A Sacred Institution Government Must Protect

.........0.................................................................
....0........................................................................
.....O.......……………………,/////////////……………..........,/..
..0.........………,……..__,---///////////////////,…..............,/././..
0............…………,-'.. ). ). ). ). ). ).''///////_\…........../././././ ..
....O.......……_,-' ))`.. ) .) .). ) .) .) .). ). ).)..`-......././././././
............…/..()_).).).).).\. ) .). ) .). ). ). ) .). )__/./././././././ .
............…\____ ).).).).).). ).). ). ). ) .). ). ).__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\.\...
}-SINS;>............).).)./. ). ). ) .) .) .). ).)_/,-`__.\.\.\.\.\.\.\..
............…..___,').),'). ). ). ). )_),,--'……………...\.\.\.\.\.\ …
............….(_______............\.\)_),--'"……………...`\.\.\.\ ...
............……………….-.........\.\.\……………………...`\.\.\ ..
............……,…………...........\.\.\……………….............`\.
.....................................................................................
...............................................................mmmmmmm

Actually, among many Native Americans, there is not only tolerance but respect for gays, lesbians, and "two-spirit" people, what anthropologists have called "Berdache."

On the "Berdache"

LBGQT/Two-Spirits are how some Native American sexual minorities now refer to themselves. Note, too, how the Coquille Indians of Oregon legalized gay marriage after the state had banned it.

In the physical and cultural genocide of the AmerIndians much that was invaluable was lost, but openness to some kinds of difference remains among some tribes.

Those interested might want to see a very moving documentary on the American ballet genius, Jock Soto, gay, part Navajo (mother), part Puerto Rican (father). In the film, one sees Soto among the Navajo with whom he is outwardly gay, then among his father's Puerto Rican relatives, among whom he is not. Although he film focuses on primarily on his imminent retirement, gender, sexuality, ethnicity all come into play. Check PBS.

i could be wrong but i think churches of all denominations can learn something by what you clearly and quite correctly stated... until the couple went to the court house and filed the papers nothing legal has happened, even though they may have had a wonderful spiritual ceremony. If this is true this means the churches are requesting something from the government... not ..God.. if this is true then the people asking the government for legal papers cannot legally apply thier religious principle in the united states of america. I also wonder about the small amount of faith these religious people have in thier own ceromony it would seem to me they would think the church one was the special one of they were religious. I was legally married in leon county courthouse in Tallahassee ,,and divorced there .. i could be wrong but i always considered my oaths before god to be the important one spiritually. i dont think leon county gave a damn about myself or Ellen ..they just wanted thier fee ..i don't think you can legislate spirituality between men a women women and women or men and men but all of the above are or should be able to enter into legal agreements i think..silly me.. we have a separation between church and government. and if i remember right a fairly bright young spiritual leader named Jesus Christ proclaimed give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is gods's and if i remember correctly a disciple named paul was pretty proud of actually being a roman citizen and didn't exactly give that up when he went preaching Christianity and befitted from this from time to time at least for a while.. i'm not sure i would want to put any government in charge of spirituality there would most likely soon after be a prayer tax and a faith tax

Mr. Daly,

... I'm still waiting for you to name a single jurisdiction where legalizing same-sex marriage has harmed rather than helped families ... but I ain't holdin' my breath because I already know there aren't any!

The results are already in. Marriage equality is not only a fair and just legal policy, it is also decidedly Pro-Family!

(Subconsciously) Prof??? Gates WANTED TO "GO{TO{JAIL." It was a decisive momement for (Opportunists) both his Age and Career; or is it 'self Serving' (Actings) that got him so-much 'Attention' that will give him an 'Excuse' to take early Retirement from his Tenure at the University so that He can Write his Million dollar self serving Story/Book(s)!?

Oh, IT's TRUE that (Psychologically) HE surely wanted to 'get-collared' (arrested) so that BROTHERs. Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lui Far{akhan will make-Him (as addditional 'Mouth{Pieces') or give him more spotlights and audiences for his CAUSE? Can RACISTS have a New-RELIGION called "RACISM" by Proxy" like. and gates wants to organise them 1,000,000+ 'Walking-Black , People of Collor'd folk' [ARMY] into his/their Black Camp or hidden secret Churchs in a too-Open Society??

Hint: Too-much freedom can Kil{America. Remember 911, folk?

-Prof. GATES, not Bill Gates, Not Asst. Sec. State Gates.., Must GO To Jail asap For almost (Conspiring) insighting a National & Possibly International (RACE BASED) RIOT!? The TERRORISTS & CO., are LOVE-N THIS!

......___________________......
...........||.......||........||.......||
...........||.......||.., , ,.||.......||
...........||......(||../|/(\.||/......||
...........||.......||.._'_ .,||......||
...........||.......||..o o..||.......||
...........||......(||...m...||)......||
...........||.......||...=....||.......||
...........||.......||.\___/||.......||
...........||.___||..).,.(..||___.||
......... /||..--...||.-\_/-.||..---,.||\
........./.||.--,_,||____.||.._--||..\
..........(||)RACE-GATES(.||)
............|"""""""""""""""""""""|......
....|ACTS AGAINST AMERICAN|
......|A-CRYIN-LYING-SHAME|.

-- W O W! The "mistake" (election) is leaching-out Through that African/American GATES like "A FREUDIAN SLIP OF GENUINE PROPHECY"!?? Soo,

Mr. OBAMA. Please, like an EX-Friend, Distance yourself from Mr. "Race-GATES", like ye didth with REVrend/Brother Mr. Wrong, ooopps Meant your Ex-Friend Rev. Jeramiah (Bul{Frog) Mr. Wright!

---
DOWN with OBAMA & CO., comes 2012 and beyond!
---

Interesting

""Similarly, the Native-American berdache is a man-wife who exists to cook, clean and care for children of the man’s female wives. If the man bec a me sexual or even tender toward his “man-wife,” he would be mercilessly ridiculed by the other men in the community."

"Ummmm, as we say on Usenet: citation please."

It's not even true. 'Berdache' is a colonialist term from the French, referring to Turkish eunuchs: and one generally highly-resented by Native American communities, most particularly those the idea is most-applied to.

I've never even *heard* the assertion that there was some need to treat 'berdache' as some other hemisheres are said to have treated *eunuch slaves,* since this procedure didn't figure in any of the many Native American tribal societies as documented.

While it's possible that Christian missionaries may have seen a 'male' doing 'woman's work' as implying a degraded state, this was not the case.

The whole matter may be considered embarrassing to 'evangelized' Native American communities, but to traditionals, the 'Two-Spirited' are actually considered to be quite sacred and also not-to-be-messed-with.

It's also not about homosexuality, in those contexts: it's about who we'd call 'transgendered' people.

Anthro here again:

"Similarly, the Native-American berdache is a man-wife who exists to cook, clean and care for children of the man’s female wives. If the man bec a me sexual or even tender toward his “man-wife,” he would be mercilessly ridiculed by the other men in the community."

Ummmm, as we say on Usenet: citation please.

I was agreeing with you, Colorado. Just that too many people in 'religion' think 'faith' is somehow synonymous with 'What penises do.'

huh?

"Just because I don't believe in a small, shallow, homophobic Abrahamic god, does that mean, in Daly's terms, I am not a "person of faith"?"

Well, some people, I guess, are *so* heterosexual-male, they think even *God* can't see past the end of their own members.

I mean, seriously, Mr. Daly. If you want to talk about 'definitions of marriage,' ...what are the *problems* for your heterosexuals-only world?

Too many people having sex, making too many children, having marriages that break up or become abusive the *more* often your ideas hold sway, ...Too many unwanted kids, not enough food, not enough resources, nobody seeming to have *family,* anymore...

You may feel more comfortable trying to reduce us to just some kind of hedonistic sinners who don't often enough hold their noses, breed, and make these problems *worse,* ...

But your helpers are right here. Where we've always been. So-righteously kicked into 'gutters' of your own design and imagination.

Who are these highbrow, self-righteous "people of faith" who Daly implies that only his belong to.

Just because I don't believe in a small, shallow, homophobic Abrahamic god, does that mean, in Daly's terms, I am not a "person of faith"? I have faith that, with more education in the world, the true teachings of Christ's love will eventually prevail and the politically motivated fear mongering of Daly's "people of faith" will go away.

Daly is no different than Dobson.
He's equally arrogant, ignorant and condescending to the rest of us.

"And key universal is that marriage has always - always - been about creating the next generation and providing a tight, cooperative and enduring connection between the child, mother and father, and their extended family by bringing male and female together in marriage."

No, actually, Mr. Daly. We need only look as far back as our shared Gaelic heritage to see that the family need not be based on primogeniture. Tanistry, fosterage, other grand traditions of people *not* being raised by a couple presumed to have sired them: where, actually, the relationship of *siblings* as regards the rearing of the next generation *outweighs* that of a breeding pair. At least in certain classes of society.

Homophobia and ostracization of gay people and gay couples, does *not* strengthen families: It tears them *apart,* actually. You see through your own lens, and claim all counterexamples are 'anomalies' ...when the 'truth' you claim is supposed to be taken as monolithic and universal.

Same-sex couples can *preserve* families. If, Gods avert, anything happens to one or another parent of either my, or my partner's, nephews, ourselves having a stable and secure partnership to take over for or assist that child is a *plus,* not a minus, in keeping those children from suffering privations.

Nature and even society *made* us a place. You just don't *like* it.

fr hellofromca:

>...Great article! I'm so thankful for Focus on the family, keep doing what you're doing Jim.

Um, you DO realize that the fotf CULT is virulently anti-gay, and pumped millions into the Prop HATE garbage? That group is NOT Christian, and bears careful scrutiny.

"If there are examples of a culture where homosexual parings serve as the recognized "nucleus" of marriage and family, I would be very interested in learning of it. And if such an institution did exist, how did it succeed in serving the essential social task of regulating sexuality and providing for the needs and development of children? We have yet to find such an instance or have anyone point us to one. "

========================

Mr. Daly,

Umm let's see ... places where same-sex marriage or unions work just fine.

Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Massachussetts, Maine, Washington D.C., New Hampshire, California, New York, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Colorado, Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Australia, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom, Iceland, Germany, France, etc. ....

Mr. Daly, the sky ain't falling in any of those places and it won't fall here either. In fact, more families are stronger, happier, and more secure in all of those places as a direct result of same-sex marriage/unions. I'd say the onus is now on you to name a single place where legalizing same-sex marriage has harmed rather than helped families.

The returns are in and the results are clear. Marriage equality is not only a fair and just legal policy, it is also decidedly Pro-Family!

Great article! I'm so thankful for Focus on the family, keep doing what you're doing Jim.

Manderson:

"if gay marriage were declared legal across the US, why should we legally stop there? Why would we deny the same rights to various polygamous and polyamorous arrangements? On what basis would we legally allow for the one (same-sex marriage of two consenting adults) and not allow for the other (marriage of more than two persons)?"

Why not? I know several people who are in a "group marriage". As long as all the parties are of age and consenting, why not? Although, it would REALLY give lawyers a lot of work if one person in poly marriage wanted to get a divorce.

Jim and his "holiness" of Family Councils which are attempting to take over America (i.e. the church on C Street, Washington DC) make me afraid! Focus on the Family organization along with some other so-called churches (Latter Day Saints/Mormons) have wasted millions of "God's" dollars fighting to protect the sanctity of marriage and yet when the likes of Gov. Sanford, Sen. Ensign et. al. cheat on thier wives breaking thier marriage vows little is said or done other than to "forgive"! The millions of "God's" dollars could have been better served if they had used the money to help the poor and children who have no health insurance coverage and can not afford care! Under no circumstances do I find anything "good" about the Focus on the Family empire. This organization is an affront to any free thinking person and especially those of us who are "citizen's" of the USA entitled to every and any government entitlement afforded to any other citizen. I will not be "tolerated" by these so-called religious people who are nothing but shams and pulpit pimps. Mr. Daly and his organization are not worthy of any respect whatsoever and are so afraid of the good deeds and work of homosexuals to receive equal status, which is afforded us as citizen's under the constitution, that they refuse to name thier supporters and the amounts given to them by these supporters. Through the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) they use more so-called christian attorneys to force thier viewpoint dowm unwilling throats at every turn and fight to keep secret the names of those who would do harm to the homosexual community (i.e. the latest FOF daily diatribe about Sen. Eichelberger of PA.). One would think that the supporters of FOF would want thier names to be public since they are doing "unto others as they would have others do unto them". Jim Daly in my humble opinion has no morals and the FOF empire is a lie!.

Mr. Haly, your follow-up posting is grossly insulting when you charge the moral high ground by referring to your side of the debate as "people of faith," thereby implying that the other side of the debate are faithless. What an unfortunate display of arrogance in what was to be a debate on the merits without regard to any particular religious bias.

MANDERSON - It is unfortunate that you persist on ignoring the question raised regarding polygamy versus same-gender marriage. In the case of polygamy, the Court has found and there continues to be evidence of not only a societal harm in the notion of "patriarchal despotism" in the Court's opinion, but also with regard to the individual often involved as demonstrated by cases of insular "religious" sect imposing marriage on young women (who may be of the legal age of consent or not).

In your postings, you have repeatedly failed to identify the specific or general harm that has been found to exist in same-gender marriages. Has Canada, the Netherlands, Massachusetts, or anywhere else experienced any kind of harm that would justify denying the right to a civil marriage to two consenting adults of the same gender? All you have said is that people think that it is wrong. That reason is the equivalent of an exasperated parent responding to a child's incessant "why" line of questions with "because I said so." Please articulate a specific or general harm that would arise from such recognition.

Dr. Gaddy’s posting that initiated this round of responses challenged us to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage without reference to religion. It is a great challenge, not because religion isn’t important, but because marriage is bigger than any one religion. Still, it seems like some readers are unhappy even when people of faith use other sources to make our points about the dangers of degendering of marriage.

I am happy some professional anthropologists weighed in on this topic.

As is typical in this debate, what the two anthropologists say is exactly right, but they only tell part of the story. Doing so can be misleading and it is here, unfortunately. Each of the examples they mention - and there are a few more they didn't - do not overthrow the universal nature of marriage as a male/female bonding union.

Take for instance, the "female-husbands" mentioned. This is a unique relationship socially constructed to fill a gap in the ability to further a family’s generations. It typically arises when a wealthy tribal woman doesn't have a husband (or either of them are infertile) and wants progeny to carry her lineage. She will contract a younger woman to become her "wife" and sire a baby in her stead, and the contracting woman will serve as the baby's legitimate "father.” This is merely a contractual relationship between the two women. It is not emotional or even sexual. This is similar to the experience of Abraham, Sarah and her surrogate handmaiden we read about in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

And of course there are all sorts of marriage. My own marriage is different from my neighbors in the way we structure it, and ours are very different from my friends in Egypt or India. That is obvious.

But there are also a few key universals of marriage and family across cultures. Neither these anthropologists nor the “Statement on Marriage and the Family” from the American Anthropological Association (AAA) mention this important reality. And key universal is that marriage has always - always - been about creating the next generation and providing a tight, cooperative and enduring connection between the child, mother and father, and their extended family by bringing male and female together in marriage. This in fact led George Murdock and others to begin using the word “nuclear” to designate this family center. Dr. Donald Brown explains this is "almost always" (Human Universal s , 1991, p. 136) the case across cultures , with the exceptions mentioned above. Similarly, the Native-American berdache is a man-wife who exists to cook, clean and care for children of the man’s female wives. If the man bec a me sexual or even tender toward his “man-wife,” he would be mercilessly ridiculed by the other men in the community. These other types of “marriage” exist to serve the heterosexual nature of marriage. And it is not religion, but human nature and social need that drives this universal purpose of marriage.

More troubling is the official statement from the AAA saying there is “no support whatsoever” that civilization or social order “depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.” First, unless I am wrong, anthropology is a value-neutral discipline and doesn’t make qualitative statements about what is good or bad for a society. They observe, catalogue and report on what cultures do. And except for the past decade in a few Western countries, no culture has embraced truly homosexual marriage as a recognized institution.

If there are examples of a culture where homosexual parings serve as the recognized "nucleus" of marriage and family, I would be very interested in learning of it. And if such an institution did exist, how did it succeed in serving the essential social task of regulating sexuality and providing for the needs and development of children? We have yet to find such an instance or have anyone point us to one.

Interestingly, Mr. Daly makes some powerful arguments for marriage equality. In particular, the idea that marriage "contribute[s] quite nicely to "our very existence and survival" by bringing forth the next generation of humanity which is what our civil Court said marriage is about". This point rings true for all marriages with children, including same-sex marriages which is one (of many) reasons to extend the legal rights and protections of civil marriage to all families who desire such a commitment regardless of the gender of the spouses.

He also reminds us that "the Court describes civil marriage as "a coming together for better or for worse...and intimate to the degree of being sacred" and recognized the "sacred precincts of marital bedrooms.""

Again, this is equally true for same-sex marriages. In fact, most of Mr. Daly's points argue in favor of same-sex marriage equality.

The only point that even remotely argues against legalizing same-sex marriage is history and as we all know from Slavery, Segregation, and Women's Sufferage, history alone is never a good reason to unfairly discriminate against our fellow citizens. But if history is to guide us, let us not forget the recent history of the several States that already have marriage equality. It shows that marriage equality harms no one and helps many.

Hey Jim, been hanging out with Ted Haggard lately?

Why don't you "focus" on your own family, first, rather than getting up in someone else's business? If you want to "protect" marriage, how about keeping people from cheating on their spouses, abusing them, etc.

Children can be produced outside of marriage. Married people can be childless, either by choice or because one or both are infertile. My husband and I don't have children, and we've been married for 14 years. Is my marriage any less valid because we haven't reproduced? One of my friends from elementary school, who I've just re-connected with via Facebook, is gay and has adopted two beautiful boys with his partner. Why shouldn't they be married? They've been together as long as and faithfully as my husband and I have been!

For those who would minimize the growing reality of polygamous/polyamorous relationships, this just in from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/209164

I have no desire to beat up my [opposite sex] partner, or, abuse my children with the rod or church attendance, therefore, I have no need for this "sacred institution" in which these abuses seem most endemic.

My comments will not be original as they have been made well by others, but I must add my voice to theirs: As long as governments give legal status to two people who marry, the government must grant that status equally. The government MAY NOT discriminate based on somebody's religious viewpoint. Christianity is NOT the only religion practiced in this country and conservative Christians are not allowed to make law based on their views.
This being said by a lesbian member of the United Church of Christ. My congregation, in Thetford, Vermont, voted unanimously to support Vermont's Marriage Equality legislation which passed this spring. My spouse and I will convert our civil union to a full marriage on September 1.

Government is not qualified to sanctify any union - gay or straight. Religious institutions are responsible for that. So government should protect civil rights and equity by issuing licenses to couples to create unions. Then, if that couple wants to have their civil union sanctified as under God, they should contact a religious institution. Then, if one religious group feels another religious group is wrong to sanctify a civil union - for whatever reason - they need to debate that among themselves, leaving government to do its limited task of licensing unions.

Government in the United States of America has no place in protecting the sacred character of anything. This isn't Iran, Pakistan, or even the United Kingdom. I will never understand the unwillingness of Jim Daly's ilk to acknowledge the separation of church and state. If Mr. Daly's church wants to protect the sacred nature (if there is any such thing) of an idea, property, or institution, let it, but keep the government, into which I pay probably considerably more tax than Mr. Daly, out of the business of "sacred protection".

Focus on your own family

Mr. Daly begins his article by thanking another writer for his call for civility in this debate, then promptly turns on his heel, using strident language to color his opponents and their "homosexual activist agenda." In the name of reason, Mr. Daly, you can't have it both ways: you're either going to be civil, or you're going to throw mud. It appears from your argument, you've placed yourself in the latter camp.

If marriage is solely and fundamentally about bringing forth the next generation, then childless hetero couple should not be married, should they? On the other hand, there are lots of gay couples raising children, so why shouldn't they be married?

If u seek religious approval for your marriage, seek it from your place of worship. if not, then allow people who love each other a place at the table.

This is and should be an inclusive society, we have progressed from bronze age morality in many aspects yet opponents cling to this one. Get over it please.

I appreciate those who have responded to my question concerning why the government should ban polygamous or polyamorous relationships if it allowed for same-sex marriage. I recognize that it is sensitive comparison, but I think it is legitimately raised. I must say that, in my view, none of the responses are particularly compelling. They all basically rely on arguments that are plausibly levelled against same-sex marriage.

For example, we are told that comparatively speaking, there are few people who want legal recognition of polygamous relationships. That may be so in modern America, but we are told in the case of same-sex relationships that this this not a matter of democratic rule, but of civil rights. The populace of California voted against same-sex marriage, but no one in support of same-sex marriage seems to think that is particularly significant. Rather, they argue that these people are simply wrong and need to be legally curtailed. Certainly, many societies for centuries have accepted and even encouraged polygamous marriages, so there is significant historical precedent for this practice. There can be no real question about that.

Or, we are told that there could be detrimental social dynamics that arise out of the legal recognition of polygamous relationships. This may be true, but many intelligent Americans are arguing the same thing about the legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Proponents of same-sex marriage think they are simply wrong, as would the many proponents of polygamous relationships.

Rather, it seems to me that many supporters of same-sex marriage, in an effort to exclude legal recognition of polygamy, are appealing to similar arguments as those who are opposed to same sex marriage in the first place. That is, that there are just *right* ways for humans to marry, and polygamy isn't one of them. In the process, they will end up doing to polygamists the same thing they complain that opponents of same-sex marriage do to them.

"Thou shall not commit adultery. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife." It was UNDERSTOOD that thou wouldst not covet thy neighbor lady's HUSBAND. Kind of like asking the price of the Mercedes. If you have to question something like that, get thee to another showroom. Some things are not left up to bratty interpretation. These "clergy" who want to let the flock do whatever the flock wants to do, for some reason WANT TO BE LISTENED TO. Why should we?

I've posted the following elsewhere on the Washington Post this evening--lots of related discussions going on at once. But it seems a propos here.

My partner and I were married. By a rabbi. In a very mainstream Jewish temple. In the South. Before our friends, family and before God. We have our ketubah (religious marriage contract) framed and hanging on a wall in our bedroom. We are married religiously. We participated in a sacred rite every bit as legitimate as any other sacred rite in someone else's religion. We have been in a committed, monogamous relationship for many years.

Now we seek to have the same rights and responsibilities under civil law as any married couple does. Our lives are intrinsically intertwined. We share a home, a mortgage, car payments, bills, medical and financial and legal decisions. It is nonsensical for the state to treat us as legal strangers when everything about our lives speaks to our committed relationship. Our relationship isn't just similar to that of heterosexual couples--it is identical. Period.

I grew up assuming I would be heterosexual (everyone did back then) and would marry someone of the opposite sex (everyone did back then). As I grew and began to realize I was "different", it became increasingly clear to me that society had no template for people like me other than shunning.

Times have changed. While the concept of "Equal Protection" under the law has pretty much been with us from the beginning of this great country, the concept of who fell under its protection has changed dramatically. So has our understanding of biology, psychology, and such basic notions of how a fair and just society includes those who are different in its institutions, including marriage.

I am no radical. My relationship is noteworthy not for the gender of the two of us but rather for its stability and commitment and for its....normalcy.

And it is simply time that the law catch up both with our religious institution and the reality of our lives.

Peace,
Ricklinguist

By the way, Evangelicals, I'll thank you to stop comparing the love of my life to a barnyard animal. Maybe that's somehow flattering in your world, but I advise you to not try saying that to our faces.

Capiche?

I mean, seriously.

I've been through all manner of uncalled-for hardship based on certain *stupid* ideas.

If polygamy, incest, and bestiality are things that keep you up nights, *don't look at me.* Denying my civil rights will not help you.

Manderson:

"This is a relatively simple question, that I would (still) like an answer to: if gay marriage were declared legal across the US, why should we legally stop there?"

I'm far more worried about 'where it stops' if we start letting religious blocs tell the US Government what kind of people are equal citizens if a religion holds bigotry against them.

*That's* a slippery slope, cause it's atrocious precedent.

"Why would we deny the same rights to various polygamous and polyamorous arrangements?"

Why would we care and why is does this somehow bear on my rights as an American seeking the same sort of monogamous marriage as a straight person?

" On what basis would we legally allow for the one (same-sex marriage of two consenting adults) and not allow for the other (marriage of more than two persons)?"

Is this a fear of yours, and one which you rely on hurting gay *couples* to protect you from having to realize that legal statutes for polyamory do not exist, even if the government gave blanket approval for such unions?

No, I don't *actually* think the government has a right to prevent poly groups from being married, but the simple fact is that the law is not structured in this way.

This could only happen through deliberate effort, not as an unintended side-effect of no longer denying marriage to a minority of couples.

"This is a relatively simple question, that I would (still) like an answer to: if gay marriage were declared legal across the US, why should we legally stop there?"

Who would press the issue? Most Americans believe gay couples should have access to marriage or civil unions. That's not true of polygamy.

Your argument is like saying if we allow people access to .22 caliber guns then what's to stop them from seeking nukes?

The law in America is clear about dealing with an equal PAIR of adults in marriage: it deals with the well worns paths on issues of property, divorce, inheritance, power of attorney, etc, BETWEEN TWO EQUAL ADULTS.

There is not language about about marriage rights or benefits that prioritize one gender over the other.

This is about equal protection under the law for couples - not anything else.

Daly writes "Genderless marriage proponents who we have been in civil dialogue will already decry such language as beyond the pale because, they explain, racists and bigots are not worth engaging. The first step toward civility is to not assume evil intent on the part of your opponent."

Wow, what hypocrisy! Daly starts his point by decrying a perception of bullying on the part of the people who simply want to be able to be married - and who, at this time, cannot.

I am from Maine where a man was thrown from a bridge and murdered simply because he was gay. That's bullying.

Daly fails to make an argument. He tries to pretend the Supreme Court pressed the idea that marriage must produce offspring, yet it did not. Daly is rhetorically lying when he says that. What about old people, Mr. Daly? Should any woman over 45 be denied marriage? Should crippled veterans be denied marriage?

This is about freedom, privacy and equal protection under the law.

Mr. Daly deeply fails to argue why gays should be denied the same legal and economic protections as others who can marry. He fails to show any harm that would be caused by allowing gays to marry.

I am a straight guy with kids in a "traditional" marriage and it offends me that the right wing is using marriage as a wedge to oppress gays. Using marriage as a tool of bigotry cheapens marriage itself.

Mr. Daly not only failed to deflect the criticisms ladeled on his ilk, but he made it worse.

jim daly said,
"You see, a black woman and white man can contribute quite nicely to "our very existence and survival" by bringing forth the next generation of humanity which is what our civil Court said marriage is about."
________________________________

ah, now i see. so infertile couples should have their licences revoked.

MANDERSON - please consult the posting at 2:32 regarding the Supreme Court's prior justification for banning polygamy and explain the harm that would be done by a same gender monogamous marriage.

This is a relatively simple question, that I would (still) like an answer to: if gay marriage were declared legal across the US, why should we legally stop there? Why would we deny the same rights to various polygamous and polyamorous arrangements? On what basis would we legally allow for the one (same-sex marriage of two consenting adults) and not allow for the other (marriage of more than two persons)?

Says Abu Ibrahim:

"Thanks to all the posters who answered my question."

(But, says Abu Ibrahim, I'm going to *ignore* your efforts and claim you said:)

" They do want to use the power of the state."

Or not. By your own scenario, you claim you want LBGT people to pay *you* to discriminate against *us.*

HYJANKS,

Does it sound like I'm coming off as not agreeing with you?

And ABU_IBRAHIM, as it was pointed out to you earlier, the benefits bestowed to employees are EARNED. Why should citizen X get them but not citizen Y?

«Do they just want to be able to call themselves married, or do they want to use the power of the state to force others to recognize their relationships?"

Thanks to all the posters who answered my question. They do want to use the power of the state.

«. . . with the same rights to marry who they love that straight couples have, with the same rights of insurance, pensions and such. You aren't impacted at all.»

A «right of insurance, pensions and such» implies a duty imposed, by force of government law, on someone who has to supply the insurance, pensions and such. If that's not an «impact», this is not the Washington Post.

Thank you for the responce, abu_ibrahim.

As I see it, these are different things. If a gay couple gets married, nothing at all is forced on you. Saying you are forced to "recognize" it doesn't make any sense. Your church wouldn't be forced to perform these marriages, just as the Catholic church isn't forced to marry couples who were previously married in the church, as another writer on this blog points out.

And, yes, if an employer offers spousal benefits, he should be required to provide them to all married couples, weather or not he approves of them. A devout Catholic employer can't refuse to cover my husband (since he was divorced from his first wife, after a Catholic marriage that was not annuled - just ended by civil divorce) because he regards our marriage as invalid. You can't just cover the marriages of your employees married in your church. You don't have to approve of your employees family lives, just their job performance.

A gay couple marrying affects you not at all, except that it appears to offend you. At least that's what I assume you mean by being "forced to recognize" these relationships. The Constitution does not have a "no offense" clause. You appear to want to directly interfere, with force of law, in other people's lives. I feel the standard for that kind of interference is not religious dogma, no matter what religion, but harm. If the act a person (or two people, or whatever) want to engage in causes no direct harm to others, the law should allow people to make their own choices. Let freedom ring.

Gay couples, on the other hand, want to be left alone - to do as they want - with the same rights to marry who they love that straight couples have, with the same rights of insurance, pensions and such. You aren't impacted at all.

The difference, as I see it, is that you want to stop someone else from doing something, using force of law. You want to do that not because it causes harm to society as a whole or to any individual, but because you, personally (because of your religious beliefs) think is wrong.
The fact that you can't see the difference there doesn't reassure me at all.

"The advocates of same-sex marriage, what is it that they want? Do they just want to be able to call themselves married, or do they want to use the power of the state to force others to recognize their relationships?"

Well, Mr. Ibrahim, we want the same rights as adulterers in this country - the right to forgo the "Christian" definition of marriage that is being advocated by Mr. Gaddy.

You see, Mr. Ibrahim, in this country men and women are legally able to violate the "Christian" defition of marriage, divorce their spouses (for any reason whatsoever) and then go on to have another civil marriage, even though this subsequent relationship is considered adulterous or bigamous (depending on one's stance) in the "Christian" church - or at least the Roman Catholic church, which considers itself the only Christian one. Many Protestant churches, sadly, have violated the laws of God and will even sanctify these adulterous/bigamous marriages.

Yet all of us, even Roman Catholics who do not recognize such immoral relationships, are forced to recognize, for legal/civil purposes, John McCain's relationship with his concubine, Cindy Hensley, or Rudy Guiliani's relationship with this mistress, Judith Nathan, or Newt Gingrich's current "marriage" (it's his third, and he's cheated on both his previous wives, so I am assuming he is already hunting for Mrs. Gingrich #4, after all, the current one is bound to get older and less attractive, which seems to be the reason most straight guys abandon their wives). Gays and lesbians deserve exactly the same consideration.

Oh, and for the record, there is not a sexual act enjoyed by a gay or lesbian couple that a straight person didn't figure out first, so please don't claim that our sex lives are the "basis" for our relationships - gay and lesbian couples also have love and mutual support and mortgages and often children, all of which are a far more solid basis for marriage than the myriad, albeit pleasurable, sexual acts we may choose to engage in.

Also, Abu Ibrahim, when employers offer health insurance to employees, it's not some form of 'charity' he 'pays for.'

It's part of a compensation package which is exchanged for *work.*

In America, we have a principle of 'Equal pay for equal work,' Not 'I pay according to how much I can't say I 'religiously disapprove' of someone if it saves me expenses.'

If you don't want to be in a position of your own manufacture that says you have to compensate workers with health care if you don't like their religious beliefs... Support single-payer health care.

I'd like nothing better than to see the 'decision' out of the hands of people like you.

What should he speak from that would make some of you people happy?

Posted by: Bzimmerman1

________________________

He should speak from a loving Christian heart that says, although my religion and it's followers don't accept same-sex marriage for our own and we believe, right or wrong, that homosexuality is a choice and those who chose it should repent and change their ways, we acknowledge that in a democracy such as America, civil unions are solely defined by the state and not just limited to our religious beliefs. They should be accepted by the government with all associated civil and lega rights and benefits as our religious unions. May God allow all his children to be happy and bless and protect not just the ones who believe as we do.

This will happen right after Fox News really becomes "fair and balanced"

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the draft Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779), "our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry."

Additionally, James Madison wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments in 1785 in which he warned of the majority treading on the rights of the minority, but also argued that such an effort would be detrimental to Christianity itself because by espousing a religion from the government it sets a bad example to other countries who support a religion other than Christianity, thereby depriving those persons from the "diffusion of the light of Christianity."

If the self-styled "traditional values" set wants to emulate the Founding Fathers, I would commend these documents to their attention, particularly since one is by the author of the Declaration of Independence and the other is by the primary author of the Constitution.

"The advocates of same-sex marriage, what is it that they want? Do they just want to be able to call themselves married, or do they want to use the power of the state to force others to recognize their relationships?"

It's about more than what we call ourselves. We can *call* ourselves married with or without equal treatment under the law. We can *call* ourselves married even if any straight blood relative, however hostile they were to the couple in life, can take everything we've built together... even our children, from a surviving partner of that marriage.

It's not about what we call each other. Maybe that's all it is to you, but for us, it's about our *lives.* Very real and boring things that have nothing to do with whatever you get out of thinking about sex and calling people sinners.

Our birthright as Americans.

" An employer who pays medical insurance for traditional spouses, but maybe he does not believe in same-sex marriage. "

Maybe he doesn't believe in Jewish or interracial marriage, either. His responsibilities as an employer in American business are not contingent on his *approval.*

They're contingent on a nation of free citizens, all equal under the law.

"Government, should government force him to pay medical insurance for same-sex spouses of employees?"

It's more the other way around, actually. As it stands, *gay* couples have to pay twice for insurance *and* also pay to subsidize all the services and benefits accorded to straight couples.

"Is this not like forcing Roman Catholic hospitals to perform elective abortions?"

No, it's not. It's like not letting Catholics use the government to treat others like third-class citizens.

«I have trouble trusting conservative Christians in positions of power. Over and over again, I have asked this question, I'll ask it again; What do you really want here? Do you just want to tell everyone how you believe they should live, or do you want to use the power of the state to force people to live the way you think they should?»
«Posted by: gimpi | July 29, 2009 3:44 PM»

The advocates of same-sex marriage, what is it that they want? Do they just want to be able to call themselves married, or do they want to use the power of the state to force others to recognize their relationships? An employer who pays medical insurance for traditional spouses, but maybe he does not believe in same-sex marriage. Government, should government force him to pay medical insurance for same-sex spouses of employees? Is this not like forcing Roman Catholic hospitals to perform elective abortions?

Man-man marriages, are they not built on an act that violates male bodily integrity? Government cannot ban this act, says the Court in the Lawrence case, but should government compel unwilling citizens to recognize this invasion of bodily integrity as a legitimate marriage?

Since me and the wife agreed before marriage that children would not be a part of our lives together, I guess according to Mr. Daly that said marriage should be null and void.
As a practical matter, how do we go about this? Do we petition the court to nullify our marriage because we had no intention to procreate? Is that a petition with precedence? If so, how did those folks make out with their divorce?
And what of the couple who married and found out that one or both of them are sterile? Do they have an automatic out as far as their marriage is concerned?
I know! If government and a very narrow segment of the Christian church come to an agreement on what constitutes marriage and laws are thereby enacted to cancel or prevent miscreants from coupling, how about if we just make it legal for them to go their separate ways immediately at any time they chose? It sure would take a load off of divorce court dockets.
Another thing. Since it will be against the law for same-sex, sterile, anti-procreating couples to marry, what should be the punishment if they find a State or another nation to perform the ceremony?
How about it, manderson7, atracy,and Dale8? Do you agree with my assessment in this matter? If so, or if not, please give us your opinions.
I'm waiting with baited breath!

On a different note, this issue is one of the reasons I have trouble trusting conservative Christians in positions of power. Over and over again, I have asked this question, I'll ask it again; What do you really want here? Do you just want to tell everyone how you believe they should live, or do you want to use the power of the state to force people to live the way you think they should? I have yet to get a direct answer,

The same people who have problems with gay marriage often want a traditional "man in charge" mode for marriages in general. My feeling is you can live your life as you choose, and good luck to you. And if you just want to lecture me on how I should be "in submission" to my husband, fine. I can ignore the heck out of you, if I don't like your message. However, in the issue of gay marriage, conservative Christians are not content to lecture. They want to control, with force of law, who can marry. If they want to do that, do they also want force of law to require female subordination? How is it different? I really don't understand, and as long as I don't get it, I will have trouble trusting conservative Christians in positions of power not to try to force their beliefs on those of us who don't share them. Are my fears justified?

Lepidopteryx has it right regarding the history of marriage. When the trobador movement touted love as the basis of marriage, many of the same arguments, "it will destroy the family, it's against all tradition, and it umdermines the authority of the Church," were voiced. But it turned out that people really caring about each other was a better foundation for a happy life than your life-partner being chosen based on how large a herd of cattle your father held.

In the 20th century, traditional marriage changed again. We shifted from a "head of the household" idea to "equal partners working together" idea. Again, it turns out that the partnership mode is much better, on all fronts. Relationships are healther, happier and stronger when the adults in them work together to make decisions, rather than one partner simply assuming all power, and the other simply expected to defer. The decisions are generally better, too.

Mr Daly cites the laws against mixed-race marriage, and discusses how a mixed-race couple can have children. Interestingly enough, that was one of the arguments against such marriages at the time. People, sincere in their beliefs I'm sure, said God had made different races for a reason, and it was against the will of God for the races to have children together. For many, this was just as deeply-held religious belief as Mr. Daly's belief that marriages between people of the same gender are immoral, and shouldn't be recognized by the state. However, the state decided, rightly, that one person's religious beliefs shouldn't be permitted to control another person's life. And it turned out fine. It turns out there really aren't any major differences between races. The children of these couples can do anything, inculding become President of the United States. To make a long story short, marriage has changed many times over human history, and will change again. There's no reason to believe allowing same-gender marriages will be a change, but there is no reason to beilve it will be a distructive change.

I apologize in advance if this post shows up multiple times. For some reason it's being held.

"Examine how leading anthropologists over the last 80 years - from the Royal Anthropological Institution's Notes and Queries, to Edward Westermarck, George Murdock, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Bronislaw Malinowski, Kathleen Gough, Ward Goodenough and Pierre van den Berghe - define marriage across all cultures - religious and secular - and see how constantly you encounter references to male and female, procreation and off-spring legitimization as the universal and primary qualities of this sacred institution. "

I am an anthropologist; I teach at a leading Catholic university. When I discuss the insitution of marriage, I point out that our own cultural understandings are, in fact, not universal, even amongst ourselves. Yes, male and female sexes are physically required to produce a new generation, but in many cultures they need not be "married" to do it. [Among the Nayar of India, studied by Kathleen Gough -- whom you mentioned -- the "husband" and "wife" might live together for only a few nights, after which he goes away. The "wife" might then take any number of lovers, none of whom she is "married" to.] And in many cultures, the "marriage" does not have to be between male and female.

All of the terms in this discussion, "marriage", "male", "female", sex, gender, etc., even "sacred", are culturally defined and are not "universal".

In short, Mr. Daly. Civil marriage, especially not in terms of a religious agenda of blind procreation for its own sake, ...is not something your religious beliefs own.

Civil marriage is something which is about economics and social stability. That you have denied these things to some in the *past* does not mean that the bigotry was OK.

Or that it's ever 'defined' the ever-changing 'definition of marriage.'

If it were still the arrangement of women-as-chattel advocated in your Bible, no one would *want* it.

Civil marriage is something else. Something which must be extended fairly and equally to all under the laws of the United States.

Perhaps, just as Christianity 'repented' of its equally-strident historical insistences that 'marriage can only happen between people of the same race, skin color, ethnicity or religion,' it can repent of the very real injustices it's visited upon me, my partners, and my child, all claiming to have done these things in the name of 'defending,' ...A particular abstraction.

If your definition is not for all, you should not try to prolong these injustices with government and oppressive power.

If it *were,* you shouldn't have to.

Jim Daly is a liar. Anthropologists have documented a wide variety of marriages including heterosexual, polygamous, and homosexual in cultures around the world. Damen Dozier of the American Anthropological Association wrote in 2004:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."

Daly is a liar. If he can lie about something as simple like this, why should I believe anything he says.

"Dr. Welton Gaddy is to be thanked for his call for a more civil discussion on the issue of marriage."

Then, maybe you should have listened to that call before saying in the next breath:

" Many of my friends have been physically threatened, harassed by vulgar phone calls at all hours, and had their good names and private property trashed for no other reason than they took a position contrary to the homosexual activist agenda and participated in our democracy. But Gaddy doesn't seem to live up to his own call."

Whoever these 'many of your friends' are, (I'm sure they called the police and reported these alleged incidents?)

'Participating in our democracy' does not mean trying to deny civil rights to other citizens.

Somehow, I don't think the anti-gay activist agenda has really been subjected to what a lot of the people they seek to defame and deprive... literally, of rights to name and property, never mind personal security against *very real* harassment, assaults, abuse... Go through every day cause you think your view of your religion has some right to impose itself on the rest of a free nation.

I'm sure you support including us in the hate crimes law, as your own rhetoric increases the violence of assaults on LBGT Americans? Christian?

You may invite who you wish to your 'sacred rites.' We all can.

You are not allowed to use the government to punish people with injustice if they don't kneel to your pulpit.

This is America.

Fantastic article, Mr. Daly. While many people resort to hateful slander in their comments, I think you provided a well-articulated argument. Thank you for tackling such a tough issue that sparks such an outcry from a loud-mouthed minority.

lets take part of this along a logical discourse.

"The first step toward civility is to not assume evil intent on the part of your opponent. If only Dr. Gaddy had started there."

good, we know that first step. But a large basis for the argument against same sex marriage is that the bible says homosexuality is wrong. So therefor the beginning bases of the argument against is an assumption of evil is it not? And we have to assume this because why would a supposedly divine being ban something that is not evil or wrong?

You say marriage is sacred-- is it sacred in the way your church says, or mine? My church believes gays are fine and should be allowed to be married. Why is your definition of sacred right and mine wrong?

The Bible has been used in the past to justify slavery and the powerlessness of women. Do you believe those passages in the Bible, too?

I have gay friends and relatives who I love more than anyone. I reject a religion that says that their love isn't sacred, too. I want them to have the same rights and protection of marriage that I have. If they can't have their wedding in your church, that's fine. They can have it in mine.

With regard to the slippery-slope argument raised attempting to muddle the issue with the specter of polygamous relationships, this issue has already been addressed.

In 1878, the Supreme Court upheld the federal ban on polygamy. In this case, the polygamist attempted to use religion to prevent the government from intervening, but the Court found that the government had the right to interfere with religious practices involving harmful actions, such as human sacrifice or the self-emulation of widows. With regard to upholding the ban on polygamy specifically, the Court found specific harm supporting this interference.

“Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.” (Reynolds v. United States)

The Court found that this harm justified the government’s action to limit an individual’s right. Updating this issue, the Salt Lake Tribune’s regular section on polygamy provides current information that demonstrates the ongoing validity of the Court’s finding from more than one hundred years ago.

If people choose to equate same gender marriage with polygamy, please articulate the potential harmful effect that would rival the patriarchal despotism evident in polygamous unions.

@ BZIMMERMAN1 who wrote"

For the person who thinks there are no instances of people who oppose same-sex marriage being physically threatened, I personally have plenty of sad examples. I speak on this issue often in intentionally civil forums and I have had to be escorted, one time at the firm insistence of a very kind female police officer.
---------

No sale. And what could you have possibly done to need such protection? Me doubts you very much.

Daly's right! Two dudes shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't make babies, at least with each other. We shouldn't let two senior citizens get married either, because they can't have kids together.

Now I think of it, a couple in their twenties should have to undergo testing to make sure they're fertile. And sign a piece of paper saying they plan to have children. Biological children -- no adoption copout.

Because there's absolutely NO POINT in two people getting married except to procreate. Unless, you know, they're in love or something like that.

Daly, you're a complete cretin. And/or you know all this and are just lying to everybody who reads your nonsense.

I recently returned from driving up and down the eastern coast of the United States from Maine to Florida in search of the much-heralded Institution of Marriage.

Though I didn't know exactly what it looked like, I thought my task would be easy. Surely it would be an imposing edifice, likely built of pink granite, thrusting skyward like the massively overbuilt Mormon Temple atop Belmont Hill overlooking Boston in Mitt Romney's ward.

Alas, after months of diligent searching, I have reluctantly concluded that this Sacred and Wonderful Institution of Marriage does not exist. There are only people living together in various states of happiness and unhappiness.

Perhaps Ambrose Bierce got it right in his Dictionary:

Marriage, n: the state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all, two.

As there is no Institution of Marriage to be found, there is no such thing for government to try to protect.

Where's the evidence that the 'sacred institution' of man-woman marriage would be harmed if the state started recognizing same-sex marriages as well? Where's the evidence? There is actually evidence to the contrary--MA has the lowest divorce rate in the country, but was also the first state to recognize same sex marriages. I haven't even heard a plausible theoritcal explanation for how recognizing same-sex marriages would undermine opposite marriages.

And people talking about the importance of marriage for raising children always leave out children with gay parents. Why do you want to deny them the security of having married parents?

"A Sacred Institution Government Must Protect"

So much for separation of church and state.

An interesting observation here.

The item from Dr. Gaddy that launched this discussion asks if we can talk about marriage as a public/civil institution and not rely on religion. Daly, I assume he is evangelical, being the head of Focus on the Family, seems happy to take up the challenge. And he offered some interesting points for his side while NOT using religion. But he seems to be being slammed for using history and anthropology. Seems like many of these folks here would prefer he and people like him just not talk about their opposition to same-sex marriage. But that doesn't serve democracy and civil debate too well does it?

What should he speak from that would make some of you people happy?

If you honestly want to "defend" and "save" marriage, outlaw divorce and alcohol, and enforce Leviticus 20:10 (while we're cherry-picking) by having the death penalty for an adulterer and his mistress (specifically in the case of Senator Ensign who committed adultery with his friend's wife).

Why are alcohol and divorce legal and adultery laws not enforced in the US when they destroy more marriages than the Huckabee's "gay activist agenda"

For the person who thinks there are no instances of people who oppose same-sex marriage being physically threatened, I personally have plenty of sad examples. I speak on this issue often in intentionally civil forums and I have had to be escorted, one time at the firm insistence of a very kind female police officer. This was at the very "open-minded" free-thinking University of Wisconsin Madison. While being escorted to my car, a crowd of people followed us, shouting things like "You better be glad you have protection!" and "We better never catch you around here alone!"

Take a public stand against ssm and things won't go well for you. Been there, done that.

Isn't this guy the same one who promised to be a "kinder, gentler" Dobson?

Sounds the same to me.

This guy's a dead give away when he starts with "the homosexual activist agenda"

Most gays don't have a commie, bed-wetting, liberal, "agenda" that this kind of Huckabee wants to use to rally Limbaugh's Lemmings against gays, Muslim, Mexicans or anyone else not lily white and "Christian"

Most gays just want to live their lives with a partner, receive the same legal and medical benefits of any married couple and be left alone. Most don't care if you don't want to call it marriage in your church and respect your Constitutional right to go primp, pretend, pose and pray on Sunday with your own.

The "agenda" here is one of hate and exclusion from the intolerant evangelicals, O'Reilly Catholics and Mormons to continue to fear and harass gays (even on Main Street in Salt Lake City) in the hope that they will someday just go away.

But gays have always been among us and always will be. They will not go away nor should they. Did your small and shallow god make gays for your entertainment to bash and hate? Do you really believe someone would "chose" to be gay in your inolerant homophobic world?

One would think that those who pimp the name of poor old Jesus for power and money would at least specifically read His words in lieu of cherry-picking Leviticus for their own "agenda"

This is a relatively simple question, that I would like an answer to: if gay marriage were declared legal across the US, why should we legally stop there? Why would we deny the same rights to various polygamous and polyamorous arrangements? On what basis would we legally allow for the one (same-sex marriage of two consenting adults) and not allow for the other (marriage of more than two persons)?

Mr. Daly appears to prefer to rely on claims of hostility that he does not document and court opinions from more than 40 years ago when marriage itself was very different institution than it is now for heterosexuals.

I would welcome an actual debate on the issue of civil versus religious marriage, particularly what logical application of the law (1) would allow the government to declare an end to a marriage regardless of the religious implications without forcing any religious institution to recognize this civil act, but (2) would prevent the government from declaring the beginning of a marriage regardless of the the religious implications without forcing any religious institution to recognize such a civil act.

Please focus on the actual debate points rather than histrionics.

Well done, Mr. Daly. You presented your position thoughtfully and avoided disparaging those with whom you disagree.

We all realize, I hope, that most of the people who have the time and incentive to post comments online are quite liberal, rather fanatical, and completely out of touch with everyone in America outside of their own little cliques. All of the polls and all of the ballot votes for decades have shown that what Mr. Daly has written does indeed represent the large majority of the American people. We, as a nation, believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman, primarily because this institution was ordained by God (yes, a large majority of Americans also believe in God and believe that, as the creator, he is the foundation for our system of values and morality), but also because marriage provides the best and proven environment for covenant-type commitment to flourish between a couple and for children to be raised into moral, contributing members of society. There are no facts to support the emotional outcries (and disrespectful juvenile vulgarity) of most of those who have left their comments here. These folks need to research the facts for themselves, not iterate what some equally ill-informed professor or peer has passed on to them. I cringe when I see so many people who have soaked up the politically correct teachings of so many of our universities, the media and radical leftist groups. Will we even have a country left for our children? Not if our leaders listen to these few who try to pass themselves off as many. They are not representative of most of us in this nation.

Wow this is a gross misrepresentation of anthropology.

In 2004 the American Anthropological Association Executive Board issued the following statement in response to President Bush’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

It's unfortunate Jim Daly is abusing science and misrepresenting anthropology in his war against gay families.

As long as the government offers benefits for the status of "married" then denying these rights to others based on sexual preference is discrimination.

So there's 2 choices really

1) remove the recognized benefits of marriage from the gov't system

2) end the discrimination and allow those who go through the same legal steps to get their benefits too

I'm a married guy and I get tax breaks, health care benefits, the ability to disperse assets automatically and other benefits. I'm not going to be tempted to leave my family and hang out in MN airport bathrooms if gay couples are extended the same programs. It'd be nice if civil unions actually addressed all the benefits that government legally extends to married couples. Whether or not it is sacred it to be dealt with by churches.........not government. Government deals with protecting our borders, levying taxes etc. It does not deal with the sacred.

Go to Iran if you want that.

Jim I notice your only degree is in business administration according to your bio on Focus' website but I find it curious you're speaking on behalf of anthropologists.

Last year your staffer Glen Stanton issued a similarly uninformed blanket statement about anthropology which prompted the anthropology department chair at the University of California, Irvine to issue a statement.

You see the history of anthropology has actually documented a rich variety of forms of marriage. Here's the full statement written by Bill Maurer, an actual anthropologist:

Since its beginnings as a scientific discipline in the 19th century, anthropology has documented the historical and cultural variability of marriage and family forms. From ghost marriages to “female husbands” to polyandry, polygamy and cousin marriage, the cultures of the world exhibit incredible diversity in how they manage the universal problems of cultural transmission and the reproduction and care of the next generation. Indeed, Lewis Henry Morgan, one of the field’s forefathers, documented hundreds of distinct kinship arrangements. For over a hundred years, anthropologists have continually surprised themselves and other Western observers with the diversity of family and marriage arrangements deemed sacred, valuable, and morally necessary for the reproduction of society. The American Anthropological Association, the oldest and largest professional organization for anthropologists, affirms this diversity and noted its support for gay marriage in 2004-05. In fact, the Association requires academic recruiters who advertise with its service to state whether they provide benefits to same-sex partners and whether they forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It does this because the scientific evidence is on its side: there is not now, and there never has been, one single definition of marriage. Marriage may be universal; but what counts as marriage is not. The current American political debate is thus quite parochial when seen from the point of view of 10,000 years of human history.

Bill Maurer
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine
and
President, Association for Political and Legal Anthropology

Tom Boellstorff
Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine
Editor-in-Chief, American Anthropologist, and
Former co-Chair, Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists

As a Christian who often dips to the "left," I'd have to say that I agree with Mr. Daly's perspective. In my view his words are not "intellectually dishonest," "incoherent pieces of crap," or smacking of "anti-abortion violence (what...???)." In fact, Mr. Daly presents a reasonable and articulate case for marriage between a man and a woman.

Honestly, I'm wondering how name-calling, mean-spiritness, and a lack of substance aid the cause of same-sex marriage or civil rights for gays and lesbians. I'm afraid you've turned this girl off.

*Procreation* is fundamentally about male and female, be it in a relationship or in a laboratory. I believe we've come far enough as a society that we can divorce procreation from a civil marriage, which has evolved into a guarantee of rights and privileges as well as a formal commitment to another person made public. In fact, we already have been doing it for years as far as I can tell, unless there's some procreation requirement for marriage that I'm unaware of. And in the same vein, I'm pretty sure marriage is not required for procreation.

I disagree with much of what is said here, but for a moment, let me take it all as true.

Marriage is sacred. Marriage is about procreation. Marriage is "universally" defined this way (it most certainly is not).

If all of that is true, then there is a simple solution - the government may protect marriage as defined herein by simply revoking all civil privileges provided to married couples. No more tax breaks, visitation rights, easy conveyance of property. Marriage is apparently about religion and procreation so if you're not busy worshiping or procreating the state doesn't get involved (why do you need tax benefits to procreate?).

Mr. Daly starts this piece with:
Many of my friends have been physically threatened, harassed by vulgar phone calls at all hours, and had their good names and private property trashed for no other reason than they took a position contrary to the homosexual activist agenda and participated in our democracy.

"Physically threatened?" I have no proof to the contrary but I'd wager my left lung that this is an untruth. In fact with all the violence from the right WRT abortion, I'd say this is classic projection at its best.

Nice try Mr. Daly.

The article does not address the question of marriage at all. Most churches gave up on the "proceation" argument in the fifties, when it became apparent that continued population growth was unsustainable. Many marriages which I perform are to couples who cannot have children, or which do not plan of having children. Are they not marriages as well?

The blogger who mentions the passing on of property is exactly right. In ancient times (and still today), marriage had to do more with property and alliances than with love - one based on love, in fact, was the exception. In many societies, marriages are still arranged.

Marriage, as pressed by Christian conservatives, has little to do with scripture, which displays a varied institution. It is all about upholding certain cultural values, which have scant scriptural evidence to support them.

Marriage has always been viewed by theologians as one of the "orders of creation," those basic institutions founded by God as part of the basic structures for ordering human life - not part of the divine covenant God made with the Jews, and therefore "secular" rather than "religious" in nature. Our own laws recognize this secular nature of marriage.

The question, then, it seems to me, is whether there are social or secular reasons for upholding or barring "gay" marriages? From that standpoint, procreation is a failed argument, but property rights, alliances, etc. all argue for allowing it, as a matter of the granting of equal rights, and allowing the persons we choose, whether male or female, to make legal decisions on our behalf.

Argument from tradition. Fallacious nonsense. Jim, your argument is rubbish. Yes, two spermatozoon or two ova does not an embryo make, but what does that have to do with marriage?

Whether two men or two women are married to each other does not in the slightest affect whether they can bear children together.

People can conceive children out of and in wedlock equally well. Your argument is a non sequitur, confused and I dare say, intellectually dishonest. Tell us the real reason you oppose gay marriage. I'm guessing it has something to do with how disgusted the thought of gay sex or gay people kissing and holding hands makes you feel. How close am I?

-John Griffith

This incoherent piece of crap of an article does not explain in the least how marriage is fundamentally about heterosexual couples.

The concept of marriage originated as a way of keeping real estate and other valuable property in the possession of those who carried a certain male's DNA. Originally, love had little to nothing to do with it, and the bride and groom often had little or no say as to who their spouse would be.
Yes, people do get married for the sake of inheriting property, or because they wish to cement legal claims to any children their spouse produces, but people also get married for no other reason than romantic love. Many people marry who have neither pot to pee in nor window to throw it out of, and many people marry who have no desire whatsoever to become parents. If my husband and I were able to marry for no other reason than because we wanted to, then I see no good reason to deny the right to marry to any consenting adults who want to, whatever their reasons.
Let any consenting adults who wish to be legally joined to one another do so, and let religious institutions retain the prerogative they have always had to refuse to bless any union they find objectionable. Catholic priests have never been obligated to marry Protestants or divorcees, and rabbis have never been obligated to marry Gentiles, even though remarriage of divorcees and interfaith marriages are perfectly legal. In fact, clergy are not obligated to perform wedding rituals at all, even for members of their own congregations.
In the same vein, allowing same-sex individuals to legally marry will not obligate any clergy person whose theology or doctrine frowns on homosexuality to perform a wedding ritual for same-sex couples.

fr the article:

>...And that is why marriage is universally and fundamentally about male and female...

No, it is about two people joining together. Remember that this clown is with the well-known CULT "focus on the 'family'". See the excellent documentary, "For the Bible Tells Me So" about how this guy's best bud "dr" jimmy dobdork treated a family with a gay son who just wanted to give him a letter.