Redstate

But that's a facially absurd construction. The principal distinction that I can find between this section of the U.S. Code and those dealing with blackmail is that blackmail properly threatens to expose illegal activity, whereas extortion is threatening to expose anything that might injure someone's reputation - in other words, legal, but embarrassing. If a court held that, as a matter of law, being outed as a homosexual could not possibly be injurious to reputation (especially for a married individual in public office), that would be ridiculous.

I've checked USCS, USCA, and the ALR, and used the Lexis and Westlaw functions, and can't find any federal cases standing for this proposition. I rather suspect that some moonbat made it up out of thin air because it sounded good to them.

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

or proposition? I didn't express any construction from the left or the right; I was just curious as to how the law worked on this stuff. I wasn't sure if "you're gay" counted. But yes, if he was married and was cheating, and someone threatened to "vote this way or I'll tell about your affairs," that sounds like extortion.

You always know what Democrats are planning because they accuse Republicans of doing it first.

Each must also vote Democrat.

Anybody's business?

Eric,

For the same reason it's the business of anyone, contractor or Civil Servant working for the CIA, NSA, DIA, or any other agency where you hold a high security clearance. So why do we give the elected class a pass on this?

You are a target for blackmail if you are hiding a part of who you are. Doubly so it would seem if you are an elected offical that does not vote the way some group wants you to.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

If you run for elected office, your employers should know about your personal life especially high office.

Do we want a list of their favorite positions as well? And will this only apply to Republicans?

Spanish,

Gee let's set the elected class higher and futher apart from the general public than they already think they are. Ether that or let's declare a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for anyone working for the Federal government who holds a high security clearance.

If we ask Men and Women working for the US in the intelligence agencies to disclose their sexuality, then why don't you want your elected officials to do the same.

How many more cases of blackmail, or attempted blackmail do you want to happen before you get the point?

As to what the Democrats are doing, I think the majority of those in the closet are over here in the GOP, which make them even more of a target for blackmail.

Hey, here's a conservative value for you that we should all agree on...Truth.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

I just wonder how far we want to expand the blackmail prevention act: to alcohol abuse? Internet addiction? A sloppy relationship? Religious views? Skipping class in high school? This is a sordid new low for the Left and I for one won't give them any quarter on it.

And as far as which party has the most in the closet, if a Democratic Senate or congressional candidate gets outed between now and November, does anyone think for a nanosecond there won't be howls of anger no matter how hypocritical they may have been about it?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I have no problem with voting for an open Homosexual who shared my views. I got a BIG problem with those in the closet.

If such a big part of your life is a fraud how can you be honest or effective in any other way?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

There is merit in having a platform that all elected officials be open with their sexuality. It remains a sticky question just how one would make certain they were sufficiently open. Must the politician fill out a questionnaire, checking the "gay" box or "straight" box? Perhaps we should inquire as to the particular age range the politician is attracted to, and whether he or she has within the past six months engaged in an illicit affair with someone.

Actually, I think it's good if people are open about who they are. But frankly, if I found out tomorrow that John Cornyn (I'm a Texan) was attracted to male backsides I would have no less faith in him, because it is his policy track record which attracts my vote to his candidacy.

Also, we must consider our standards in things sexual with other aspects of candidates. As my name indicates, I'm a Calvinist. There's no way, if I was running for office, that I'd campaign at an evangelical event and boldly declare, "Jesus sacrifce paid the penalty only for the sins of those whom the Father predestined, and no more." I'd be a bloody fool to do that, but that doesn't make me a closet Calvinist does it?

Sola Gratia

You ask them.

You ask them the question, if they refuse to answer, then they can look elsewhere for assistance from the party. If they say one thing and are then proven to be doing something different, they are liars. The GOP does not want someone who will lie to the people while looking them in the eye, aka NO BILL CLINTONS.

Caught in a lie on this matter, the full force and money of the GOP will be used to unseat you. No Dollar Bill Bill crud, you are out and we are gunning for you.

Simple.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

how would you like the candidate to 'prove' they are heterosexual (or any other sexual)?

What if I drink a glass of wine every night? How about a six pack?

What if I go to Las Vegas and gamble once each year? How about every month?

Should I also prove my church/synagogue/mosque attendance?

Is it important to know that I am an avid hunter and gun collector?

How about if I have ever engaged in 'hate speech'?

Should I reveal all overseas trips I have had including all the details of where and with whom I met?

Surely, I should reveal all organizations and affiliations I have ever had.

What if I was required to meet the same requirements that a civilian would need for a federal security clearance?

Should you know that I (or my mother or wife or girlfriend, for a male) had an abortion?

Once you get into personal behaviors and activities you have exceeded the boundaries the 'need to know' for public service.

"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank

Wife and 2 kids, I think.

hence the "(...for what its worth)". don't mean to claim its dispositive, but since I found that when looking up the end of his term, I thought I'd throw it in.

the point of the post was the Dems' dirty tricks and their ugly projection issues

I think the Democrats are so bigoted towards the values movement that they think a values voter will vote against someone purely because they are gay. It appears the Democrats are trying to play to the values voters types and probably angering the libertarian types who were giving them a serious look.

my trigger finger is itching...

Do you disagree that people who lead double lives are easily blackmailed?

with your pathetic attempts to claim Republicans are the ones doing the blackmailing, troll.

If you're going to take a pot shot like that, at least make it count. You don't get many freebes around here! The crap about Arnold is silly. The Dems threw everything they had at him, and it didn't stick. So fooey on you!

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

I'm just pointing out what I think is a fairly obvious point.

are you going to kick me off the board for that?

(sigh, shaking head) What a senseless waste of human life.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

when they make any sense whatsoever. (Sigh...) That one was just no fun at all.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

might find out you've been posting here, occasionally posing as a Republican (not too well, but what the heck). You could be blackmailed for that because, as we all know, being a closeted Republican is as filthy as you can get.

Shame on you.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

That feels truth is what you'd like it to be.

Ask yourself this, "Winning or losing in Iraq?"

Nobody, on the left or the right, is ever happy with the news media. From my perspective here in the middle, I don't think the problem is so much bias as it is sloppiness, the desire to be newsworthy, and a shallow understanding of the issues. But in any event, it doesn't look like the news media has been doing much to participate in this story . . .

goes beyond bias. The partisan media is agenda driven. If a "story" is driving itself, they will let it run its course. Rest assured, they will involve themselves post hast should the "story" lose momentum or veer off-track and begin to run in a direction that is contrary to their agenda.

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

From my perspective here in the middle,

Things like this always makes me laugh ...

It's not that I do not believe that there actually is a middle. But in my experience, people who go around announcing how "Independent", "Moderate" or "Centrist" they are (i.e. in the "middle") and claim that the Press is unbiased, tend quite often to be quite a bit farther to the Left than they deceive themselves to be.

They're the type of people who believe that Lincoln Chafee is a "moderate", Rick Santorum is too far to the Right while Barbara Boxer is well within the "mainstream."

Oh, they can claim to have voted for people of "both parties" and often do make certain to blame "both sides" for everything to establish their bona fides. But when you examine their posts, they only add "But ... I blame both sides" at the tail end of a rant targeting Republicans.

And when really pressed, their voting for candidates of "both parties" is usually voting Republican for dog catcher, sheriff or councilman ... but voting straight Democrat for Governor, Senator, US Rep. and President.

I don't think the problem is so much bias as it is sloppiness, the desire to be newsworthy, and a shallow understanding of the issues. But in any event, it doesn't look like the news media has been doing much to participate in this story ...

The funny thing is that all this "sloppiness" almost always tends to end up with mud on the GOP and the Democrats all pristine in their shining white armor. The New York Times has no Republicans or Republican members of newsroom staff and still claims to report straight down the middle even as practically every single member of staff has an account on DKos.

That kind of attitude is exactly what is driving independent "middle" voters to Democrats. The idea that there is only one true way of thinking, or that one party has a lock on virtue and morality, is insulting. Insult people long enough and they will start casting votes for the other guy. (Not that the Democrats are any better; as soon as they're in power, they treat folks in the middle the same way, and that's how things tend to go in cycles). You want to keep a majority, don't take this kind of attitude with those who may have different views.

And I can't speak for others, but my first Republican vote was for Eisenhower and I voted that way through 2000.

Read my post again and tell me if I did, or did not, write this?

It's not that I do not believe that there actually is a middle.

Here's my contention. If you think Barbara Boxer is more in the mainstream than Rick Santorum, or that Lincoln Chafee actually is a Centrist, or that the New York Times reports it straight with no bias or spin whatsoever ... then you are not in the middle.

You are on the Left. And quite far to the Left at that.

Alan Simpson, Rudy Guiliani, Gordon Smith are examples of people who are in the middle. I can definitely take the time out to work and vote for them. But Lincoln Chafee ...?

Some of us see Santorum and Boxer equally out of the mainstream, and equally principled.

And I think someone can be in the middle and believe that the press isn't an arm of the Democratic Party.

has an major story titled "Is the president manipulating gas prices to help Republicans?" and the answer is "Some people think so." when all economists and oil industry experts say that he has NO ABILITY to manipulate the price even though he'd like to.... yes that sounds like a balanced middle of the road press to me.

Maybe they're not an arm of the Dem party, but they're sure doing everything they can to help.

Some of us see Santorum and Boxer equally out of the mainstream

Heh heh ...

To be honest, I expected that response from you. Given a choice, people adopting the pose of being "in the middle" tend to reflexively go for the all-of-the-above" option.

I have come to understand that a huge part of the appeal of posing as a "Centrist"/"Moderate" or "in the middle" is the appearance of being "even-handed" by castigating "both sides" no matter what or who is responsible in any possible situation.

Anyway, what's so outrageous about Santorum?

List any position of his that is such an affront to good sense that it renders him out of the "mainstream" as you define it. Please. I'm very curious because I've not yet seen someone successfully do so.

What makes him more out of the mainstream than Casey?

And I think someone can be in the middle and believe that the press isn't an arm of the Democratic Party.

In your opinion, can someone be in the middle and think that the Press is an arm of the Democrat Party?

I concede that it may be possible for someone to believe that the Press is completely unbiased and reports straight down the middle and still be in the "Center". Although, it would require a great deal of obtuseness and ignorance of the fact that liberals tend to outnumber conservatives by 15:1 in the nation's most prominent newsrooms.

However, it is not possible for someone to be "in the middle" and believe that FOX News is biased to the Right but the New York Times is thoroughly "middle of the road" and non-partisan.

Ok, I think Santorum is out of the mainstream when he argues for "intelligent design" over evolution. He was out of the mainstream with regard to Terri Schiavo.

As for the media, I just don't see any particular bias exclusively one way or the other. That doesn't mean I think they're all such wonderful folks; they just report stuff they think people want to read or see. The more sensational, the better, and that doesn't seem particularly liberal or conservative to me.

We need a new term to describe the liberals who announce themselves as "centerists" rather than Republicans. Anyone who has lived through the past several years watching the media doing everything in their power to destroy the GOP and return the Democrats to power, yet still imagines that same media to be unbiased, is pretty far to the left.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

they continually have to change their designations because their belief systems and actions sully the definition. Hillary is already all three, before long she'll become a moderate conservative and Republican sympathizer and we will all be labled exponential 'superlacons'.

What the hay- I coin it- and I accept the title.

BooBooKitty is a Superlacon.
________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

to close to the middle.

Here is an idea. Go to Dkos, and ask them what the Dems plan is for Iraq (and don't let them give you any BushLied crap, press them on it). Ever better yet, say that you support J. Leiberman, and question why you should give money to Lamont.

See how quickly you banned and your comments hidden, then come back and tell me how Dems are embracing independents.

Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.

I've found that the owners of left-leaning blogs themselves (like Aravosis) are generally pretty tolerant when I try to point out the other side of an issue. But the other commenters are something else. WOW. Scary, scary people.

I know I don't exactly "fit in" here either, but I'm pleased to see that other commenters actually tend to attack my ideas instead of resorting to name-calling. On sites like Raw Story, commenters just resort to calling me a troll . . . or in a few instances, a (gasp) Jew.

I heard a Democratic senator is secretly part of a nuclear family. Pass it on.

;)

as much as to damage the party

is considered a special case of argumentam ad ignorantiam - the suggestion that something is so in the absence of any evidence.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

This assumes that it is in, in fact, the best interests of gay people to be permitted SSM*: while it's an assumption that I happen to share, it's also an assumption that's generally asserted, rather than proven - and an assumption that is shot down by State voters with a regularity of a metronome. You can't race ahead to the conclusion when people are still disputing the argument.

All that being said, Sen Craig is also still being subject to an extortion attempt, which is both illegal and immoral. And his would-be extortionist never asked me before he decided to be the Grand High Moral Poobah for the USA.

But you get points for spelling hypocrisy correctly. Seriously: nobody ever seems to.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*It's also assuming that denying marriage privileges to SSM couples is equivalent to denying them to hetero couples on the grounds of religion and/or race. Which is an argument that accomplishes nothing except create the burning need in one's opponents to make sure that they get to the voting booth the next time that a marriage amendment is on the ballot.

This assumes that it is in, in fact, the best interests of gay people to be permitted SSM*: while it's an assumption that I happen to share, it's also an assumption that's generally asserted, rather than proven - and an assumption that is shot down by State voters with a regularity of a metronome.

Gay people are pretty solidly in favor of SSM (go figure); as adults, surely we grant they can determine for themselves what is in their own best interests, no? So what's to prove?

State voters, most of whom aren't gay, have their own best interests to look out for, and must say I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that the marriage bans demonstrate their concern for the best interests of gay people.

Actually, no, in this country we don't assert in our legal system that you have to be an authentic X in order to know what are the best interests of X.

We don't make Xs wear emblems on their clothing, either. We don't play those divisions at all, officially.

The Democrats, on the other hand...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Emblems?! Come on... this is no way to debate.

To use your analogy, if 90% of Xs are telling you that Y is in their best interest, what makes you, as a non-X, know that they are incorrect? Y may not be in YOUR best interest, which is fine -- democracy is a tradeoff and all that. But surely we can grant that people act according to rational self-interest, and that's a good thing -- at a conservative site, I would have thought this would be axiomatic!

Why can't gays decide for themselves, like any other group of adults in our democratic society, what is in their own best interest?

And there's also that little matter of no man being an island.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

The question of whether gay marriage is in the best interests of gays is distinct from the question of what are our current laws and what should be our future laws. Various groups lobby for various legislation all the time.

With respect to no man being an island, that's very liberal of you =) I think that asking people to make decisions based on the wider implications for society is impractical -- one of my favorite things about conservatives is their appreciation that people act out of rational self-interest. I get that you could argue that self-interest includes impact on society, but I think that's a step beyond what most groups are required to do to justify their particular goals.

very rarely know, much less do, what is in their best interest.

my best interest.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

...the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples will result in a net positive for the larger society; or at least will cause no lasting harm. I happen to think that doing so will result in a net positive... if it is done via the legislature. Trying to do this via an arbitrary judicial process is not beneficial, and will end up harming both the institution of marriage and our legal system. So it is not as much of a stretch as you might think; I don't like the current State bans, but I like exalting the legal flavor of the month even less*.

Can we at least try federalism for a while on this?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*One way or the other, my fellow SSM advocates will eventually have to face the uncomfortable reality that we do and will need to convince the rest of the population that we're actually right.

is a pretty subtle way to look at what's in the best interests of gays specifically. Like anyone else in our vibrant democracy, they have their own particular goals as individuals and as members of various groups, and I would think we'd all agree that like any other people, they act out of rational self-interest.

I don't have a problem with the whole "let the people decide" line of reasoning. I took issue with your apparent contention that gay marriage wasn't necessarily in the best interests of gay people (given that they generally seem to think otherwise) but if you're qualifying that to be something more along the lines of "gay marriage may or may not be in the best interests of society, I think it is, but we need to convince everyone else" then that's cool.

If you happened to be inclined to do a post analyzing the various pro-marriage ballot initiatives this election cycle it would be appreciated. No pressure, just a thought.

I don't think that the current pro-SSM strategy of policy change via the courts is in the best interests of the populace, whether gay or straight.

And I'll think about that post idea you suggested. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

and thanks.

Would it make sense for the Senate to pass laws that legalize discrimination against poor people, gays, minorities, women, non-Christians, and handicapped people? After all, the Senate is made up mostly of ultra-rich white males, most of whom are presumably straight and Christian and hardly any of whom are handicapped. This way they could avoid the problem you pointed out of when "an elected official votes in a way that defeats the interests of voters who are fundamentally like him or her".

If you don't think that a Senatorial vote on an important matter isn't a "thing of value," I suggest you walk downtown DC and ask all the lobbyists just what the heck they think they're doing.

"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments

I didn't realize that this outing was specifically tied to the Alito vote. That changes my conclusion 180 degrees.

So, where's the DOJ referral?

"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank

Lets assume that this is true and Sen. Craig is gay.

He is currently getting "the benefits of marriage that straight folks do". Anyone, gay or straight, can get them by marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Sure. Just like back in the day when people were free to access the benefits of marriage by marrying someone within their own racial group.

...have been part of Western society throughout recorded history, and their legality was not even remotely called into question until the institution of the concept of racial slavery. Same-sex marriages? You have to fold, spindle and mutilate not-very-close analogies to fit, and even then you don't dare put any weight on them.

Anyway, you are not helping our cause by suggesting that the people who disagree with us are equivalent to the people who opposed interracial marriage.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Here's Peggy Pascoe's (historian, Univ. of Oregon) summary of four chief arguments that were used to oppose the abolition of miscegenation laws:

1) marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) constitute illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) interracial marriage was contrary to God's will

4) interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

While the first one seems to be turned on its head these days, don't the last three sound familiar?

Assume there never were any anti-miscegenation laws in the United States.

Now argue for gay marriage on its merits rather than try to score points on the cheap by casting opponents as being similar to racists like Robert Byrd.

Civil marriage imparts a range of legal benefits to couples who choose to marry, such as property ownership, making health care decisions, and estate resolution. As there is no compelling rational basis for government to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples with respect to granting the benefits of civil marriage, civil marriage should be available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

If marriage is just a contact, why should not any number of people be able to enter into it?

As there is no compelling rational basis for government to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples

Children, young man. Children.

How might children be harmed by making civil marriage available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples?

Property ownership. Every state in the nation allows joint property ownership by unmarried, unrelated individuals. Any group of individuals can together purchase a residence or commercial property and hold title in any legally recognized way in the particular state (JTWROS immediately comes to mind). No marriage license is required.
Health care decisions. Living will or health care directive authorizing a specific individual as the decision maker. No marriage license is required.
Estate resolution. There is an arcane legal document available in some jurisdictions. It's called a Will. Goes through Probate Court. No marriage license is required.

Here it is:
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Marriage has nothing to do with race and Loving V Virginia was correctly decided in my view. But it sure as heck has something to do with sex. That's why it is more than logical for someone to be perfectly fine with an interracial and be completely opposed to same-sex marriage.

Comparing interracial marriage and same-sex marriage is like comparing apples and airplanes.

The very raison d'etre of marriage as it has been for all of human existence is entirely about children i.e. when a man and a woman have sex, children are a very likely possibility.

I may be repeating this; but there are three laws that are universal about marriage, perhaps the only institution, other than religion (the intertwining of which with marriage is no coincidence) that is found everywhere on Earth. First of all, think of marriage in terms of what it is at the very basic level; it is a socially enforceable contract between two people to both care for each other and, even more importantly, provide for the children produced by their union.

These three laws are essential to the very definition of the institution that is marriage, and they're based around children, and their raising.

[1] Only two people can be in a marriage contract. That is because a child can only be the product of sexual contact between two people.

[2] Only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract. This is because only opposite sex couples can produce children.

[3] Only people of sufficient distance in blood can be in a marriage contract. After thousands of years of trial and error, every culture around the world noticed that incestuous unions far too often produced weaker, deformed or otherwise compromised offspring.

The simple fact is if your render any of these three laws inoperative, then all the others are fair game. If you Lefties want us to abandon [2], why not [1] and [3]?

If children are the linchpin on which all your views regarding proper regulations regarding marriage rests, then I think you've made a dangerously weak argument against a social contract that as you state can produce no offspring. For example, why aren't you merely against allowing same-sex couples to adopt children? Disallowing same-sex couples to adopt but allowing them to enter a similar social contract as opposite-sex couples seems to obviate your concerns regarding children while maximizing the autonomy of citizens to enter into mutually beneficial contracts with one another.

At anyrate, #3 seems outside the discussion, as no one is calling for same-sex incestuous unions. And it certainly isn't intertwined with the other two.

Watch your wording and position re #2 - taken literally you are essentially saying that only couples that can produce children may/should legitimately marry, which excises a fair number of married, opposite-sex couples who cannot conceive children together.

Without spiralling into the land of rule exceptions, wrt #1, what of surrogate mothers who, without any sexual contact, carry the in-vitro fertilized egg of a different male and female? At that point you have three persons carrying out vital roles in the ultimate birth of a new human.

Disallowing same-sex couples to adopt but allowing them to enter a similar social contract as opposite-sex couples seems to obviate your concerns regarding children while maximizing the autonomy of citizens to enter into mutually beneficial contracts with one another.

If it's simply about "mutually beneficial contracts", why limit entry into it to couples? Why not two women and three men all in one marriage? Why, again, restrict it to people who are understood to be in a sexual relationship? And if it is not necessary that they be in a sexual relationship, why restrict it then to non-related people?

At anyrate, #3 seems outside the discussion, as no one is calling for same-sex incestuous unions. And it certainly isn't intertwined with the other two.

That's your opinion, zroxx. What other reason other than easily observable damage to possible offspring could there be for the worldwide taboo against incest?

... taken literally you are essentially saying that only couples that can produce children may/should legitimately marry

No. Prior to recent advances in technology, fertility or a lack of it could not be determined prior to many years of trying and failing to conceive. So there was no way of determining whether or not a heterosexual couple who were about to marry could not have children.

Now, I'm sure you'll chime in here and ask about post-menopausal women being allowed to marry but then you'd be missing the point.

These rules were created by every culture around the world to provide the best setting in which to raise children. Follow them and you get as close to a perfect situation as you can.

Without spiralling into the land of rule exceptions, wrt #1, what of surrogate mothers ...

Now you're going to absurd lengths. Surrogate motherhood did not exist when marriage came into existence, now, did it?

Look, the question you have to answer is simple; why does marriage exist? How come it exists in every single culture on Earth? Before we continue fighting over it, let's decide what it is and what it means first.

Disallowing same-sex couples to adopt but allowing them to enter a similar social contract as opposite-sex couples seems to obviate your concerns regarding children while maximizing the autonomy of citizens to enter into mutually beneficial contracts with one another.

Why aren't you taking this position with regards to same-sex marriage if your concern is wholly regarding children - which same-sex couples cannot conceive together?

why limit entry into it to couples?

Yes, why? If we presume that children are kept out of the equation because two or more same-sex persons cannot conceive them and you would move to disallow adoptions of children to same-sex couples (and any groups of 3 or more persons), then why restrict persons from entering into a contract that stipulates things like property distributon at time of death, visitation rights, power of attorney, joint tax filing and so forth. Note that these benefits are relatively modern inventions and certainly weren't around when marriage came into existance - by your argument is that a good reason to strip them out of civil code for opposite-sex couples so we can get back to the narrow purpose that you assert marriage is all about: children?

As a practical matter, I don't see an imminent flood of more-than-two person unions just waiting to tie their fates together, but for those that want to be contractually bound with more than one other human, I say have at it - we don't bat an eye when it comes to general partnerships and LLPs with three or more partners contracting together. Civil marriage as has been codified into state laws provides a simple and straightforward means to enter the contract - typically this requires nothing more than a filing fee at a county office and the signature of a county official. So what we're talking about is enabling this transaction between the government and same-sex couples, or (shudder to think) groups; see below.

Before we continue fighting over it, let's decide what it is and what it means first.

You seemed to suggest that marriage is completely and irrevocably tied to raising children. I pointed out several reasons why the tie between marriage and children isn't nearly as insoluble as you make it out to be. As far as marriage's purpose in the annals of history, I urge you to read this.

Personally, I'd like to see the concept of marriage rightly separated into the civil/legal aspect that takes place at your county courthouse recognized in legal code from the religiously sanctified ceremony that takes place in a church recognized in the eyes of God and the congregation. Call the former "civil union" and let those who practice the latter call it marriage or anything else they want. Certainly the latter is the aspect that I suspect you think of when you posit an unchanging definition of marriage, whereas the former has definitely been redefined and altered over the ages to adapt to the changing needs of society and citizens. The more you blend the two, the more you are willingly putting your religious beliefs into the hands of changing political whims which really ought to have no bearing on what you consecrate between yourself and God.

Children and adoption certainly complicate the matter - but my question to you that went unanswered, is why not simply restrict child-rearing to oppostite-sex couples and leave it at that? Same-sex couples cannot conceive children and if you don't let them adopt, then based on your stated position it really would be of no further concern whether same-sex couples can file for and receive a "civil union" contract that provides access to the same legal structures as are currently easily and inexpensively attainable by opposite-sex couples.

Anti-miscegenation laws were wrong because they treated people differently. Some men could only marry some women, while others could only marry from this other group. Not all men were treated equally, and not all women were treated equally.

Redefining marriage to have a man 'marry' a man only compares with this, if you see no difference between a man and a woman.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

The idea that people aren't treated differently in a world where only opposite-sex marriage is allowed is ludicrous.

Straight couples have access to the legal benefits of marriage.

Gay couples don't.

You can try to argue that such discrimination is justified for some set of reasons. But there's no real argument to be made that it doesn't constitute discrimination.

Actually, every single American above the age of consent has equal access to marriage in this country. The fact that homosexuals do not choose to use it, does not deny that they have access to it.

That's the fundamental difference here. A homosexual man has the SAME right to marry ANY woman he wants, that I have. There is TOTAL EQUALITY there.

Because remember: marriage is not a government registration of looooooove. That's one of the most stupidly statist concepts running through our society today, I say.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I'm pleased to see that you're an advocate for "total equality". Consider Massachusetts...where gay folks can actually marry the human being of their choice these days. And it seems to be working out just fine for everybody. What's so terrible about that?

Well, if children have no bearing on marriage, why limit marriage to couples? Why not seven people (four women and three men) all in one marriage contract?

And if children have no bearing on marriage as an institution, why stop a 30 year old woman from marrying her 35 year old brother?

Why should these people be denied the "range of legal benefits [given] to [people] who choose to marry, such as property ownership, making health care decisions, and estate resolution?"

Why stop all these people from marrying "the human being[s] of their choice? ... What's so terrible about that?"

Well, if children have no bearing on marriage, why limit marriage to couples? Why not seven people (four women and three men) all in one marriage contract?

And if children have no bearing on marriage as an institution, why stop a 30 year old woman from marrying her 35 year old brother?

Why should these people be denied the "range of legal benefits [given] to [people] who choose to marry, such as property ownership, making health care decisions, and estate resolution?"

Why stop all these people from marrying "the human being[s] of their choice? ... What's so terrible about that?"

Marriage in Massachusetts is, of course, limited to two unrelated parties. This is true for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

You seem very concerned about the well-being of children. Specifically, how might children be harmed by making civil marriage available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples?

Where do you get this idea that marriage should be restricted to couples?

Or restricted to human beings, for that matter. I mean, I bet there are a lot of elderly people with pets out there, who would like to be sure that their pets could inherit part of their estate and be cared for lovingly with that money.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I'm not going to make your 3-way marriage case for you. You can type.

You're the one arguing for massive change. You get to explain why it shouldn't go to its logical conclusions.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

All I'm saying is nix the nasty gay marriage amendment. We don't have one now, and we don't need one.

Leave Massachusetts alone, dude.

It's his assertion that you effectively have.

Annnd I'll let you figure out the rest of it on your own.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Why limit it to unrelated couples?

You'll see in 20 years.

It's not like we started having a generation of fatherless youth doped up on Ritalin the day after we started making divorce too easy.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

In 25 years, when some form of civil unions or same sex marriage are common, we'll look back at this issue and wonder what was all the fuss about.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, as opposed to rule by unelected elites.

...it's a reasonable bet to make that by 2009 SSM will no longer be legal in MA, but still will be so in CT.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Like many other social issues, people's views change, and I think that the trend is in favor of some kind of civil union. Whether it happens through the courts or the legislatures, ultimately, it will be because most people are in favor with the idea, or at least comfortable with it.

I'm wondering that already.