability to have kids, or genders.

All this focusing on procreation regarding same gender marriage is complete nonsense.

[John Howard]

Professor Stone, what do you think of my proposal to get federal recognition to same-sex couples and provide a blueprint for Civil Unions to be enacted uniformly in every state? You are in a unique position to suggest the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise to President Obama, so he can fulfill his campaign promises and resolve the marriage debate in a way that brings equal protections to same-sex couples and also preserves marriage as a man and a woman.

What do you think of the idea of federally recognizing as marriages state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights"?

What do you think of the idea of prohibiting attempts at creating a human by any method other than joining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man?

And what do you think of the idea of affirming in federal law that all marriages must be allowed to attempt to conceive with their own genes?

A lot of people say we can have same-sex marriage and decide same-sex procreation later, but doing that means either we have to allow same-sex married couples to conceive offspring together from their own genes, or it means that we don't have to allow hetero marriages to conceive offspring from their own genes. I think those are both unacceptable outcomes!

[LeftRight]

Prof Stone will think the same thing that those of us out here have been saying to you all along. Taking people's right to procreate from them, except if they are in one of your "approved" relationships, is unacceptable!

[John Howard]

You think? I think that he'll realize that's a foolish priority when it can't even be done and might never be possible, and meanwhile thousands of same-sex couples have no protections at all, and none have federal recognition. Especially considering that we could always repeal the Egg and Sperm law if we decide it is safe and turn same-sex civil unions to marriages (I'd argue against this of course, but this is a democracy).

But if he agrees with you, at least he'd be admitting that marriage rights must include conception rights as a matter of principle.

[John Howard]

Apparently people have a misapprehension of what I am arguing for, judging by LeftRight and foolsage both thinking I need to be told that all people have a right to procreate. I know that!! That's what I am trying to preserve by stopping genetic engineering and preserving marriage rights.

Perhaps when I write "all marriages must retain the right to procreate with their own genes" I need to immediately add "and everyone must retain the right to marry the person of their choice who consents to marry them", so that people won't think I'm trying to limit who is allowed to marry.

I know that I've typed the phrase "unless there is a supportable basis to prohibit that type of relation" a thousand times, cited Loving, pointed out that we don't have the right to marry our siblings, etc. And I know I've pointed out how a basis has to be public, apply equally to all people, not be based on any private genetic tests or have age limits, etc. I've made it clear that the whole point is to preserve everyone's equal conception rights.

So the fact that you both think I need to be told that all people have procreation rights is rather surprising, but is a fact, and the blame must be mine. Here I say it again:

Being allowed to marry and the person of your choice and procreate children using your own genes and your spouse's own genes is a basic human right.

[LeftRight]

OBVIOUSLY you don't know that, or you wouldn't be trying to make it illegal for gay couples to procreate!!!

[John Howard]

Being publicly unable to create healthy viable embryos without attempting genetic modification is a supportable basis to prohibit people from choosing someone of the same sex to procreate with. Publicly requiring radical unnatural intervention to conceive offspring is a supportable basis. Obviously costing tons of money and using loads of energy to even research the possibility is a supportable basis. Risking everyone's natural conception rights by forcing us to accept genetic engineering is a supportable basis.

Really, procreating with your sister is less dangerous and unethical than same-sex conception.

[LeftRight]

John Howard,

You REALLY need to stop lying about what you've said before..... Don't you realize that we can just look back at what's been said before and realize that even though you're claiming you didn't say anything of the sort, that we know you WERE saying it!!!!!!!!!!

[John Howard]

I hope people study everything we've written below. I am not lying about anything I said, I think you should explain your accusation and back it up with something specific so I can respond to your insinuation.

[LeftRight]

You've said several times that you equated IVF and other fertility treatments in with Genetic Engineering. When called on it, you claimed that you never said that. We showed you the quotes where you said that, and you denied making the quote. The fact of the matter is that you're just lying when it comes to that.

[John Howard]

I asked this question to LeftRight deep inside the threads below and maybe no one saw it, but it is a very important question that I hope many people take the time to respond to:

Let me ask you, would you accept as a final outcome, full equal marriage in every state, recognized federally, etc, and heck, throw in enacting EDNA, repealing DADT, if there was a ban on attempting to conceive with someone who wasn't of the other sex? Or would that still be a homophobic bigoted denial of gay people's basic rights? I think the justification and reasoning you give for equal marriage rights would apply also to equal procreation rights, so surely you would still be unsatisfied and would still demand equal procreation rights using any new technology.

One thing that establishes is that we agree that they can't really be separated. It makes no sense, it wouldn't satisfy anyone. I agree that if we allow same-sex couples to procreate together (combining their own genes - i have to keep clarifying that over and over), we should allow them to marry. It makes no sense to approve of two people procreating together, but not let them marry each other. And I think you'd agree that it makes no sense to let couples marry but prohibit them from procreating together.

[foolsage]

They can of course be separated.

What you propose though is removing one type of bigotry only to add another type. That's a poor choice. You're singling out same-sex couples and suggesting they be explicitly denied rights that others get.

What if instead same-sex couples were allowed to marry, but NOBODY was allowed to use genetic modification of humans? That's separated the two issues you've been merging together again and again, but that's probably acceptable to a lot of people. I think the number of people who actually want to be able to modify gametes to merge genetic material of two same-sex partners is likely pretty small. The vast majority of same-sex couples who have children don't use genetic engineering. Actually, I can't say that I'm aware that this is currently being done anywhere.

Then the same-sex couples can marry and share all the legal and economic rights that confers, while at the same time the genetic engineering issue is pushed back to its own separate discussion. If in the future it's decided that such engineering is safe and controllable, that people won't abuse it for eugenics, and that the issue from such processes are healthy, then future legislation could allow for that. That remains however a wholly separate issue.

[John Howard]

That would 1) create marriages that were prohibited from procreating together, which would mean marriage did not protect procreation rights for any couple and any couple could equally be prohibited from procreating together, and 2) would not be acceptable to Liberal Angel and LeftRight, both of whom demand the right to procreate with someone of the same sex, using whatever technology they want, which means they demand the right to do genetic engineering to create opposite sex gametes.

[John Howard]

Thanks to Liberal Angel and LeftRight and foolsage for the great discussion below, in which they show that I was absolutely right that same-sex marriage means either allowing same-sex conception (creating genetically related offspring from both their own genes), or denying that married couples have a right to conceive genetically related offspring using the couple's own genes. Though logic dictates one or the other, they don't restrain their zeal to realize both outcomes.

Below, they refuse to say that married couples have a right to use their own genes to procreate, and they insist that people have a right to conceive with anyone that agrees to conceive with them (including siblings!) usig whatever technology they want.

They've made the standard misdirection arguments about unmarried procreation, infertility, donor gametes and adoption and other irrelevant topics, but their argument ended up coming down to demanding a right to attempt same-sex conception, expressed above by LeftRight:

"I have EVERY right to procreate with WHOMEVER I wish, provided that the other person wishes to procreate with me. EVEN IF THE OTHER PERSON IS A MAN!!!! The only problem that exists is that currently I cannot PHYSICALLY procreate with a man (being a man myself).... But if the technology were to catch up with that, then I would STILL have every right to procreate with whomever I wished, provided that the other person ALSO wished to procreate with me!"

[foolsage]

Way to continue to miss the point, John. :)

Same-sex marriage means... people of the same sex getting married. You've struggled in vain repeatedly to show that it leads to other things, but have convinced nobody but yourself of this.

It's still the case that all adults already have the right to legally procreate. No matter what you wish were true, that's the reality of the situation. Married couples don't have any special right to do this - no law grants this right, which already exists for all adults anyhow. No matter how many times you repeat this, how many times you try to muddle the differences between sex and procreation, this remains the truth.

You'd raised a lot of inarticulate points which you later stressed weren't important to your arguments, without of course having the good grace to admit that you were mistaken about the facts or misguided in the inferences you drew. You've ignored both logical and legal evidence again and again. In the course of this discussion I have to confess my own perception of you has suffered a steep decline, from a rational person who simply lacked factual knowledge to a bigot who doesn't care what the facts are and insists that his views should supersede reality.

- continued -

[John Howard]

You repeat the claim that all adults have the right to procreate (with which I agree and have been clear that I trying to preserve everyone's equal procreation rights, so though you are afraid to put it in words, you must be agreeing with that quote from LeftRight, who claims a right to attempt to procreate with anyone, including someone of the same sex or siblings. My point is that this is an unacceptable claim, no one should have a right to procreate with someone of the same sex, and yet people are claiming it as a right. (Yes, I know that same-sex procreation is legal right now, which is why I am saying it needs to be banned, along with all forms of genetic engineering to create people.)

And you repeat the claim that marriages do not have a special right to conceive children together, which is also an unacceptable claim. Yes, I accept that an unmarried couple can have a right to procreate, if they also have a right to marry. But couples that may not marry each other do not have the right to procreate together (even if they are not punished for doing it), and couples that are prohibited from procreating with each other do not have a right to marry. All married couples should have the right to procreate together, and it is unacceptable to deny that they do, yet people are claiming that they do not have a special right to procreate.

[foolsage]

- continued -

That you can look at the mass of coherent arguments against your position and still maintain that you were somehow vindicated is frankly astounding. That you sum up literally dozens of arguments by multiple people with one quote, which you then hope to somehow discredit (without argumentation or logic) and by extension discredit all the other unrelated arguments, speaks volumes about your approach to discussion. Sadly, those volumes were penned by Dr. Seuss.

You don't like gay sex. We understand your position. You don't think anyone should strive to have babies in any way, shape, or form, but should only accept babies that just happen without planning or special effort. We understand your position. You wish that the government would rescind the rights granted to all adults to have sex and to procreate, and then grant those rights only to heterosexual married couples. We understand your position.

Your positions however remain bigoted and out of touch with reality.

[John Howard]

You disagree with my two main points, which are:

same-sex couples should not be allowed to attempt to create biological offspring from their own genes.

all marriages should have a right to attempt to create biological offspring from their own genes.

That's where the disagreement is regarding marriage and gay rights. Those are both very seriously bad things, and all you want to talk about is my positions on other issues that are not at all relevant.

[John Howard]

And no one has made an argument about why people should be allowed to attempt to procreate with someone of the same sex, it is just demanded because it's a right people have with the other sex, so gosh darn it that must be a right or same-sex couples too. But why? Make an argument about why it is needed, about why it is good, about why it is bad to prohibit it.

[LeftRight]

John Howard,

You have asserted again and again that because certain relationships are illegal, that means that procreation is only a right allowed to married straight people. I will show you where you are wrong in that assertion:

Incest laws in the USA are not based on procreation. If they were, then you could get sterilized and then marry your close relative. Instead, even if you were sterilized, it would STILL be illegal to marry that close relative. Since the laws care not about your ABILITY to procreate, they are OBVIOUSLY not ABOUT procreation. Thus the whole of your argument is based on a foundation of sand, and the argument falls down around your ears.

[foolsage]

You're right. Sex and procreation are not the same in the eyes of the law, and there are a lot of examples to prove this disconnection, as well as the wording of the laws preventing sex, absolutely none of which have to do with procreation.

[John Howard]

Don't you think that the reason procreation is not mentioned in the law is because the only way to do it was by having sex, and the only way to prevent it was by preventing sex? And, don't you think maybe the reason we never see "procreation rights" mentioned or any laws about who people are allowed to procreate with, is because when discussing that topic, we used the word "marriage"? We use that because there is indeed more to marriage than the bare right to procreate together, the status of marriage also adds commitments and obligations and benefits and protections to couples being officially given the right to procreate together.

And, the idea that there can be a prohibition on the means to procreate for siblings and other couples, but the couple is nevertheless allowed to procreate together, is unconstitutional. It would be putting a "substantial obstacle" in the way of someone's rights, like getting the husband's permission for an abortion, or requiring a three day waiting period (I think that was O'Connor's ruling in Casey v Planned Parenthood). If someone has a right to procreate, you can't forbid them from having sex, or even from marrying (that was the ruling in Zablocki v Redhail).

[John Howard]

First of all, i haven't "asserted" that procreation is only a right of marriage. I have, when asked, given my opinion that procreation is only a right of marriage (and is for same-sex married couples as well), but as for "asserting" it, that implies I am asserting it as part of my argument, when I am not. I have repeatedly said it doesn't matter, I am not concerned with it, unmarried procreation could be a right and it wouldn't matter to my point, which is that all married couples should be allowed to use their own genes - BOTH of them use their own unmodified genes and no one else's - to procreate together.

I also didn't say that incest laws were entirely about procreation, I agreed somewhere down there that there were lots of other reasons besides prohibiting procreation that we prohibit incestuous sex, but that prohibiting procreation was certainly one of the biggest reasons. (I also stated that the reason we prohibit their procreation is not just because genetic risk, but because the whole situation would be an unethical circumstance to be born into, even if there were no extra risk of birth defects).

[Liberal Angel]

You continue to say that you want to "protect" people's rights to use their own germ cells to breed, and you have NOT shown why a fertility treatment would somehow, in ANY way take that right away or phase it out. You simply imagine some nebulous time in the future, when people have all decided to use "modified" gametes to breed with the same sex. That would NEVER happen, because most people are born straight, the ONLY people who wouldbe trying such a treatment would be gay couples. It would be their right to do so, and you have NO right in trying to prohibit that. What is your argument based on, other than paranoia.

[John Howard]

You have made the strange claim that siblings do have the right to procreate together, they just aren't allowed to have sex. You haven't elaborated on their right to use IVF to have children together. I think that the law should be read to prohibit that as well, recognizing that it was written before IVF and artificial insemination. I recognize that those innovations were used to get around adultery laws and enable the sperm donation industry, but only because no one has stood up yet to challenge that selfish law.

Now on to your new point: If they allowed siblings to marry, they would be allowing them to have sex and procreate, whether they were able to procreate or not. And in this age of IVF, surrogates, and replacement gametes, everyone is able to procreate, even if they have no reproductive organs. So we should prohibit siblings from procreating, and therefore continue to forbid them from marrying, so that marriage continues to express the approval and consent of the state of the couple conceiving children together.

[foolsage]

Again, you should distinguish between what you WANT to be legal and what actually IS legal. You're very inconsistent in this regard, frequently confusing the former for the latter.

[LeftRight]

It's not a strange assertion. Go read anti-incest laws. You will see that under NO circumstances are they allowed to have a relationship, whether children result from such a relationship or not (or even if they physically cannot result). In other words, if my daughter and her brother wanted to get married, and went so far as to sterilize BOTH of them, they STILL couldn't have that relationship, because the law is not based on PROCREATION!!!!!

[TopDog]

TopDog thinks that a separate Church and State would solve this specific problem with no offense to anyone or any institution.

[ez duz it]

Poster "JohnHoward", writes: “It is explicitly stated that marriage is about the right to procreate.”

If referring to DOMA as justification for his position, DOMA makes “procreation” a requisite condition for marriage, and suggests two positions:

First, that federal law should limit marriage to the legal union of one man and one woman who are capable of conception.

Second, that all heterosexual couples should be issued a marriage license ONLY if they are pre-screened and found viably fertile.

After all, since an average of 2,200,000 heterosexual couples marry each year and approximately 7.5% of them are infertile. The federal government should deny them recognition of their marriage. Why?

Annually denying 331,000 infertile HETEROsexual couples access to marriage achieves the “four asserted government interests” stated in DOMA:

First, infertile HETEROsexual couples are NOT capable “of procreation and child rearing.”

Second, “traditional notions of morality” require humans to procreate, therefore precluding infertile HETEROsexual from marriage.

Third, denying marriage to infertile HETEROsexual “advances the government’s interest in protecting state sovereignty.”

Fourth, denying infertile HETEROsexual pension and “social security benefits,” tax exemptions, etc. “advances the government’s interest in “preserving scarce government resources.””

I am SO glad "JohnHoward" wants to deny infertile HETEROsexuals access to marriage.

[LeftRight]

THANK YOU!!!! Not only would my OWN marriage be illegal under that rule, but so would my father's marriage, my mother's marriage, my father-in-law's marriage, my grandfather's marriage, my buddy from the navy's marriage, and my cousin's marriage! And yet ALL of us are married and receive ALL the state and federal benefits associated with such.

And then there's my daughter, the lesbian, who is being told that she cannot marry the one that she loves!

[John Howard]

That would be a bad rule, wouldn't it? The rule i'm proposing has nothing to do with being fertile, because fertility makes no difference, it isn't a legal category, it is private, unpredictable, and can change over time. All people should be allowed to attempt to be healthy and fertile and try to procreate, infertile people just won't be able to. No one should be prohibited from using their own genes and being fertile. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to try. People should not have the right to try to procreate with someone of the same sex.

[Liberal Angel]

He believes that a right people already have (breeding), would be taken away if a fertility treatment were developed to allow gay men and womento have children themselves without the need for the opposite sex. This makes NO sense. There is flow in his reasoning to that point. He's just getting hysterical like all conservatives do about things that don't exist.

[John Howard]

Well, the right to procreate is severely denigrated and rendered meaningless when it is equated to the right to use modified or substitute gametes, which is what same-sex marriage or just "all the rights of marriage" for same-sex couples does.

But in your case, the argument is that you think we should allow people to be created any way a scientist decides would be fun to try, and I think we should prohibit creating people from genetically modified sources, and preserve equality and everyone's equal right to procreate with their own genes.

[Philip N. Cohen - Huffpost Blogger]

Marriage has a religious origin, but the benefits are from the state. By conferring legal rights, the state grants material benefits to married people. And by conferring legitimacy, the state grants symbolic benefits that are converted into material benefits, such as prestige and self-efficacy. So real marriage, which brings benefits in terms of recognition and stability, among other things, is state marriage, for better or worse. So everyone should have the right. On the down side - the whole debate highlights the deficits experience by people who don't or won't get married - people demographically excluded (like Black women in communities with few eligible Black men), or socially excluded (those who can't find a marriage partner), etc. Ultimately, the benefits of marriage, rather than being extended to everyone, should be reduced - so that you don't need to be married to be happy, socially accepted, and protected from harm and risk.

[synergy500]

The meaning of words is important. They communicate concepts.

Marriage has always been understood to have two functions: procreative and unitive.

Same-sex spousal unions can fulfill the unitive function; but not the procreative.

Too often, the procreative function has been given priority over the unitive function, especially in traditionalist religious sects; but that is no reason to err in the other direction.

Perhaps everyone should receive a certificate of "civil union" from the State. A civil union certificate would entitle couples to the same rights and impose the same legal obligations on them whether they are heterosexual or same-sex spousal unions. The Churches, Synagogues and Mosques could perform traditional heterosexual marriage ceremonies.

The Catholic Church does not canonically recognize a civil divorce in the case of a valid sacramental marriage. There is no reason why civilly sanctioned spousal unions cannot be renamed Civil Unions and "marriage" can become a covenanted spousal committment with personal spiritual as well as juridical responsibilities.

Formal religious institutions could decide whether or not same-sex spousal committments violate their normative collective moral tradition. Religious believers could seek membership in the formal religion that supports their personal moral convictions.

Gay, lesbian and transgendered citizens should be free to follow their consciences; but so should heterosexual citizens. There is no need to redefine the word "marriage" to provide freedom of conscience and equal civil rights to a minority group.

[LeftRight]

Your idea has been said before again and again and again, and the answer is still the same. NO ONE says that they are getting civil unioned this week! No one says that they have been civil unioned with someone else. No one says "This is my civil partner". No one says "This is my civil union anniversary!".

The fact of the matter is that the term "Marriage" in its various forms is the ONLY word that we know to be what we mean when we are describing a civil union or a religious union. Therefore the ONLY acceptable thing to do is to have the states keep issuing marriage licenses to every couple who asks for them, and start including gay couples in that mixture!

[John Howard]

Same-sex spousal unions can fulfill the unitive function; but not the procreative.

Actually, it is possible, using stem cell derived gametes, for same-sex couples to procreate together. Researchers at Stanford just announced they created sperm cells, and predicted it would be possible in five years (they've been saying five years for a few years now).

[ez duz it]

Oh, gosh, JohnHoward, I left you a message but in the wrong place. Thecorrect place is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/same-sex-marriage-and-the_b_347593.html?show_comment_id=34197385#comment_34197385

My apologies....

[Liberal Angel]

We don't need permission to breed. We can do it in a marriage, or out, but it's certainly not something that anyone needs permission for. Marriage does NOT grant breeding rights. Marriage does NOT grant breeding rights. Breeding is something people CAN ALREADY DO WITHOUT PERMISSION. WITHOUT PERMISSION.

[foolsage]

John Howard, you seem like an intelligent person. You've been posting continuously some claims that fly in the face of the facts as I know them though, and your postings appear in a rather large number of threads on this topic. I'm hoping to dialogue here about your thoughts and concerns and to try to make sense of them in one place.

1) You feel that marriage provides a legal right to procreate. Can you provide any sort of proof that marriage grants legal procreation rights, and further that it is illegal (i.e. enforced prohibition) in the Western world for unmarried persons to procreate?

2) You're concerned that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow erode the rights of married couples to procreate. Can you explain the basis of this belief please?

3) You're concerned that in vitro fertilization and the use of donated gametes is harmful, and you've compared these acts to crimes like rape and raising babies to harvest their organs. Can you explain what harm comes from IVF and donated gametes please? Can you provide any proof that these activities are illegal or that they have clear victims?

4) Do you perceive any difference between same-sex couples using IVF or donated gametes, and heterosexual couples using these procedures? How do you feel about same-sex couples using normal sexual means to create a child (i.e. an opposite-sex partner copulating with one member of the same-sex couple) or adopting a child?

[John Howard]

1) I am trying to make sure that marriage continues to allow the couple to combine their own genes to create offspring together, so that no married couples are ever prohibited from using their own genes to create offspring of the marriage.

One nice place to see an authoritative statement that marriage inherently includes the right to procreate is the synopsis of Lawrence v Texas, where Kennedy says that it would demean a married couple to be told their marriage was only about the right to have sexual intercourse. He's making the point that it is about so much more than that, including their commitment to each other, but in making that claim he reveals the minimum understanding that marriage, at least, does include the right to have sex, and therefore, is allowed to conceive children.

Also, you could look at fornication laws and adultery laws (still on the books in Massachusetts) and note that sexual intercourse is always legal in marriage. You could also look at marriage laws and note that no couples that are prohibited from procreating together by incest laws are ever allowed to marry. You could also look at Zablocki v Redhail and note that it said marriage is the one institution where sex is legal.

I am not basing my argument on unmarried sex and conception being illegal. I am not concerned here with out of wedlock conception, and it doesn't matter if it's legal. I am only concerned that IN-wedlock conception remain legal.

[foolsage]

With all due respect, nothing you said here either proves that marriage explicitly grants legal rights to procreate, nor that any laws preventing procreation by unmarried persons are currently enforced in the Western world.

You said, "I am not basing my argument on unmarried sex and conception being illegal."

Then do you concede that it is in fact legal?

[foolsage]

Your reading of Lawrence vs Kansas (by the way, the case was actually Lawrence vs Texas, not Kansas) goes well past what the court actually stated. As you noted, "it would demean a married couple to be told their marriage was only about the right to have sexual intercourse". That statement and the rest of the judgement neither explicitly states nor implies though that any right of procreation is legally granted by the institution of marriage.

Note that Lawrence vs Texas created a precedent that has been used to strike down all laws against fornication in the U.S. as unconstitutional.

By the way, spousal rape (a form of sexual activity) has been illegal everywhere in the U.S. since 1993.

Incest laws actually forbid the sexual activity itself, not the procreation. That whole topic is really completely tangential to this discussion though.

[John Howard]

2) You're concerned that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow erode the rights of married couples to procreate. Can you explain the basis of this belief please?

First of all, merely equating the right to procreate with someone of the same sex to the right to procreate with someone of the other sex erodes the right of individuals to use their own genes to procreate, because it says that using your own genes is EQUAL to using modified or substitute genes. If they are equal, then no loss of rights occurs when someone is forced to use modified gametes or substitute gametes, they are equal rights. We have to establish that the right to use your own genes, unmodified and unsubstituted, is much greater than the right to use modified or substitute genes, which I am also saying are not rights at all, let alone equal rights.

Another way the rights of married couples are eroded would be by having same-sex marriages, but also prohibiting same-sex procreation and genetic modification, in other words, prohibiting those same-sex married couples from conceiving children together. Obviously, if a same-sex married couple is prohibited from conceiving with their genes, then their marriage does not protect them or any other couple (they're all equal marriages) from being prohibited from procreating with their own genes.

[foolsage]

You said, "equating the right to procreate with someone of the same sex to the right to procreate with someone of the other sex erodes the right of individuals to use their own genes to procreate, because it says that using your own genes is EQUAL to using modified or substitute genes."

This is precisely the same logic that argued that women and minorities shouldn't be given the right to vote; allowing them this freedom made the pre-existing rights of white males to vote seem lessened in comparison.

Giving a right to someone else doesn't lessen your preexisting rights.

Your thoughts about genetic modification and substitution don't really apply to this point but to #3 below, so I'll address them there.

[John Howard]

3) You're concerned that in vitro fertilization and the use of donated gametes is harmful, and you've compared these acts to crimes like rape and raising babies to harvest their organs. Can you explain what harm comes from IVF and donated gametes please? Can you provide any proof that these activities are illegal or that they have clear victims?

That's a different subject from gay marriage, and while I can make arguments about why they're both bad and illicit, it's not essential to my argument here that I convince anyone of that, nor is it as important as stopping new bad things from happening.

[foolsage]

Whether it's essential to your argument here or not, you've made these claims several times in several threads now, in the context of this discussion about gay marriage. The clear implication is that you feel that the issues of IVF and donated gametes, and indeed in a broader sense the use of one's own genetic material to make children, are pertinent to this topic. Witness the fact that you brought this issue up again in #2 above.

So, again, what is your concern about the source of genetic material?

How does this concern, as you detailed it again in #2 above, pertain to the issue of same-sex marriages? Without knowing what the concern is, your arguments about genetic material and how marriage protects rights thereunto lack any context and meaning.

[foolsage]

A follow-up question: you've mentioned genetic modification quite a few times but have not explained what precisely you mean by this nor what the harms there are. Could you explain please what you mean by this, and then how it relates to the issue of same-sex marriage?

[John Howard]

4) Do you perceive any difference between same-sex couples using IVF or donated gametes, and heterosexual couples using these procedures?

No, neither is a right of marriage, or a right at all if you ask me. My proposal (click my name) would not affect use of IVF or donor gametes by anyone, in any relationship.

4b) How do you feel about same-sex couples using normal sexual means to create a child (i.e. an opposite-sex partner copulating with one member of the same-sex couple) or adopting a child?

I oppose all intentional pregnancies, but accept with celebration the right of married couples to have sex and the babies that they are blessed with from doing that. But I am not in favor of the "baby making business" or the adoption racket and the whole crazy feeling that people have to be raising children and go to great lengths to acquire children to fulfill their personal desires. People should accept childlessness and feel the blessings that come from that.

[foolsage]

4a) I didn't mention marriage but was rather concerned with how you perceive the rights of couples in general. Your answer was clear though and I thank you.

4b) I think there must be a typo here. Surely you don't mean "I oppose all intentional pregnancies"? By implication you would only support unintentional (i.e. accidental or forced) pregnancies, or no pregnancy at all. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ;)

I think the rest of your answer is quite clear though. Please correct me if I misunderstand, but it seems that you feel that only married couples should procreate, and only using natural means. You further feel that adoption is inappropriate since the child being raised is not biologically related to both parents.

What then do you think should become of orphans?

What do you think should happen to children in abusive homes?

What should happen to children whose parents divorce then remarry others? Note that this situation is the same as having a third party involved in the natural birth of the child - i.e. two people have a child, and one of those two raises the child along with someone else.

[Kenny1948]

Yesterday I received a short not from an old friend in New York. He said his "Husband", of 42 years had passed on from cancer. I do not believe they were ever "married", however this is what they always called each other. Now tell me all you "marriage is for heterosexuals only" people. Does the fact that these two men were in a loving relationship for over forty years, deny their right to call it a marriage? I see far many more straight marriages end in divorce, than my gay friends. The only reason to deny gay people the right to marry, is plain BIGOTRY! Religion is no excuse.

[John Howard]

They certainly had the right to call each other "husband" and say they were married. They'd be just as allowed to say that if they were in a Civil Union, obviously, since they don't need to be in any official union to be allowed to say that.

That doesn't mean that their actual legal rights should be the same. They should not have the same right to procreate together as married couples, because it would require genetic modification and be bad public policy.

[foolsage]

One of the men could very well have traditional old-fashioned sex with a woman, and then the two men could raise the child. Or they could use artificial insemination of a host mother. Or in vitro fertilization.

None of the above has anything to do with genetic modification.

[Anitra Freeman]

If religious groups want different words for the marriages they recognize and the marriages they don't, they get to come up with a new word for the marriages they recognize. As Geoffrey notes, the word "marriage" had a secular meaning long before it had a religious one.