(Audio) NOM founder Maggie Gallagher debates professor on marriage amendment

Is there not a reel # 10 for the audio?? It stopped mid sentence and not at the end of the debate.

“We have so many children right now who are being raised out of wedlock that I would agree marriage is in a crisis today.”–Maggie Gallagher. Does Ms. Gallagher not realize that those who are being denied marriage because they are of the same sex are raising their children out of wedlock, and are asking *for* wedlock to be granted to them? This is one of many blind spots in her argument, which she states again and again is clear, plain, and obvious, but yet lacks even the common sense of realizing that it so plainly undercuts itself on this, among many, points.

while I appreciate this man’s smartness in this debate – there should be NO DEBATE – all Americans should be Treated equally – period!

To me, the answer is clear: Do children do better when their parents are married? If so, shouldn’t all parents be allowed to marry, including those of the same sex?

Considering that Maggot’s kid is a bastard since Maggot never married the dude who knocked her up, she needs to STFU.

Gallagher’s argument has so many holes..it would take all day to point them all out.

Ms. Gallagher is nothing if not a religious bigot and a shill for the Papacy in the Vatican. Her entire career has been funded by and supported by the Catholic hierarchy. Take what she says with a grain of salt because she has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back up any of her claims.

While I don’t agree with Gallagher’s core position, I strongly object to calling any child a ‘bastard’.

I don’t see what is so radical about Ms. Gallagher’s claims. What appears radical to this 24- yr. old is redefining the definition of marriage in the eyes of law. Doing that puts my religious freedom, the religious freedom of my friends and family, and that of many other people of good will in this state and in this country. Moreover, we are abandoning the ideal in society that the best place for a child to grow up with is his/her biological mother and father, and that family and gender are merely societal constructs that can mean whatever you want them to mean. What, exactly is progressive about those things?

Sorry for the typo. The line with the typo should have stated “Doing that puts my religious freedom, the religious freedom of my friends and family, and many other people of good will in this state and in this country in jeopardy”.

To Michael Blissenbach:

I was wondering if you could clarify a couple of points in your comment:

First, I agree that if a law impinges on your freedom of religion it is a pretty serious matter. Could you explain exactly how allowing gay couples to marry would negatively impact your religious freedom?

Also, if several religions have conflicting views on an issue and they want to influence a policy decision, how should decision makers decide which particular religion’s viewpoint they should consider? I ask because by the nature of faith, an adherent to a particular religion will be likely to view their position on an issue like same-sex marriage as divinely inspired and not open to question or debate. The problem that I see is that when two religions disagree about something and a decision on an issue must be made, one of the religions may feel that their religious freedom is at risk. What criteria would you choose for deciding in this case, number of adherents, your own personal religious beliefs, or perhaps a consideration of non-religious factors?

I hope you will take the time to respond to my questions.

Prof. Carpenter asked Gallagher to identify which of the roughly 1500 state and Federal rights she thought should be held back from same sex couples seeking marriage equality. Gallagher of course never rose to the occasion.

The term marriage belongs to the English language, not to the Catholic church, not to the Evangelicals and never will be their exclusive prerogative to define. Our laws, written in English is where we will define marriage as legal construct. For the moment DOMA defines and regulates marriage, and that definition will be modified soon enough in the courts and NOT in the Minnesota Constitution.

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

What basis do they have to discriminate against people who want to marry someone of the same sex? The only argument I’ve heard in favor of amending the constitution is a religious argument, which makes this blatant religious discrimination in my view.

About the only strictly non-religious argument I’ve heard is that “Kids need BOTH a mom and a dad”. It’s about all they can come up with that isn’t blatently religious.

@Mike, sadly, those like Michael and Maggot harp on about so-called “religious freedoms”, but what they usually mean is their personal conscious, rather than the duties of the State. Indeed, no where has Maggie or a rep. from NOM *ever* so much as *hinted* at making any allowances for people in religions such as mine (Paganism) where the marriage of a Gay couple (we call them Handfastings) is permissible. (And, don’t even get me started on how Maggie succinctly continues to bastardize the historical and anthropological record!) Heck, the present sitting President of NOM, Brian Browne, admitted to what Maggie has strongly implied over the years: “religious freedom”, to NOM and to their supporters, means the legal “freedom” to be able to openly and publicly discriminate for someone who’s Gay based upon personal moral grounds in terms of housing, employment, medical care, and goods and services, etc.! Anything less than that, as NOM advances it to their acolytes, means that their followers do not have *real* “religious freedoms”!

Now, a word about history and anthropology (ya’ twisted my arm! LOL!): According to the American Anthropological Association (AAA)–the largest such professional academic institution in the Northern hemisphere–they have released a policy statement based upon over 100 years of consistent field work and several thousand years of historical documentation opposing any attempt to legally ban Marriage Equality for Gay people, because in every culture and society on earth and throughout time, Gay people have been allowed to marry! The Emperor Nero famously married two men to the applause of the cheering citizens of Rome; in almost every culture on Earth Gay men are viewed as shamans by virtue of our special sexual orientation (ancient Greece, for example, has a whole list of famous seers who were Gay or transgender) and we find that among several Native American nations their Gay “two-spirit” shamans were much sought after as a spouse by some of the other men; and this exact same pattern occurs amid the traditionally Gay shamans of the native Chuckchi people of Siberia and Mongolia. Even amid the Celtic tribes, according to ancient historians, being Gays was reserved as an honorary position.

But, now let’s look to her view that marriage is to assure the rights of children to know and be loved by their bio. parents. Does the historical/ anthropological record testify to this? ABSOLUTE NOT! Otherwise, we should not expect to find that sickly or malformed infants were “rejected” by a father (who had power of life and death over his progeny) in antique Greece. This was, of course, because a sickly or malformed child would have been a drain upon precious resources at the very least. But, Maggie wants us to believe her view of “history”, which is really only an invention of her own mind with NO basis in historic fact! According to my investigation of the Eurasian hearth-cult, which include marriage rituals, marriage began, not to give children parents–that’s nonsense!!!–but, to have a legal heir to pass on titles, lands, a dowry, etc. Women and girls were also legal property up until the early 1900s in this country! That’s why a woman could not sue for rape (sex was part of the marriage contract), and it is why if a wife were incapacitated her husband could sue for “loss of consorteum” because it was, again, her duty to tend the house and cook meals, etc.

NOM has even grossly misrepresented the historical record entirely out of context on their Blog to feed their readership an inaccurate and grossly misleading view of history! In citing an invested and historic state’s interest in so-called “responsible procreation” they cite the case of Lord Penzance. NOM writes, quoting without citation the Atlantic Reporter: “Lord Penzance has observed that the procreation of children is one of the ends of marriage. I do not hesitate to say that it is the most important object of matrimony, for without it the human race itself would perish from the earth.” However, it must be understood, at the outset, that this “observation” occurred during an age when Coventry-based marriages were legally enforced and women had virtually no legal autonomy of their own of which to speak; indeed, this case involved a spouse who was suing his wife for expenses and a divorce when he discovered that she had withheld the fact that she was barren from him and could not produce for him an heir. Instead, his evidently wanted out of the marriage so he could find a wife that could conceive for him a son. She was ultimately found guilty of FRAUD! The citation that NOM seems to be quoting verbatim (Atlantic reporter, vol. 113, pp. 710) continues to rather chilling ends (I here by charge NOM guilty of academic slight of hand by engaging in a known Logical Fallacy by the name of “the sin of omission”):

“Some women are congenitally, and others traumatically, barren. The former may never discover the fact until after a fruitless marriage. But, when a woman knows that she has been made barren by a surgical operation she is under a legal duty to disclose the fact to an intended husband, so that, if he then marries her, he will be consenting to the situation that will naturally frustrate his hope of posterity, and he will not be heard to repudiate the marriage, which his conduct had rendered unavoidable, although if his knowledge had been acquired subsequent to the ceremony he could have avoided it.”

@Mike Nelson. I am happy to reply! In places where same-sex marriage, or even civil unions, have been legalized, Catholic Charities has been forced to abandon their adoption services, public schools are teaching kids that same-sex marriage that two moms or dads are the same thing as a mom and a dad, and that believing otherwise is bigotry, and churches that refuse to perform same-sex weddings or lease their space to same-sex weddings are in danger of losing their tax exempt status. I have friends who are studying to be teachers and in formation to be Catholic priests, and in Canada and Sweden, where same-sex marriage is legal, clergy are being brought before human rights tribunals accused of hate speech, and even convicted in the case of a Protestant minister in Sweden, for merely preaching in sermons or homilies that same-sex sexual acts are immoral.
@ Wade, Jeff, et.al., the best secular argument I’ve seen against redefining marriage was written by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson. I am in full agreement with them and I encourage you to read it. I think if we’re going to disagree on this we should at least understand where the other side is coming from. In that spirit of civil disagreement and mutual understanding, I am open to considering arguments from your side if you’re willing to read this article. Here is the link:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
I have friends who are gay and lesbian and I believe they should be able to live as they wish, but I think redefining marriage would be catastrophic for society, andre there is a much better case for the government not recognizing marriages at all than for redefining marriage.
Wishing you all the best!

Same-sex couples don’t have children — they have other people’s children. If the only thing stopping them from marrying like everyone else does is their disdain for the other sex, well I guess that’s their choice. It’s a free country. But it’s not marriage.

Marriage is a social institution. The purpose of social institutions is to shape human behavior in order to achieve certain ends. Traditional marriage includes the norms, values, ideals, and roles that help heterosexual couples shape their behavior to the benefit of of any children that may come from the relationship. Stated differently, the social institution of marriage for heterosexuals is kind of like a wise, elderly adult who is trying to tell kids how to live: do this, do that, don’t do this. Whether or not the kids listen, the advice is valid. Or you could look at the social institution of marriage as the definitive instruction manual for hetero couples; you can follow or ignore the manual, but the manual is correct.

The problem is that the norms, values, ideals, and roles that work in same-sex relationships are not necessarily those that work for hetero couples. Things such as monogamy, fidelity, virginity until marriage, and so on, make perfect sense for hetero couples, even as they make little sense for same-sex couples. This is because hetero couples and produce children, and same-sex relationships are necessarily sterile. Traditional marriage values the biological relationship between parents and child, and values having father and mother in the home. In the small number of same-sex households that include children there is always at least one missing biological parent. Do a Google search on “gay monogamy,” and you’ll find that around 75 percent of long-term gay relationships are not monogamous, and that there are differences of opinion in the gay community on the meaning of ‘monogamy.’

Because of the significant differences in the relationships, including same-sex couples will necessarily alter the norms, values, ideals, and roles of traditional marriage. Some gay activists acknowledge that, and look forward to the day when even hetero couples will be able to include three-ways, nights-off, and other kinds of recreational adultery in their relationships.

So if you want to complete the job of undermining marriage, the way to do that is to change the norms, values, etc., of the social institution of marriage to accommodate same-sex relationships. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, as fidelity becomes a just a lifestyle option, fathers and mothers become generic “parents,” and yet other “relationship configurations” become candidates for marriage.

Sam – ‘disdain’ means contempt and gays do not hold the opposite sex in disdain/contempt. We simply are not sexually attracted to them.

Big Jim – Nothing about same-sex relationships will change the state of marriage and how opposite-sex couple approach it. Opposite-sex couples are already engaging in all sorts of partner swapping, three-ways, affairs and anything else you can imagine. If you google around you’ll find a lot more websites devoted to opposite-sex porn, hookups etc than you will find similar sites for gays. There are simply lots more of you engaging in that sort of stuff than there are gays doing it even as a percentage of population. I think you will also be hard pressed to find many virgins out there. With most people waiting until their 30′s to get married, that’s a long time to wait before having sex. :)

@Michael Blissenbach: RE: Catholic Charities, something Maggie Gallagher and NOM *never* tell you is that the *only* reason that they refuse to continue operating is because they refuse to abide by already-existing anti-discrimination laws that prohibit groups from discriminating while taking public tax dollars. As wealthy as the RC Church is, I should think it doesn’t need public money. In fact, there is the Mormon Church which operates many adoption agencies and, in spite of the law, it is free to discriminate against Gay people; but, that is because they refuse to take public tax money! Catholic Charities refusing to offer their services has nothing to do with Marriage Equality. It only became, more recently, far more complicated when the CC demanded that Wash. DC abide by the Churches doctrines or else they would shut down and leave many folks in need out on the streets.

The only people who have consistently redefined Civil Marriage (non-religious marriage) in this country are heterosexuals despite the Churches orthopraxy! And yes, I have read George’s polemic (which is all it is). It is absolutely nonsensical and shows not one shred of logic; indeed, the entire piece is an attempt to defy logic and just reasoning skills. His argument amounts to this: Gays are unworthy of civil marriage because we cannot engage in so-called “normal” heterosexual intercourse! But, that is merely a religious tenet (a wolf) parading around in sheep’s clothing. George talks out of both sides of his mouth throughout his entire polemic, and refuses to acknowledge when the demonstrable evidence proves him wrong. There’s also the fact that George’s “argument” (I’m being polite) subsumes that civil marriage is utterly dependent upon procreation! However, we clearly have no test or laws insisting that married couples must procreate by a set date lest their marriages be void! Otherwise, we would not grant civil and legal marriages to elderly people, but civil unions! Moreover, George omits, due to his specious “conjugal view (of marriage)” recent historical data for legally codified unions by Gay people throughout time and culture such as by the late Prof. John Boswell (Prof. of History at Harvard Univ.) in his epic classics (reviews taken from Wikipedia, but they paraphrase them better than I):

* “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality” (1980) is a ground-breaking and controversial work which, according to Chauncey et al. (1989), “offered a revolutionary interpretation of the Western tradition, arguing that the Roman Catholic Church had not condemned gay people throughout its history, but rather, at least until the twelfth century, had alternately evinced no special concern about homosexuality or actually celebrated love between men.”
* “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” (New York: Villard, 1994) argues that the adelphopoiia liturgy was evidence that the attitude of the Christian church towards homosexuality has changed over time, and that early Christians did on occasion accept same-sex relationships.

Yes, George does, on occasion, say things such as (on pp. 281): “The value of such a policy—at least for individuals who share the responsibilities of living together—seems to lie in its benefits to the individuals themselves, like hospital visitation and inheritance rights. But these could be secured just as well by distinct legal arrangements (like power of attorney), which we think that anyone should be free to make with anyone else.” However, this is utterly specious on its face and almost certainly meant to make George seem more reasonable than he is! If Gay people *tried* to, as a group, go out of their way to secure such legal protections, NOM *would* (and don’t you DARE try to deny is!) insist that there be a law on the books utterly prohibiting us from doing even this! There are further problems with the bone and scraps that George is attempting to throw us: many jurisdictions, even when we HAVE gone out of our way to secure this legal paperwork, have refused to abide by our legal paperwork in times of great need. Furthermore, why should we have to perpetually carry around all of this paperwork with us in case of an emergency? Hetero. couples never do. It’s an undue burden! Furthermore, court after court has insisted that separate-but-equal is *NEVER* equal, no matter how one attempts (as George has) to polemicize it! It is also very expensive, and not everyone can literally afford such legal protections such as he describes. Indeed, I could go on and on, pointing out all the flaws in George’s polemic. Still, I ask: TELL ME that you and NOM wouldn’t find to prohibit that Gay comm. from securing personal rights such as these!!! NOM insisted that they were only about marriage, yet…when Washington state passed a Civil Union law NOM worked and engaged in a negative campaign to get even CUs banned! In spite of this evidence, when Maggie was called on it by CNN she said that it wasn’t true (a lie on her part) and then insisted that the gentleman who called her out was lying about her and NOM! Maggie has written articles on behalf of NOM insisting that Gay people should even have second-class CUs, yet….when push came to shove she went on her disingenuous rainbow tour in RI. (if I recall the state correctly) and insisted that CUs were okay, but not civil marriage (which has NOTHING to do with religion!).

Why should anyone EVER believe anything that NOM says considering this track record or blatant dishonesty?

Even the National Organisation for Marriage Discrimination has dropped all pretenses that it is, in any way, a secular organization or fight by invoking “God” in every other word and insisting that so-called civil marriage is, allegedly (in their view) “God ordained” which is simply un-American of them! Ultimately, NOM wants Gay people to live by laws and prohibitions that they are not demanding hetero. couples also equally live by. Can you imagine the reaction to married couples or engaged couples who do not want children of you told them they couldn’t get married because they do not plan to procreate or to even adopt?! I know some couples who have even gotten themselves surgically sterilized because they do not desire children. Why should THERE marriages be any less societally valid save for the desire to discriminate based upon so-called moral grounds. Indeed, I have yet to see any NOM supporters, here, admit or to even agree with them when they recently admitted in public on MSNBC that they want every American to be able to fully discriminate against Gay people in terms of housing, employment, medical care, and goods and services, etc.! Why do you refuse to call out NOM when they make such cruel and inhuman demands such as these?

TSG writes: “Opposite-sex couples are already engaging in all sorts of partner swapping,” & etc.

Sure. To say that a social institution has certain ideals doesn’t mean that everyone will adhere to those ideals.

TSG: “Nothing about same-sex relationships will change the state of marriage and how opposite-sex couple approach it.”

We heard something like that when the divorce laws were loosened — it’s not going to hurt marriage, just allow a few bad marriages to dissolve. And now a high percentage of marriages end in divorce. We heard that sexual liberation was going to be a great thing, and now in some places most of the children are born out of wedlock.

Consider this: biological fathers (or mothers) have a legal obligation to support the child, and a legal right to visitation. But these legal obligations and rights don’t just fall from the sky; they are created by legislatures in response to our understanding of the importance of the biological relationship between parent and child, and the fact that ONLY in heterosexual relationships are such relationships established.

Genderless or same-sex marriage in effect says that the biological relationship between parents and children is not important. This is because in EVERY same-sex household with a child, there is ALWAYS a missing biological parent. Since gay issues tend to be the tail that wags the dog, what we will eventually see is an erosion of the importance of the parent-child biological relationship in law, as the law is changed to better accommodate same-sex marriages.

Now maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. But what you are advocating is a social experiment, the results of which we cannot foresee. Personally, I don’t see any good reason to undertake that experiment.

It’s not much of a social experiment. Ten countries perform and recognize same-sex marriages and three more recognize them if they are performed elsewhere. It looks likely two or three more countries will legalize marriage equality in the next couple years. None of those countries or any the states in the USA have had a drop in opposite-sex marriage or people abandoning marriage because their marriage was now meaningless. World-wide about 250 million people live where same-sex marriage is legal.

As to the legal issues of children and adoption, that is also a non-issue. Anyone in Minnesota straight, queer, married, single can adopt children. If a same-sex married couple adopted a child and then they got a divorce, the exact same laws would apply for child support as if the couple had been opposite sex. Often there is no biological relationship between adopted children and the adoptive parents. But if you marry a single parent who has children (opposite or same-sex), and the new spouse legally adopts the children he/she is legally responsible if they later divorce as if they were biological parents. Biology is not nearly as important as good loving parents of whatever gender.

Reply to Michael Blissenbach:

Thanks for replying, I do appreciate the opportunity to have a thoughtful conversation. I don’t, however, think that your argument based on Catholic Charities and gay adoption makes a strong case for an argument against gay marriage on the basis of infringing on freedom of religion of others. In my reply, I am going to assume that you are straight, christian, and opposed to gay marriage at least partially on the basis of religious beliefs. I don’t think these assumptions are absolutely key to my arguments, and you should correct me if I am mistaken.

I am familiar with the Catholic Charities cases in Illinois and Massachusetts, and those are the cases I will be writing about. In both of the state cases, Catholic Charities were receiving state funds as part of their operating budgets. Any organization that receives state funding cannot choose to withhold services from a group of people covered by the non-discrimination laws. As a trivial exercise, suppose that an ultra-ultra-conservative Muslim group ran a branch of the DMV, and suppose their belief system was such that women driving was offensive. They would not be able deny driver’s licenses to women, and by your line of argument this would constitute a violation of their religious freedom.

The reason I don’t think your argument is very strong is that the freedom to practice your religion does not mean that you have the right to impose your beliefs or morals on others, when your beliefs are in conflict with someone’s individual rights. I would also point out that there are some religions that do not share your view that gay marriage is a bad thing or that same-sex couples are unsuitable as parents. If a religious charity of such religion ran an adoption agency in a state where gay adoption is illegal, say Florida, they might have a claim that their freedom of religion was being threatened by preventing them from placing children with gay couples by your definition of the term.

The issue is a bit muddier for private organizations. It is my understanding (but I could be wrong) that there are certain classes that are protected by federal law, such race, and that even private corporations are not allowed to discriminate on these criteria. Private entities, however, do not have to follow all of the non-discrimination regulations that federal or state government agencies, or entities that receive public funding must and in general they have much more leeway to discriminate. There are even some exemptions to protections based on one’s reilgion given to religious organizations; for example a privately-funded conservative Baptist charity cannot be forced to hire a Hindu or an atheist or presumably a lesbian (but this may vary by state).

I don’t think that sexual orientation is a federally protected class, but state laws can be variable, so depending on the particular laws in MA or IL, Catholic Charities may or may not be able to legally discriminate against gay couples in adoption cases if their operations are privately funded. If IL or MA laws were such that Catholic Charities would be required to offer adoptions to gay couples, I can see how it would be an agonizing decision for them whether or not to continue to run an adoption agency, but I would argue that the Catholic Charities’ right to practice their religion should rightly be curtailed if it negatively affects the rights of others.

Your example of the Catholic Charities cases addressed how an organization’s religious freedom might be impacted, but could you give an example of how your personal religious freedom would be negatively impacted by gay marriage?

I would also like to know why you think that granting the many legal and other benefits that come with legal marriage to those, like myself, involved in long-term, loving same sex relationships is a good idea.

Big Jim,

As a gay man, I have a strong gut reaction against what I see as a unfairly discriminatory constitutional amendment. I suspect that many opponents to same-sex marriage feel a strong gut reaction similar to my own, but on the opposite pole of the issue. Having a personal stake in this debate, I have spent many many hours debating with myself over the reasons that same-sex marriage should be recognized. I have also agonized over what might constitute valid arguments against same-sex marriage. Though I think most people will vote on the issue based on their initial reaction, I appreciate that you have offered your own arguments for a ban on gay marriage. The following is a response to your arguments proposed in a previous entry:

Part of your argument against same-sex marriage appears to be a slippery-slope argument. To paraphrase (please correct me if I have misrepresented your argument):

Other changes to marriage have resulted in negative outcomes. The loosening of divorce laws contributed to today’s high divorce rate, and the sexual revolution contributed to high numbers of children born to unmarried women. Supporters of same-sex marriage claim that it will have no effect on opposite-sex marriage, but because previous tinkering with marriage has produced undesirable results, I think same-sex marriage will in fact affect opposite-sex marriage.

The problem that I have with your argument is not the structure, slippery-slope arguments can be correct. The problem is that for a slippery-slope argument to be correct, the propositions have to support the conclusion. For the sake of argument, I will assume that your claims that both liberalization of divorce laws and the sexual revolution have had negative impacts on opposite-sex marriage. For gay marriage to harm straight marriage by analogy to your two claims, you would need to prove that there is a similar mechanism by which gay marriage will harm straight marriage.

Considering first the divorce rate claim: The observed increase in divorce rate has been for opposite-sex marriages (since until recently there were no legal same-sex unions anywhere in the US). You might be able to make an argument that some proportions of those divorces were the result of at least one of the opposite-sex partners being gay. This by itself does not establish a connection to legal gay marriage, because by definition it has not previously existed. You might argue that if legal gay-marriage were an option, some closeted people currently in opposite-sex marriages would feel empowered to come out and obtain a divorce. While this could result in an increase in divorces, I would argue that it would not do additional harm to marriage since an opposite-sex marriage that includes at least one gay member is probably already in a ‘harmed’ state. Many people claim that gay relationships are inherently less stable, and would be much more highly prone to divorce if their relationships were given legal status (this is very debatable, but I am assuming it to be true for the sake of argument). While this may cause an increase in the overall divorce rate (I suspect it would be negligible since most estimates of the proportion of gay people fall into the 3-10% range so even if all gay people married and divorced the overall effect would be small in comparison), it would only affect same-sex marriages, leaving opposite-marriages unchanged.

Regarding your second claim that the sexual revolution has harmed marriage: A possible way to relate this to gay marriage would be to link more acceptance of gays and lesbians to greater numbers of closeted gays that are in opposite-sex marriages to come out resulting in divorce. For the reasons given in the previous paragraph, I argue that this does not represent additional harm to opposite-sex marriages. Unless I am missing some other aspect, any other effects on marriage of the sexual revolution would have been due to straight men and women and so don’t pertain to gay marriage.

I don’t think your arguments based on divorce rates and the sexual revolution provide any mechanism by which gay marriage would harm straight marriage and don’t provide a good justification for denying same-sex couples the benefits and protections of legal marriage.

As I said before, I think most people will be voting based on gut reactions, but if you want to base your own decision on well-supported arguments you will need to provide more convincing evidence that allowing gay marriage would have negative effects on existing opposite-sex marriages.

Big Jim,

I didn’t address your other point about a degradation of the importance of biological relationships. I am not going to write a long argument, but you should consider how families with adopted children fit in with your scenario.

Malevolent Maggie continues to make the same disingenuous argument that “every child needs a mommy and a daddy.” In court settings, NOM lawyers make the argument against marriage equality that gays cannot procreate. The fact is that we adopt children who have no mommy or daddy. Need I mention that studies demonstrate that children raised by same-sex parents fair as well as their peers raised by opposite sex parents.

At the end of the day, Maggie Gallagher and Robert George are defenders of the faith. They feel that their opinion requires no defense nor explanation because it is ordained by their god. I’m here to tell them that, when the want to inflict their religious beliefs on civil law, they are required to offer an intellectually honest secular justification; Something that they never, ever have done.