FIC Supporters Get Active to Defend Marriage and Religious Liberty
April 5th, 2007 by Brian
I’ve received an amazing amount of correspondence appalled at the performance of Mike Lawlor, Andrew McDonald, Ed Gomes, and William Tong in the public hearing. Because of the Catholic League, Lifesitenews, and Air Maria this story has gone national. Many of our supporters have found great ways to make their concerns known. I wanted to share one example of a letter we received from one of our supporters written to House Majority Leader Jim Amman:
Dear Speaker Amman,I am writing to ask that you address some counter-productive conduct displayed by certain Judiciary Committee members during the hearings on HB-7395, a bill regarding same-sex marriage. I watched some of the hearings live on Monday, 3/26/07 via CT-N, I watched some on the CT-N “re-run” on 4/1/07 and I watched some via the CT-N on the Web. I did not watch the entire hearing, but I believe that I observed enough over the course of several hours to feel that I took in more than a representative sample.Let me state clearly that after listening to the testimonies, I am opposed to this bill, but that is not why I am writing. I am writing because, as a voting citizen of this state, I am completely and utterly appalled at the conduct that I observed by certain judiciary committee members during the hearings. In particular, I would cite the conduct of representatives Lawlor and Tong, to name two.I am hopeful that I am not the first one bringing this to your attention. In fact, if you observed the hearings either live or otherwise, the behavior I am referring to is plain to see and requires no explanation from me. Just the same, I would say that the conduct falls into 2 major categories:1. The creation and propagation of a hostile environment for those testifying with an opinion different than certain committee members. Again, I would be happy to go through the recording and give examples of how this was done, but if you watch the testimony of Brian Brown (Family Institute of Connecticut), you will notice that he is all but verbally attacked by Tong and Lawlor among others. Those opposing same sex marriage were treated in such a way that certain committee members showed frustration and disgust toward them. Contrast the treatment Mr. Brown received to the warm smiles and acceptance that Ian Ayres and Jennifer Gerarda Brown received from many committee members during their testimony late in the day. Is that something that you are willing to tolerate as the leadership figure of this body? I would hope that any decent politician would learn how to treat people with more dignity and respect than I saw Lawlor and Tong treat Mr. Brown and others.2. A clear indication that there was barely an attempt at impartiality or open-mindedness for the topic at hand. Throughout the hearings, it was clear that several committee members were there to simply discover information that supported their position. In fact, by the nature and tone of their questions, it was plainly clear which members of the committee were bound and determined to refute any testimony that seemed to disprove their position. I ask you, what place does this kind of display have at a hearing? Isn’t the hearing designed to be an open forum where committee members can learn what their constituents think about an issue? At best, the display I saw was politics at it’s most disgusting, at worst this was a disruption of the democratic process. Can we all (those for and against) simply admit that many on both sides of the issue made intelligent arguments that deserved a listening ear?Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill never gets out of committee. But beyond that, I am more hopeful that you, as leader of these representatives would make a statement that what Lawlor, Tong and others did on March 26th was unacceptable for public officials. I would hope that you are not tolerant of the bullying tactics displayed. It’s never fair to push people around – especially given the positional responsibility that these representatives possess– one of authority in public life. There was much talk of bigotry, bias, discrimination and fair treatment during these hearings. Well, I dare say, that the behavior I observed certainly did nothing to teach the rest of us about how to love and respect our fellow man or woman. Whether these representatives choose to change their ways is ultimately up to them, but at the least they need to be reminded of their responsibility to respect and fairly treat both the democratic process they should be upholding as well as the people that they serve in this state.Continued displays like this will earn them and their party something that they will ultimately deserve – a vote for a more dignified and civilized opponent.
Since when are legislators supposed to be impartial? Why do you think they were elected? Since when it is uncommon to ask pointed questions? To express an opinion at a hearing? To disagree with and challenge a speaker? Have you ever attended a public hearing before? Are your egos that fragile? Grow up, kids!
They were not elected to mock and berate people who testify, nor were they elected to display bullying tactics.
Again it seems the Left has a very big problem with being able to conduct civil discourse which is respectful of dissenting opinions. Lawlor and company are the ones that need to grow up. Furthermore the lack of tolerance exhibited by those who espouse a constant mantra of tolerance is just incredibly hypocritical and very telling.
Judy,
Where did they mock anyone? They were asking Brian a legitimate question, and he answered it, and Lawlor respectfully thanked him for his answer. Where is the bullying?
Kathy,
Lawler knows his question was a caricature of Catholic teaching. He asked the same question 3 times, so as to suggest that Brian had something to hide. Lawler wanted people to believe that Catholics are bigots and that the defense of traditional marriage is a bigoted position
Everyone knows the Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful. Its another thing to label a person or group of persons intrinsically evil and objectively disordered. It is still another thing to say that the traditional family is unique and the reason for the states involvment in marriage in the first place.
There was no bullying.
This is no more than the FIC strategy of claiming a bogus “war on Catholics” in an attempt to stir up support.
If anything, this is just one more evidence of how very little support the FIC agenda has among the people of Connecticut (Catholics included), and how desperate this group is.
Chele – if indeed this group is so desperate and has such little support – then why do you seem so threatened by them? If they were so irrelevant you wouldn’t care what was said or done at this blog, or even in legislative testimony – because apparently your belief is that no one would care to visit here or pay attention to what FIC said. So perhaps your claim is a smokescreen to the real knowledge that the majority of people in this state would vote down same sex marriage as handily as was done in many other states – even liberal ones.
You and others keep saying they are irrelevant and desperate… prove it.
You gonna believe some dumb poll or misrepresented article by the Courant? (Talk about something being irrelevant.. )
Statistics have already shown that people may tolerate civil union, but SSM is a way harder sell. Even non religious people cling to certain traditions.
You people won’t allow a popular vote of SSM here because you know it would fail. That’s how irrelevant FIC is. If you want SSM so badly then put it to a popular vote and be done with it. Let all of the people in this state decide. But you are all too afraid to do that. FIC welcomes that vote. Why? because they know that they have the support you lack.
Believe me if you think coming over here and saying they have no support will shake their will or confidence you are dead wrong. What you have to say has about as much impact as an eyedropper of water in an ocean.
The only one seeming desperate here is you.
Lawlor crossed the line.. he was downright obnoxious (no surprise to me though) and he has shown himself to be the intolerant arrogant person that he really is.
I was at the hearing, and also reread the dialogue between you, Brian, and Lawlor, MacDonald and Gomes. I did not percieve that they were disrespecting you. I also felt you answered them honestly and appropriately by making the distinction between the Church’es views of homosexual acts vs. homosexuals themselves. I don’t agree with the view that homosexuality is a sin, but I think it was important for you to state your views since Catholicism does inform them. Nothing to be ashamed of there. The disagreement is, I think, one of whether to frame this as a matter of protecting a minority from discrimination based on the religious beliefs of others, even if those others make up a majority of voters in the state. I truly don’t think that granting same-sex couples the right to marry infringes on the freedom or welfare of Catholics or other religious groups who would not choose that option for themselves.
I agree that it’s not realistic to expect Lawlor and MacDonald to be “objective” since they are co-sponsors of the bill. The ENTIRE Committee will vote on the MERITS of the bill, not just these two senators, and they are big boys and girls who can see through any personal conflicts that might have arisen in the hearings. I don’t agree with your views, but I am glad that we live in a state where you had the opportunity to voice your opinion in a public forum such as that hearing. I thought you handled yourself well. Let it go.
Lawlor wasn’t obnoxious Judy, and all the saying it in the world won’t make it so. If Brian hadn’t made an issue of his Catholicism, it would never have come up. But because he does consistently, he will be questioned on it.
“You people won’t allow a popular vote of SSM here…”
Who are “you people,” Judy? The ones who wrote the state Constitution?
Do you believe CT should govern by referendum?
For the record, I don’t think FIC is irrelevant. Desperate, yes, but at the same time extremely dangerous. Which is why I come here, aside from the amusement value. I have no misconception that I’ll change their minds — you don’t change true believers. FIC actually enjoys us coming here because it boosts their blog stats. If we weren’t dropping by to argue with them they’d go back to their
Also, Brian, whatever one thinks about whether these legislators were disrespectful to you, I don’t think you at any time were disrespectful to them or personalized the issues in the way you complain they did. So, again, rather than stirring up indignation on your behalf, why not put the defensiveness on the shelf and accentuate the POSITIVE – that you handled yourself very well under grueling questioning. I think it puts you in a stronger position – but still not one that I hope these legislators will endorse.
Yeah, Lawlor sounded very obnoxious and arrogant when he said to Brian, and I quote from the transcript:
Lawlor: “I think it’s important cause I definitely respect everyone’s views, but I think it is important to clarify the basis of those views and…and I respect you for saying that’s how you feel.”
Wow! Can you feel the arrogance?!?! How DARE he say that he respects Brian Brown! How rude of him!
No – Lawlor was obnoxious in his repeated tries to get Brian to say that homosexuals were intrinsically evil and objectively disordered..
I don’t think Lawlor was sincere at all.. he said what he said because he is a politician. He was only concerned with trying to put Brian in a box.. and he failed.
And, Brian did handle himself very well..
As for Chele’s question.. CT shouldn’t be governed by referendum except in extreme issues like this one. Making a decision on same sex marriage is not like whether we are going to bond a highway or institute seat belt laws. There is much more at stake here.
Quite frankly I think it has been an enormous waste of legislative time when there are many more important issues to deal with. Same sex marriage does not affect a huge percentage of people here, and the one and only reason why it is being pursued is to advance federal legislation. That’s it.. period. Lawlor, and his lobby ,wants CT to be the first to institute this without the courts telling them to. They need CT as a notch on their belt. Lawlor is looking for a national stage and national recognition. He is a self serving politician. He couldn’t give a rats tail about his constituents real needs- like tax relief or a score of other things – and didn’t even raise gay marriage as a campaign issue.
Granting same sex marriage in CT will not be giving anyone any new rights that they do not already enjoy with civil unions. Civil Union has barely even been given a chance to work. Meanwhile much more important issues such as eminent domain abuse and the incredible tax burden that EVERYONE – even gay people – suffers continues. Our energy policy lays in ruin and all Lawlor and company cares about is whether gay people can be called married or not. Religious beliefs aside we really ought to be more concerned about businesses and doctors leaving the state, and what we can do to curb the crime in our cities.
You may think FIC is desperate.. I think Lawlor’s is more desperate to get SSM passed .. and he ought to be paying more attention to what affects EVERYONE in this state not just his self serving special interest buddies.
Don’t forget that Lawler misquoted the teaching of the Catholic Church in his question. Remember that what appeared to be a question about Brian’s faith was loaded with false information. Lawler could have easily said: “Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to be that you Catholics believe. . .” but he didn’t he chose to misrepresent the belief of Catholics, realizing the misperception that would result from his manner of questioning.
Malkin…
What “exactly” was Lawlor’s misquote?
http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/article.asp?id=78
J Aron says “CT shouldn’t be governed by referendum except in extreme issues like this one. Making a decision on same sex marriage is not like whether we are going to bond a highway or institute seat belt laws. There is much more at stake here.”
You know, I didn’t know that couples had to go through referenda to get married. But if that’s what opposite-sex couples do, I guess it’s fair for same-sex couples.
It’s just that I have three sisters, all married, and I don’t remember a single vote taken to permit them to marry their husbands. For that matter, I don’t remember anyone’s marriage coming up on any ballot. All these people getting married, and they never, ever asked my opinion.
There’s a lot at stake here and if people get to vote as to whether I can get married, then I must have a vote on whether they can get married.
J Aron says, “He couldn’t give a rats tail about his constituents real needs- like tax relief or a score of other things – and didn’t even raise gay marriage as a campaign issue.”
Really, because if I recall he discussed the issue several times throughout his past few campaigns. In fact, if you ask any of his constituents where he stands on the issue, I’m sure every single one of them knows the answer and yet he keeps getting re-elected by wide margins.
Secondly, your argument about how we should not do anything if it only effects a minority of people sounds like one of the most un-American things I have ever heard in my entire life.
Third, Lawlor is chair of the Judiciary committee, which has no cognizance over tax or energy issues at all. As for the eminent domain issue that you also raised, Lawlor’s Judiciary committee had a public hearing on an eminent domain bill last week I believe, and they will be voting on it this week, with Lawlor being one of the people pushing for it.
In addition, a quick internet search of what bills Lawlor has introduced/co-sponsored this year include many bills dealing with the protection of children against child sex predators, bills that would give parents more rights if their children run away from home, and some bills regarding an environment issue in his home district, among others, including ones that may not have his direct name on it because he introduced them through his committee.
My point is, SSM is not the only issue by far that he and his committee are working on this session.
Chele,
Lawler questioned Brian about labeling persons as “intrisically evil and objectively disordered.” The Church does not, nor has it ever taught that. If the members of the committee, especially the chair, are going to make an issue out of Brian’s faith, they should do the public the favor of being accurate.
Lawler asked a fallacious question, implying falsely that the Catholic Church teaches a bigoted doctrine relavative to homosexuals. This is a classic example of the fallacy of complex question.
In a single question, Lawler hoped that the public would swallow what he hoped would be a forgone conclusion, based on a false, unstated and unproven major: The Church’s teachings are bigoted. But Brian is a Catholic. Therefore Brian is a bigot.
Everyone here knows that Lawler was questioning Brian about his faith, and everyone here is in a position to know that Lawler’s assumption about what the Catholic Church teaches is false.
Lawler knew what he was doing. It was disgraceful.
Malkin – fortunately, since it was a question, Brian could have said “no, I don’t believe that, and it’s not Catholic teaching.”
He didn’t.
Also, Judy, I find it amazing that you can argue that Lawlor is wasting time as a legislator on this issue, yet that it’s of such critical importance that it should go to a statewide referendum. That’s called “doublethink,” isn’t it?
Brian was there testifying about various things, and among them he spoke about his faith.
Isn’t it the responsibility of legislators to ask further questions about people testifying in front of them in regards to the topic they are speaking of?
I see nothing out of line at all here
This was one of 10 different topics posted on this blog last week, but it’s almost the only one our opponents care to discuss. It is they, and not us, who seem to be obsessing over this.
Matt,
Did you even watch the testimony or read the transcript? What are you talking about?
Yes, Brian did say that the Church does not teach what Lawler stated it did, and he also said that he did not believe the nonsense either. For your benefit, I’ll post the exchange:
Representative Michael Lawlor: Alright…and I asked a couple of people earlier on, because I think it helps us to understand people’s views on this issue…I mean do you personally feel that homosexuality is intrinsically evil and objectively disordered?
Brian Brown: Again, as a Roman Catholic and as someone who believes in the First Amendment, in the First Amendment, there is a small line that says “There shall be no religious tests or qualifications for office.” Now what you are saying isn’t a religious test or qualification about running for office but the idea that as a Roman Catholic who believes what the Church teaches, I don’t have a right to stand up and speak my mind freely and fairly. I think that goes against one of the key foundational principles of this country. So yes, as a Catholic, I believe what the Catholic Church teaches on this and I respect my Protestant brothers and sisters and everyone here who has their own religious beliefs, but the arguments I put forward today I think are logical and rational arguments on the foundation of marriage. I think people of different faiths and different backgrounds can agree on this, and for those who disagree…that is what this public hearing is about.
Representative Michael Lawlor: I’m glad you said that cause I think that seems to be the dividing line, if you believe that about homosexuality then you are opposed to same sex marriage and if you don’t, typically you’re supportive of at least civil unions and potentially marriage. And I think it’s important cause I definitely respect everyone’s views, but I think it is important to clarify the basis of those views and…and I respect you for saying that’s how you feel.
Brian Brown: I believe in respect and the basic human dignity of everyone…um…so again, I think that is something else that our church teaches, charity, love, respect, um…and that is what I believe in.
Representative Michael Lawlor: So labeling people as intrinsically evil and objectively disordered is a respectful thing in your view?
Brian Brown: Well, first of all the Church doesn’t label people as that. It talks about acts, what the Church doesn’t agree with that’s a very different thing. So that’s a mischaracterization of what the Catholic Church teaches.
Representative Michael Lawlor: Okay, so I’ll clarify my statement… so you believe that people who love people of the same sex are intrinsically evil and objectively disordered. Is that what you feel?
Brian Brown: Of course I don’t. I’m not saying people or individuals, I’m not saying anything like that, but if you want to stand up here and have a show trial on my Catholicism, I’m willing to stand hear and answer questions all day because people fought for the right to be Catholic. People fought for the right to believe what they believe and speak up on those issues, and anyone here who is sitting here, I don’t care what religion you are–don’t ever be silenced. Don’t ever be told don’t speak what you believe. That’s what we have to do and that’s what I believe in.
Malkin, I watched the hearing in real time and have gone over film clips of it since.
As a tax paying citizen, I applaud Mr. Lawlor for asking questions that *I* want answered. Connecticut is NOT a theocracy. I want to make sure our laws on not being enacted or overturned due to one religion’s dogma.
Brian presents himself as the voice of outraged Catholics. He has indicated that he speaks with the full blessing of the diocese. Therefore, he can be questioned on these matters.
Do you have any issues with the questioning of the Canon Law priest?
I really don’t get how people think that passing “same sex marriage” will not in any way affect people who do not uphold the same idea. Did you not hear anything Brian pointed out at the hearing? Did you not hear the other testimonies? If SSM is passed, marriage will be redifined. An argument was brought up at the hearing that churches will not be forced to perfrom SSM, but in reality they will. Since it will be law, it would be “unlawful” to turn them away. I believe this has been proven in Canada already.
I think Lawler and MacDonald treated all the conservative people who testified differently from the people for the bill. It’s was obvious to whoever watched the hearing. Brian handled himself very well and was clear and concise on his postion.
This is definitely an issue that should go to public referrendum.
John D, you are being deliberately ‘cute’ and obtuse, as are so many who swallow the radical gay agenda ‘talking points’ (and turn around and spout them here and everywhere the subject of SSM comes up).
In raising the notion that heterosexual couples should have to get a referendum in order to get married, you are totally ignoring the FACT that for all millennia of human existence, across practically every culture, marriage has been defined according to NATURAL LAW (whether or not one believes that God ordained Marriage). “Marriage” has been always defined as between a man and a woman (or in some cases a man and more than one woman).
Marriage was neither created by nor defined by “Governments.” (Yes, governments have made some regulations for health reasons, etc.–but that’s not the same as defining what “marriage” is.) Marriage and family are, by far, humanity’s oldest institutions, much older than governments—thus, governments have no business trying to redefine what MARRIAGE IS, as H.B. 7395 would do.
All of you who keep insisting that the March 26th public hearing was conducted in a perfectly professional, unbiased way need to get a dose of REALITY. Brian Brown and others, such as Maggie Gallagher, WERE subjected to a blatant, biased ‘inquisition’ on their religious beliefs.
As others have mentioned, Messers Lawlor and McDonald, as well as Sen. Gomes and Rep. Tong, were very obviously there to get information only to buttress their own predetermined views. They solicitously questioned those arguing FOR 7395, and antagonistically interrogated, ignored, or pooh-poohed the testimony of those with opposite views.
I was there from the beginning of the hearing on March 26th, until the very end, at almost midnight. But, I was rewarded by hearing a woman named Jane verbally chastise the unprofessional performance of those I have just mentioned, although she did not mention them by name as I have. In part Jane said:
“I have not been impressed today with you people. The bias is so palpable, the slant, the gymnastics you go through to try to justify your bias…I have not found any real, genuine questions. I’ve heard your agenda. I’ve heard your point-making. I’ve heard you interrogate one side more than the other. I’m livid.”
I too was “livid,” although I was gratified at least to hear Jane express so well what most objective people who attended the hearing must have been thinking and feeling. If you want a ‘treat,’ watch Jane’s testimony near the end of the March 26th public hearing. She was very calm and powerful, and I’ve given here just a taste of what she had to say.
Tricia is absolutely right. I also appreciated Jane’s powerful testimony. I was glad someone called them out on their conduct.
Also, if you want to see Rep. Lawlor again performing another inquisition and shamefully attacking people of faith, there is a video of last week’s Judiciary committee meeting posted on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDAtMJqtzLg
Awww, Tricia called me cute. If I weren’t a gay man, that might turn my head.
Sure, I was being a bit flippant. I prefer it to being part of the wild-eyed sets that exist on both sides of this argument. I think this issue should be met with good will and humor.
We all need to try to see the other side’s point. I’ve tried to see the points made by the opponents to same-sex marriage and I see how deeply they feel about these matters.
I also think they’re wrong. Dead wrong.
A frequent problem with the arguments made by the opponents of same-sex marriage is that they don’t hold up in the real world. They would represent limitations not currently (or ever) placed on opposite-sex couples.
The simple answer is this: a series of Supreme Court decisions (if nothing else Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas) have determined that there can be no legal liabilities attached to being gay.
Further, other cases (can’t cite names here, sorry) have determined that actual illegal acts cannot have a ban on marriage attached. Deadbeat dads and serial killers can marry.
Further, in Loving v Virginia the Supreme Court held marriage as a “basic human right.”
You are entitled to believe that the nation ought to work on a basis of Natural Law (the First Amendment grants you that, at least in the commonly held expansive view of it). But we are not based on Natural Law. Further, Natural Law is just a pretty name packaging for Christian Law. It is not consistent with American political principles, derived from the basis of English Common Law.
This becomes the problem:
If we are going to deny a group of people from equal access to the laws, we need a good reason. This reason cannot be “homosexuality violates Natural Law,” especially in light of the court cases I cited above. And if marriage is a “basic human right,” how do we deny it to a group against which we cannot place any legal barriers?
“Because marriage has always meant a man and a woman” just isn’t good enough.
Marriage, historically, is a creation of governments. It was a thing that was rendered unto Caesar and didn’t get rendered unto God until the late Middle Ages. “No, but God created marriage.” History says otherwise. Historically, marriage has been all about property and not at all about God.
The laws of the United States allow you to privately disdain gay people. The laws allow your religious organization to refuse to solemnize same-sex weddings.
What cannot be allowed is a group denying rights to a minority due to this private disdain. That is a violation of important civil rights.
Hey John D, welcome to the party. For a while it’d just been het folks fighting the good fight around here.
I always thought Natural Law was sort of a dodge: mostly because however someone defines it, it’s impossible to argue with them. (“Natural Law means never having to justify your position.”)
Of course, Natural Law was the foundation for anti-miscegenation laws, but equality opponents squeal loudly whenever one compares their current stance to that of last generation’s bigots. But they use the same logic, and argue that Natural Law is a tradition going back centuries! Very confusing.
I dig that you’re bringing English Common Law to the table, which is the logic we use everywhere in the United States (well, excepting Louisiana, apparently.)
Frankly, we have a perfectly fine legal system, and a perfectly fine system for adjusting it to our current social needs.
“Marriage, historically, is a creation of governments. It was a thing that was rendered unto Caesar and didn’t get rendered unto God until the late Middle Ages. “No, but God created marriage.” History says otherwise. Historically, marriage has been all about property and not at all about God.”
Marriage is male and female in love for life, both lengthwise and baby-wise. It is neither a creation of governments or the Church. The state has an interest in marriage because it is the most basic social institution, existing universally as a union of one man and one woman. Property is a factor of the states interest, but it is not the whole of it. It is in the interest of the state to promote and protect the Mom, Dad, Baby relationship.
This is not a question of disdain for gay people, but of resistance against treating the definition of marriage, and marriage itself as something arbitrary.
F. A. Malkin,
I’m glad we agree that marriage is one of those things “rendered unto Caesar,” but you also note,
So, then can we mark you down as one of those people who feel that procreation is the sole raison d’être of marriage? And if that is so, would you support a measure that insisted on procreation for a marriage to be valid, thus denying infertile heterosexual marriage rights?
My view is that the state has an obligation to protect the spouse/spouse relationship, whether there’s a baby involved or not.
If baby is a required part of the paradigm, then we need to exclude the infertile.
If baby is not part of the paradigm, then you’re at my argument, that the state should treat all adult [non-criminal] relationships equally.
And you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say ok to childless opposite-sex couples and then argue that a lack of interfertility is an insurmountable barrier to marriage for same-sex couples. That argument can only be rooted in disdain for same-sex couples.
(I added “non-criminal” because the proof exists that child brides, multiple wives, and incestuous relationships all have a marked propensity for harm, giving sufficient justification to bans on them. Conversely, studies of same-sex couples have shown that most same-sex couples are like most opposite-sex couples; i.e., there is no propensity for harm.
(I realize that some conservatives believe that homosexuality is inherently harmful. This is an unsupported assertion and many of those who make it rely on junk science.)
I think our sample couple should be named “Pat and Chris.” Anything we say of Pat should be true of Chris. And this is true whether they are a man and a woman, two women, or two men.
John D.,
The indisputable historical fact is that the state has regulated marriage because the family arises from the sexual relationship of men and women. It has always been in the interests of the state to encourage men and women to come together and have babies and take care of them. I repeat this is the plain historical fact of the state’s interest. To deny this would be gross and arbitrary revisionism.
Neither the state nor the Church has mandated fertility in marital relationships, because the specific interest in regulating is to encourage and protect the structure wherein children are born and nurtured by their parents. Whether, this or that particular incidence of the structure yeilds children is not relevant to the purpose of institutional regulation. If the structure is encouraged and protected then the state’s and the Church’s interests are promoted.
You posit a false dichotomy. SSM is not merely the extension of rights and obligations, but a radical redefinition or marriage. Marriage is the unique and preeminent institution that it is, precisely because of the potentiality that arises from the differentiation of the sexes.
Again, plain historical fact: marriage exists because there are men and women. Encourage them to come together in stable relationships and we will have families, regardless of some instances of infertility.
Men and women make babies. They become moms and dads. It is good for babies to know their moms and dads, and be raised by them. There are anomolies (infertility, parental abuse, etc.), but they are, in fact, anomolies . The state has always known what marriage is and why it is involved in it.
That this all this is so completely disregarded makes it plain that it is not the extension marriage to the widest range of persons that is the real interest of this revisionism, but the classification of this kind of defense of marriage as bigotry.
My argument, in fact, is not rooted in disdain for same-sex couples. On the contrary, your disregard for the historical reality of marriage is disdain for the facts and for all who hold them to be true.
FA Malkin-
You’ve given a serious answer, so I will do my best to respond in kind: how does this state-sponsored “encouraging” work?
It’s a larger question for me than simply marriage, because quite a number of conservative arguments include this phrase (internationalism “encourages the terrorists”, a low tax rate “encourages job creation,” etc) yet it’s never clear to me that more of the desired outcome would occur if we followed the conservative policy preference.
So if marriage were extended to gay couples, do you genuinely fear that heterosexual couples would be less inclined to form bonds that would keep them together over years of child-rearing?
It seems to me a punitive view of marriage in a way: our societal experience shows that in the case of divorce women generally are fiercely insistent on custody of their children, so is marriage in your view a government-sponsored tool to provide dramatic penalties against men who would leave their spouses and children?
Connecticut is far far away from this legislative outcome, but perhaps that’s the logic behind getting rid of no-fault divorce as well.
First, it seems to me that the specific function of protecting child-producing and -rearing is a limited one: the state may have an interest in monogamy, in shared economic risk, etc. I think we can probably agree (I hope!) that marriage does make our society much more stable, and that’s why marriage is a good (rather than value-neutral) thing.
But the logical leap that I can’t follow is that extending marriage rights to gay couples will weaken its societal impact on heterosexual couples. And “encourages” is the hinge to your argument that I can’t understand.
Are you suggesting that the value we place on marriage is based on a notion of heterosexual superiority that would be diminished by allowing homosexual couples to marry? (I can take you at your word — that your argument is “not rooted in disdain for same-sex couples” — and that this doesn’t apply to you personally, but is this the case for many people?)
Are you suggesting that a significant number of marriages which currently produce children would be broken up if one or both of the partners could solemnize their preference for a partner of the same sex under the auspices of marriage? (This would suggest that the institution has an “encouraging effect” that entices participants into it that is not based on love or sexual preference, but rather is strong enough to overcome both of those).
Are you suggesting that men and women will say “why bother?” to children if the state sanctions same-sex marriage? This would mean that many people have children not because they necessarily want them or because of their love for their partner, but because of societal pressure for married people to produce children once they are married. (I see most couples rejecting the “in-law factor” already, but perhaps if gays and lesbians could marry, they would have a definitive tool to use for repelling the nosy aunt from prying in their business.)
Or is there another way straight couples would get discouraged?
To my view, extending the rights and responsibilities to gay couples would further the notion that marriage is a universal institution, and would make same-sex relationships and households more stable. Since homosexual men can adopt and women can either adopt or carry a child to term by “outside intervention,” I see there being a tangible benefit to those children and to society generally if those parents (adoptive or no) could be married. I really don’t see we can lose with this.
Earlier in this discussion thread, John D argued that “If baby is a required part of the paradigm, then we need to exclude the infertile” and that otherwise the state ought to treat all adult relationships equally.
This is a classic false-argument technique, in which the debate is mistakenly re-framed into an “all or nothing” question. Essentially John would have us believe that either (1) marriage as a privileged status has everything to do with procreation, or (2) marriage as a privileged status has nothing to do with procreation. Or, in the mathematics of my April 12th FIC article “Abandoning Conjugality”, he would have us believe that the only choices are a 100-to-0 split, or a 0-to100 split, when considering the relative societal value of the companionate and conjugal aspects of marriage.
Reasoning observers will quickly note the fallacy of this argument. There is in fact an entire middle ground that lies in between these 2 extremes. A much more reasonable point of view is that the procreative aspect of marriage occupies a very significant portion within the societal value of marriage. We could probably debate whether it is a 50-50 split, or an uneven split; but believing that the procreative aspect has no significant value whatsoever in justifying the government recognition of marriage would be intellectually dishonest.
Social policy within our system of laws is driven towards the normative case. It is the natural expectation that in the majority of cases, marriage between a man and woman is likely to result in the begetting of children. And the exceptions cannot be so easily anticipated beforehand.
In past centuries, it has been neither possible nor practical to anticipate that a specific couple would fail to produce children. Age alone cannot predict. There are documented cases where women have conceived and given birth during their 50s and 60s. One woman even conceived triplets – without “outside intervention” – at the age of 54. Men remain fertile much longer, and are able to successfully father children even in their elderly years. U.S. Senator Strom Thurman fathered a child at age 81. The scientific literature even includes a case where a man fathered a child at age 94. Only within recent times has medicine progressed sufficiently that we might have reasonable possibility of predicting infertility.
Even so, we can never be certain that a male and female will be unable to conceive. Couples who faithfully use contraceptive measures, and even those who have been surgically sterilized, have nevertheless been occasionally surprised with an unexpected baby that defies the odds against conception. Add to this the fact that many people who have been surgically sterilized often elect to have the procedure reversed.
We can, however, be quite certain that couplings between two males – or two females – will be unable to conceive through attempts to combine their gametes. It is a biological impossibility.
Insisting upon fertility tests for prospective husbands and wives, which John D intimates by his comments, would result in an expensive and impractical system. Fertility testing can cost thousands of dollars per couple, and even the best testing cannot guarantee that the couple will never be able to conceive. However, it is obvious (and free) to determine the complete infertility of a same-sex relationship.
No, it isn’t. You might like to see a legal system based strictly on majority rule, but the American system of laws is based largely on protecting individual rights from infringement by the majority.
Our law recognizes the right of handicapped people to enter public buildings, of inter-racial couples to wed, of kids with learning disabilities to get a public education, and dozens of other basic rights are explicitly protected for those not belonging to the normative class.
And the ratios of why people get married is not especially relevant, since you aren’t arguing that your key “societal values” be the reason behind any actual marriage. I know a couple made of one gay man and one lesbian who got married to take advantage of college loans offered to students with spouses. Their marriage put zero value on reproduction, zero value on companionship (they only knew one another through their actual partners), and yet their it would be perfectly legal and moral by the arguments you make.
Matt,
“moral,” How? “One gay man and one lesbian who got married to take advantage of college loans offered to students with spouses”–an economic scam, how would anyone consider that to be moral?
That’s equivalent to a sham marriage to help a foreigner get a green card or the like.
You and your gay activist friends are always touting gays and lesbians, what upstanding citizens they are, how they are “just like everyone else,” etc. What a fine example you cite!!
FA Malkin-
A short answer to your long comment:
My reading in the history of marriage has been fairly extensive. I’m trained in medieval studies and I’ve had an interest in the social structures of Western society and how they’ve developed.
My reading of history, as backed up through primary sources and the works of historians, is that the state has regulated marriage due to questions of property.
Certainly the historical examples we have of marriage are heterosexual (I’m quite willing to discount John Boswell’s claims of same-sex couples in pre-modern Europe). A man and a woman joined together and they merged property.
Marriage is a matter for the state because couples hold property in common.
Even today, the assumption is made that the finances of a long-term unmarried couple are less intertwined than even the newest of married couples (despite that this is probably not true).
Marriage is not about procreation or even love. It’s about property, baby.
John D writes above that “marriage is not about procreation or love, it’s about property”.
So glad to hear the truth revealed. And very much looking forward to LMF’s new name “Property Makes a Family”.
Seriously, if that’s what it’s about from your perspective, why seek to marry at all? Just create a legal partnership, LLC, corporation, or trust. You’ll probably have a better status with respect to taxes. Everyone knows that married couples are continually bemoaning the “marriage penalty” within our existing tax code.
And I should have thought of this earlier…
I’ll grant you that procreation might be “a reason,” if not “the reason,” and I’ll even give you an out on the all or nothing argument.
What if there were menu choices? What if there were three characteristics, of which any heterosexual couple were to meet at least two, but a same-sex couple would meet at most one?
That would actually be a reasonable argument for maintaining the heterosexuality of marriage.
In the past under the old principle in which a wife became subsumed in her husband’s identity (American women who married foreign husbands used to lose their citizenship) that reason alone would have kept marriage heterosexual. But we no longer have any ways in which wives are legally subordinate to husbands.
I don’t think you’ll be able to come up with a menu of three ways in which opposite-sex couples differ from same-sex couples. Procreation and sex difference is all that you have. The first isn’t a universal. The second doesn’t have any legal relevance.
John D.,
A longer comment. Forgive me.
“Marriage is a matter for the state because couples hold property in common.
“. . . . Marriage is not about procreation or even love. It’s about property, baby.”
If the state’s sum total interest in marriage is property, then this implies that marriage does not arise from the state at all. The state merely intervenes to regulate an already existing institution, which only confirms my point that marriage arises neither from the state nor the church, but from the differentiation of the sexes.
The fact is, however, that people seeking marriage do not come together in order to “merge property,” as though their interest in marriage was primarily economic, exceptions granted. We all know this. Men and women come together to share their lives, and the result is family. The state regulates property, but it does so in the interest of that fundamental social unit. (And yes, Matt, in this the state “encourages” marriage).
All the eggheads in the world can tell us that legal language found in medieval documents concern only property, but unless they admit why the property needs to be regulated in the first place, and why the state’s interest is so compelling, then they fail to see what anyone with common sense can see: Mom, Dad, Baby.
Furthermore, the notion that marriage was merely a civil institution with no ecclesiastical regulation before the middle ages (that seems to be what you were saying in a previous post) will need more than an offhand reference to “primary sources.” You seem to be suggesting that ecclesiastical marriage did not exist until the middle ages. From earliest times it had all been about property, and only in the middle ages did it become about God, love and babies. Have I misunderstood something about your position?
In fact, there are many early examples of Church regulation beginning with St. Paul regarding divorce (1 Cor 7:12, 13). Tertulian c. 200, e.g., asked: “How shall we suffice for the telling of that happiness of that marriage which the church arranges, which the sacrifice strengthens, on which the blessing sets a seal, which the angels proclaim, and which has the Father’s approval” (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 320).
If you object that the above references are not canonical enough, then consider the following: The Council of Elvira (c. 300) promulgated a number of canons regulating marriage relative to impediments that might exist due to disparity of cult (611b-611i). St. Basil (+379) and St. Ambrose (+397) both regulated marriage as well, on the basis of disparity of cult (918, 1307).
I am aware of the history of canon law, and while it is safe to say that the manner of codification of ecclesiastical law did not follow that of civil law, it would be clearly contrary to fact to suggest that the church did not regulate marriage from earliest times.
The state regulates property (but not only property, e.g. consanguinity), and the Church regulates morality. Both had the same interest: the family. Yes, marriage is about love and procreation. It always has been.
For reasons already mentioned, to answer Matt, I do not believe that same sex unions can ever be marriage, so why should they be invested with either the benefits or the name “marriage”? As I said before, SSM is not merely an extension of rights, it is a radical redefinition of the institution and a very dubious experiment in social engineering.
John,
You specifically asked for 3 menu choices, of which 2 would be satisifed by opposite-sex couples desiring to marry, and for which at most 1 would be satsified by same-sex couples. So that’s exactly what I’m going to provide, and no more. (Although I wonder – just how many differentiating factors do we need to justify the separate recognition of marriage as an exclusively opposite-sex institution).
1. Potential ability for procreation “without oustide intervention”, which is consistent with the plan of nature, and which is also in the interest of society for the furtherance of civilization from generation to generation.
2. Gender complementarity of the spouses, which promotes a more orderly society. The biological differences between men and women are significant, and manifest in both physical and psyhcosocial aspects. For example, women tend to have better nurturing and relational skills. And men tend to have better thinking ability in visualizing spatial relationships and in mathematics, which is supportive of their natural role as builders. These differences appear to occur as a result of fundamental differences in brain structure (left side vs. right side) and in biochemistry. Without opposite-sex unions, living in alternative social structures may not adequately control the intemperate side of men’s behavioral patterns (which results naturally from high levels of testosterone). By promoting harmony and balance between the sexes, through symmetrical reciprocity, this societal structure generates a more stable model – enabling civilization to thrive and grow.
3. Faithfullness between partners will tend to reduce the likelihood of STDs, which is in the interest of society for reasons of public health.
Typically opposite-sex couples will provide all 3 of these socially valuable aspects. Even infertile couples will provide the 2nd and 3rd aspects. But same-sex couples only provide the 3rd aspect (which I’ll admit is still socially beneficial, but by itself probably not enough to warrant equality with marriage).
Gender complementarity is more than just checking off the letters ‘M’ and ‘F’ on a form. It is real. It is inherent in the biological nature of men and women. And it is a valuable part of marriage even in the absence of children.
Dave,
Two that I already gave you. And one that you note that same-sex couples can meet.
Okay, as I said before, I’m granting procreation, as long as it’s not the only thing.
“Gender complementarity” does not strike me as a convincing requirement. It is, as I said before just stating “marriage is for heterosexuals because marriage is for heterosexuals.” It’s just a tautology.
You need to move beyond this concept. What, besides heterosexuality, makes opposite-sex couples special.
You need a better answer than “marriage is for a mommy and a daddy.”
Well, what about two mommies?
“No, marriage is for a mommy and a daddy.”
Well, why?
“Because it is, that’s why!”
Why is gender complementarity important to marriage? What does it provide?
F.A. Malkin,
I must congratulate you on the depth of your reading. Your comment on early Church writers on marriage was magisterial.
However, though it makes a wonderful case for the ecclesiastical control of marriage, it fails to take into account contemporary realities.
I could live with it if marriage were turned completely over to religious authorities, each denomination proceeding according to its own rules (and presumably the Unitarians not forcing their views on the Catholics). In such a society, atheists could never be married.
If marriage became a ceremony akin to baptism or bar mitzvah, then the government would have to stay away from it.
Bar mitzvah: “Today I am a man!”
Government: “You’re 13, kid, you can’t drink, drive, vote, or marry.”
I certainly understand the religious beliefs underlying this. The challenge is to incorporate these into an open society in which the practices and beliefs of one group do not infringe on others.
John,
Did you actually read the details of my argument based on gender complementarity (in comment #40 above)? It seems that you didn’t based on your rebuttal, and your references “mommy and daddy”. I wasn’t referring at all to motherhood and fatherhood, but merely to the beneficial effects of opposite-sex coupling for the spouses even in the absence of children. Your response is a non sequitur.
This is not a tautology; it is grounded upon medical evidence and related sociological arguments.
Neuroscientists who have closely studied the structure of male and female brains, and have used advanced imaging techniques to scan the active physiology of brain activity in subjects of both genders, find that there are striking differences. This provides concrete evidence that explains the traditional wisdom about differences in men’s and women’s thinking patterns.
Likewise, the testosterone factor in marriage is tangible evidence supported by science. Researchers have found that the level of testosterone in men (a hormone typically associated with aggression and other intemperate behaviors) is somehow controlled – moderated and lessened – as a consequence of their marriages. Apparently there is something about interacting with their female partners that brings about this change in biochemistry. Moreover, it happens in reverse – with testosterone levels increasing – in the event of separation such as divorce.
Think for a bit about what this means from a sociological viewpoint. When considering the family unit as a building block of civilization, and the long-term bonding that occurs between people in forming a household, the optimal structure will be one that includes a diverse skill set and is most capable of self-sufficiency. The natural differences between the sexes in terms of their brain physiology helps opposite-sex couples because their skills will tend not to overlap, but rather to support one another. Women provide natural abilities in areas where men perform poorly, and vice versa. This symmetrical reciprocity gives an opposite-sex couple a unique advantage above other possible family structures. The domesticating effect of women upon men, which is evidenced by the testosterone-moderating effect of their partnerships, helps to control excessive levels of aggression and other behaviors that would be destructive and detrimental to an orderly society.
While modern science is now discovering the hidden reasons for why male-female partnering is such a sensible institution within society, humans have know this instinctively since time immemorial. They just couldn’t explain it. Now we can.
John D.
Thank you for your kind remark.
To clarify: I am not arguing that marriage is fundamentally an ecclesiastical reality, or that the defense of marriage as a union of one man and one woman is dependent on an ecclesiastical or religious understanding. On the contrary, in the course of this exchange I have repeatedly made it clear that marriage arises neither from the state nor from the church, but preexists the regulation of both. Regulation is necessary because the institution of marriage exists. Regulation does not create the institution. Marriage exists because there are men and women.
My point was to answer what seemed to be your objection to a procreative understanding of marriage. You seemed to be saying that marriage arises from the state as a means to merge property; that is the sum total of its meaning. Thus, the idea that marriage is about love and life, and most especially about God is a later accretion that has nothing to do with the civil juridical question. I answer that that civil and ecclesiastical understandings are practically coextensive and not mutually exclusive, and further, that the common understanding of marriage is independent of both government and the church.
Your line of questioning to Dave is pertinent:
“You need a better answer than ‘marriage is for a mommy and a daddy.’
“Well, what about two mommies?
“‘No, marriage is for a mommy and a daddy.’
“Well, why?
“‘Because it is, that’s why!’
“Why is gender complementarity important to marriage? What does it provide?”
The answer, in fact, is that gender complementarity provides marriage to marriage. There is no better answer. It may seem too simple. Common sense is often painfully simple. It is not, however, irrational or above reason. The burden of proof is not on the common understanding that proceeds from historical facts relative to the most basic and universal social structure. It is upon anything else that might challenge it.
If your assertion that marriage is simply a juridical arrangement were true, viz., that it has no further purpose than to merge property, that, in fact, marriage originally arose as a state institution for a purely economic end, then there might be some basis for the argument that the current definition of marriage is arbitrary and therefore can be changed. But your original assertion is false. Therefore, the traditional definition of marriage is not arbitrary, and cannot be changed without doing radical violence to the content and meaning of marriage.