The Schrammie: Don't fall for R-74 fear mongering

At the same time, I believe in the Bible as the Word of God that tells us God created marriage as between a man and a woman. This article is for those who do not necessarily believe it as I do.

 @strangel00p  Furthermore, the Harvard Journal Article mentioned previously is online - please download and read the 43 pages. It doesn't take too long and is very scholarly and well thought out. It covers Equality, Justice and the Heart of the Debate, -- If Not Same-Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones, -- Challenges for Revisionists -- and Isn't It Only Natural -- among all other related topics. It never uses religion to make any of its points.

 

On page 13 it also references another prominent paper delineating research results: "Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good, signed by some seventy scholars, which corroborates the philosophical case for marriage with extensive evidence from the social sciences about the welfare of children and adults. The Witherspoon Institute, Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles 9-19 (2008), available at http://www.winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf"

 

(All from "What is Marriage?" by Sherif Girgis*, Robert P. George**, & Ryan T. Anderson***, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol 34, No. 1. Winter 2011.)

* Ph.D .Candidate in Philosophy, Princeton University.

** McCormick Professor of Jusrisprudence, Princeton University.

*** Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, University of Notre Dame

 

Retrieved Oct 26, 2012 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155## [Click on "Download this Paper"]

 @Wesley Steinbrink  @strangel00p Since you keep bringing religionist thinking into a public policy debate regarding a civil (and not religious) law, let's go back to the ur-text of judeo-xian-muslim values: the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill": murderers, even on death row, are allowed to marry opposite-sex people; "Honor thy mother and father": my parents believed that gay people should have the same rights as straight people and my father solidly supported my marriage (my mother was already dead), I also honor them (a social worker and child psychologist) by adopting a child out of foster care; "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife": adultery is not illegal and adulterers (like Newt!) can marry again and again. These commandments do not mention same-sex couples at all.

 @strangel00p  All that being said, "It has sometimes been said that the conjugal understanding of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is false. Although the world's major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and child rearing (1), this suggests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all our religious traditions to recognize this natural institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this Article for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require no appeal to religious authority."

 

1. Even in traditions that permit or have permitted polygamy, each marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

(All from "What is Marriage?" by Sherif Girgis*, Robert P. George**, & Ryan T. Anderson***, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol 34, No. 1. Winter 2011.)

* Ph.D .Candidate in Philosophy, Princeton University.

** McCormick Professor of Jusrisprudence, Princeton University.

*** Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, University of Notre Dame

 

 @strangel00p The framers of the constitution realized that politics determining a religion for everyone was not desired. However to make someone not base their political view on their world view is rather hard to do.

That being said, "Americans have always recognized the right of any person, religious or non-religious, to marry. While the ceremonial form of religious and secular marriages often differs, the meaning of such marriages within the social order has always been similar, which is why the state honors those marriages duly performed by religious authorities. Moreover, current social science evidence on religion and marital success affirms the wisdom of the American tradition, which has always recognized and acknowledged the positive role that religion plays in creating and sustaining marriage as a social institution." (1)

 

1. --www.law2.byu.edu/marriage_family/Charles%20Reid.pdf

--W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock. 2006. "What's Love Got to Do with It? Ideology, Equity, Gender, and Women's Marital Happiness." Social Forces 84: 1321-1345.

--Vaughn R. A. Call and Tim B. Heaton. 1997. "Religious Influence on Marital Stability." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36: 382-392.

(All from "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, published by Witherspoon Institute (www.winst.org), Princeton, NJ, August 2008

 @Wesley Steinbrink By invoking the Bible (yet again), you prove one of the most important points of this whole debate: that it shouldn't be used to justify or obviate public policy. You see, the framers of the US constitution understood all too well that even among christians, there is vast disagreement. So to keep order and keep the peace (viz. Northern Ireland's "Troubles), they said, keep religion out of politics. I ask you to do the same.

 @strangel00p Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us

I try to read all sides. From liberal to conservative, including the Bible. No matter what the bias. Can you say the same?

I find her biased in a feminist way. So am wary of her findings. The Christian Bible shows a history that has been proven in many ways.

 

The latter is your definition that you are hoping for not the present reality.

 @Wesley Steinbrink I get my information from social science and history. We're discussing civil law, so the xian bible has no direct relevance. But you might  consider reading some of the excellent work by Evergreen College's Stephanie Coontz, who's done tremendous work on the history or marriage and how it works (and doesn't) in today's society.  http://www.stephaniecoontz.com

 

And marriage is not "one man one woman"; marriage is an agreement between two people to love, support, and protect each other with the support of the state. 

 @strangel00p  I don't know where you are getting that it is a redefined. As far as Christianity, at least between when Genesis 2:24 was written and Matthew 19:5 was written, there was no change in the definition. (Some did resort to polygamy, but this was not the original design, nor the design accepted by Christ). Christ and Christianity did bring more respect for women in general as opposed to the usual Greek and Roman take on women. As far as love, property, and alliances, people enter into marriage for various reasons, (some better than others) but this does not change the fact that marriage is one man and one woman. It has been this way for thousands of years across the globe and in different religions. As far as interracial marriages I have never had any problem with them. I rather rejoice in their freedom. Sadly, bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone. Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.

 @Wesley Steinbrink And even further: all of these redefinitions were actually changing the TERMS of what marriage itself represented. The WA legislation that R-74 seeks to uphold only changed who may enter into the SAME MARRIAGE that existed before this year.

 @Wesley Steinbrink And I just want to check: when marriage was redefined to be 1 to 1 (as opposed to polygamy) was that a "good" redefinition? What about when it was redefined so that a woman would no longer become the property of her husband and be able to do radical things like open a bank account in her own name—was that a good redefinition? What about when marriage was redefined to be about love and not property or alliances? What about when marriage was redefined to be open to mixed races? Are all these redefinitions over the last thousand years or so OK, but adding one more not? Wow.

 @Wesley Steinbrink And you're basing this supposition on what? 

 @strangel00p Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.

 @Wesley Steinbrink I'm not sure what you mean by "studies that show homosexual is a myth [sic]". I believe in fairies! There are NO data that show having gay parents is a negative and there are plenty of data that show it is neutral or positive. The most important data show that children do best when their parents are married (regardless of sex or sexuality). Period, end of story. 

 

Further, by denying same-sex couples the right to marry (as opposed to supposedly equal partnership), you put us in a second-class status. Such statuses have real-world effects on people's psychological well-being, including that of the children being raised by these couples. Many of these children have already suffered abuse and neglect before they were adopted by gay couples who are now providing stable, loving homes. Why would you add another level of stigma by not allowing their parents to marry?

 

Public policy should be based rational science, not "ick" or "uncomfortable" feelings. It's really clear that the Family Research Council started not from a neutral, scientific position, but from an anti-gay position. Then, they sift through the data and use tortured logic to "back up" their claims. The American Association of Pediatrics, OTOH, is THOUSANDS of scientists whose primary goal is the health and well-being of children. I'll stick with them.

 @strangel00p You seem to miss the point entirely. These are straight forward peer reviewed studies that show that homosexual is a myth. This concurrent partners every so often is precisely the thing that causes so much damage to children. Also, the heterosexual excesses in this area are much less than the homosexual excesses as shown by the Family Research Council quoting other studies which you do not want to accept. There has not been time to realize the extent of damage done to children with homosexual parents. Also, just having the title marriage is not going to change the behavior since all the same rights are to be had already. This law does not increase any of those rights.

 

You have your sources and arguments, I have mine. It is time to let the readers decide since we seem to be at an impass.

 @Wesley Steinbrink I'm having some trouble following your logic: You seem to recognize children are best served by a stable home (Fornby & Osborne; and I would hardly disagree!) and that marriage supports stability, so why try and prevent gay parents and their children from benefiting from marriage?

 

I think the issue of monogamy is a red herring. Not only is it not directly related to R-74 (the state's definition says nothing about monogammy for anyone), the data on monogamy amongst straight married couples (who have lots more pressure to lie) can't be compared with that of non-married gay men—they've been prevented from coupling with the stabilizing benefit of marriage in the first place! I just read last night how MLB players, at least were, notorious philanderers. Should we ban baseball players from marrying? or just having kids? These fouls were kept very secret and involved lots of people lying to keep them that way. Some would argue that honest non-monogamy can be a good way to keep a marriage together, gay or straight.

 

What's clear, though, is that family stability is what's most important and allowing gay couples to marry supports such stability.

 

As for longitudinal results of gay folks parenting Gay people have been parenting as couples for decades now and the data are certainly in and can be summarized as, "the kids are alright" and all without the benefit of marriage (in most cases). ( Gay Parenting: Complete Guide for Gay Men and Lesbians with Children by Joy A. Schulenburg (Nov 1985), American Academy of Pediatrics (op cit.)

Thank you for your detailed and heartfelt response. I believe as the Preserve Marriage Washington believes that "Same sex couples are entitled to respect and to live as they choose" I also agree with them when they say ",but there is no right to redefine marriage for all of society.

 

That being said, I understand that you may not like all the entities that I quote. At the same time I may not find all the entities that you quote compelling. For example Southern Poverty Law Center is calling any number of groups "hate" groups for biased reasons (HumanEvents, 2011) That homosexual "marriages" would make fine parents would have to be determined by years of experience. Experience that does not exist. What we do have is that male homosexual monogomy is a myth as noted earlier and Princeton papers about the effects of "Conflict and Instability for Young Children" (Fomby & Osborne, 2007)

 

Fomby & Osborne, (2007), "The Relative Effects of Family Instability and Mother/Partner Conflict on Children’s Externalizing Behavior", Retrieved October, 16, 2012 from http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP08-07-FF.pdf

 

HumanEvents, (2011), "Isn't the Southern Poverty Law Center the Real Hate Group?", Retrieved October, 16, 2012 from http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/28/isnt-the-southern-poverty-law-center-the-real-hate-group-2/

 @Wesley Steinbrink  No, Dr. Morse is not good enough for me:

 

Dr. Morse is the founder and head of the Ruth Institute—an organization whose motto is "one man and one woman, for life"—hardly an academic source. Further, the Ruth Institute is a propaganda arm of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) who are fighting marriage equality through tricks and lies, all the while hiding their donors from state election regulators. (While it's clear that the big money is coming from the Catholic and Mormon churches, NOM challenges sunshine laws in court and loses EVERY TIME, but still refuses to disclose their donors—academic and honorable? It think not.) It looks like her last academic activity was in 2008 and now she's a full-time political Catholic.

 

Another of your "academic" sources, the Family Research Council is classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. 

 

For some real scientifically backed information on gay people, go here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

 

For example: "The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: 'A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.' That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.

 

"The American Psychological Association found that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation."

 

"Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that 'lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.'"

 

And don't be fooled by the fake academic organization the "American College of Pediatricians", which is a tiny breakaway from the American Academy of Pediatricians.

 @strangel00p BMC [BioMed Central] Public Health and American Journal of Public Health, and Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. are not good enough for you?

 @Thomas Dickensheets Unfortunately, there is no hell and I have to end up in the same place as bigots like you....douche

Yes God will judge them & send them to hell!!

 @tbirdfan190 I suspect that it might be a little like those with an "appearance" of being Christian.

I love your perspective and the comparison to car color. I personally wouldn't go buy a purple and yellow polka dotted car, but if someone wants to, it's their money...doesn't mean it should be illegal. If someone wants to marry someone of the same or opposite sex why is it mine or anyone else's business?

   @MELT Reproduction is real reason the religious zealots want to stop same sex marriage. How else are they going to populate the world with more zealots.