I'm honored. And touche'. I made the obverse de minimis argument myself against a bisexual law professor on another blog who wrote mockingly about "aping the model of the nuclear family". I told her that society had every right to write her off as "acceptable losses" meaning that she just was not that important to us.

Dafydd-

I agree with the thrust of your argument and the logical equivalence of SSM and polygamy. And I have no doubt that the legal argument you outline will be made.

I am less concerned that the legal argument will succeed. The reason is simple: Politics.

When judicial activists legislate from the bench on “human rights” issues, it is generally done in the cause of legitimating the current version of political correctness. That is clearly the case with SSM.

I find it hard to believe that there will be a wellspring of support for polygamy or that it will become a politically correct lifestyle in our lifetime or that of our grandchildren. The feminist lobby would never stand for it. (They certainly would be against polygyny. And that should make it hard for them to be ambivalent about polyandry.)

So a judge looking to remediate legislative oversights would be unlikely to add polygamy to the list of sordid activities made legal. But if a judge did rule in favor of polygamy, (s)he would probably be reversed on appeal in a New Amsterdam minute. And if not, laws or constitutional amendments overturning the ruling would pass in record time.

Most legislators understand that they ignore vox populi at their own peril. Judges sometimes answer to a higher calling: Their own egos.

I still think that the term "Holy Matrimony" should be pondered. Holy Matrimony is the joining of two souls in the eyes of God. Yes, it is recognized by the State for contractual and financial purposes, but it is not the State's recognition that makes a marriage between a man and a woman good for the child and for Western Civilization, or Civilization in general. It is the mindset of the parents. Joined souls in the eyes of God, living a life together in order to benefit the child. That civilization benefits is a nice side effect. Necessary even.

IF the State recognizes Same Sex Unions and Brother-Sister contracts and Polygamy etc, it does not follow that Americans who would otherwise be in man/woman Marriages will change the way they practice their own faiths. My parents (both sets, thank you) will still see their decisions as made in the pattern as laid out by their religions. They won't love each other less, or differently. If I marry, it will be to a opposite sex spouse, and we would (if I have my way) be married under the eyes of God, and raise a child in that family unit. I won't all of a sudden, for example, decide to have two wives, or allow another husband into our union.

I don't care if the State recognizes my Holy Matrimony at all; it's recognition has no effect on our potential family beyond the contractual... and that varies State to State, and Administration to Administration.

Stop a minute and think about what you are saying; You are arguing that marriage doesn't matter unless it is defined and accepted by the State... Well, in YOUR eyes, not mine. As long as the State allows me to practice my religion and it's practices, I don't care how others practice theirs.

Mr. Michael:

I don't care if the State recognizes my Holy Matrimony at all; it's recognition has no effect on our potential family beyond the contractual... and that varies State to State, and Administration to Administration.

But you're not the problem, and neither am I. The problem occurs (as nearly always) at the margins.

It's a "hasty generalization" to argue that changing the marital laws would have no drastic effect on society because you personally are a moral enough person to do the right thing in spite of the law. You are not representative; there are plenty of people out there whose morality is, in fact, determined by the law.

If you loosen up the marital laws, more (not fewer) people will take advantage of them to abuse marriage for frivolous or criminal purposes. And more kids will grow up in suboptimal environments.

This will bring the institution into further disrepute, which will fuel more efforts to save it by widening it even more (in the name of those all-purpose panaceas "pluralism" and "tolerance"). In short order, marriage will mean as much in America as it does in countries like Sweden.

Dafydd

Excerpted and linked at Bill's Bites >>NJ Court legalizes queer marriage (Updated, bumped)

"I don't care if the State recognizes my Holy Matrimony at all; it's recognition has no effect on our potential family beyond the contractual... and that varies State to State, and Administration to Administration."

Roughly sixteen years ago I told my father that I wanted to marry the woman who is now, and has been since then, my wife. He said "Why are you asking me?" I was taken aback and before I could answer he went on: "When I married your mother I did not ask anyone's permission. Not my father's, not my mother's, not my brothers'. The worst woman in the world for them could be the best woman in the world for you."

My father and Michael are right. The approval of the marriage contract whether by the state, relatives or neighbors is a very small part, if any, of the marriage. The marriage is the two.

1. Marriage is a privilege not a right. A right is defined as something you can do yourself that harms no one’s person or property nor imposes any obligation on some one else’s person or property. Marriage does not fall into this category.

2. Insisting that Marriage is between a one man and one woman is not a violation of “equal protection” provided the law is applied equally to all genders, races, sexual orientations, and creeds. Homosexuals are not prevented by law from marrying some one of the opposite sex. They simply want more rights and privileges than are granted to everybody else.

3. Children need both a father and a mother

4. Homosexuality can only exist as long as Heterosexuality supports it. A purely homosexual culture cannot exist on its own. It will cease to exist after one generation. It does not enable a society to grow and expand thus it has been discouraged by laws and morals since the dawn of civilization.

Well, I certainly have had no greater privilege than my wife agreeing to marry me. Up to that point you are right, Septagon. But you are wrong, after that, if you imply that anyone other than God could have forbidden our marriage (we were man and woman, over 21 and not related). Do not think that Dafydd and I are all that far apart in our view of marriage. I consider it the most sacred social relationship too. And God help any government that dared label it a privilege and not a right. Certainly, no fascist or communist totalitarian government that I know of has dared to do so. My disagreement with Dafydd, as best as I can see, is that I do not think that extending the right to same-sex couples is bad for society and he does.

nk,

You or any government can label it anything you want but it still does not change the fact that marriage is a privilege and not a right. The exercise of a right does not require the consent of some one else. Marriage clearly requires consent. Even in your own comment you considered it a great privilege to marry your wife once she gave her consent. What would have happened if she did not consent? Where would your “right” to marry her be then? Consent does not end with the person you are to marry. The church you marry in would have to give their consent as well as the State and Federal Government and finally there is God. Anyone one of these could have denied consent to your desire to marry the woman who was to become your wife. A right requires no consent. You have offered nothing in the form of an argument to counter this fact. While you are trying to argue that marriage is a right you could then explain why no culture, society, or civilization on the planet has ever sanctioned same sex marriage even when homosexuality was not frowned upon.

Septagon,

Rights can conflict. Or not. Rights can also be individual or collective. My individual right to marry my wife or not and her individual right to marry me or not did not conflict and together we met the requirements of society's collective right to regulate marriage. What's so hard?

You are changing the subject. I do not challenge society's collective right to regulate marriage. But with just as much legitimacy as Dafydd demanding that society does not exercise that collective right to allow polygamy, polyandry, incest or bestiality I ask that society not exercise that collective right to forbid two people of the same sex "to ape the model of the nuclear family".

Correction: "[S]ociety's collective right to regulate marriage" should read "[S]ociety's collective right to a regulated marriage".

Rights do not conflict nor are rights ever collective. You have declined to put forth your own definition of rights and you have not challenged the definition I have put forth. Rights cannot conflict because by definition they do not. Conflicts occur when one party assumes more rights to themselves than they actually have. As a result governments, laws, and morals have been instituted among men to decide these issues. Collective rights do not exist. A collective can only derives its rights from the individuals that make up the collective therefore collective rights cannot exceed individual rights. The collective has no right to regulate rights
Since the individual does not have the right to marry the collective does not have the right to marry. Your wife gave her consent as well as the church, the State, the Federal government, and God. Rights do not require consent, but since marriage is a privilege the collective can and will deny or give consent. Your marriage imposes obligations upon the collective, which you have no right to impose unless consent is given. Marriage is a privilege.
I have not changed the subject but you have refused to put forth an argument or answer my queries. While I agree with Dafydd’s conclusion, I think that most of the same sex marriage discussion is flawed because it assumes marriage is a right. I do not allow that assumption and you have failed to defend it. You have thrown around the word “right” like so much candy on Halloween that it has no meaning in your comments. What do you consider a right and if it imposes an obligation upon others how do you justify that?

Septagon, follow me on this:

"Americans, as a free people, have the right to keep and bear arms".
Army and police, collective right.
Private citizen owning a gun for recreation or defense, individual right.
Society encouraging private gun ownership and training in the use thereof in order to have better soldiers when needed (examples: our Civilian Marksmanship Program or the nation of Switzerland), exercise of a collective right which necessarily implicates and is difficult to distinguish from an individual right.

"Rights don't conflict?" So I don't have a right to play my bagpipes? And you, my next-door neighbor, do not have a right not to be woken up by my bagpipe playing at 2:00 a.m.?

I must have missed your definition of rights even though I read your comment several times. It must be my poor eyesight. Anyway, here's one dictionary's: "A right is a power or liberty to which one is justly entitled, or a thing to which one has a just claim."

I suspect, however, that this discussion in noncupatory.

Nk:

I suspect, however, that this discussion in noncupatory.

Nuncupatory? Only if you're reading it out loud!

Dafydd

Nk,

The right to bear arms, the right to self-defense, and the right to maintain order are individual rights. The collective, i.e. the State and Federal Governments, derive their police powers and national defense authority from these individual rights. We as individuals in order to form a more perfect union have delegated these rights to the collective. These rights do not exist at the collective level, but they are actually derived from the individual.
You have a right to play your bagpipes anytime you want, but you do not have the right to disturb your neighbors regardless of the time of day. Not only is that inconsiderate it is against the law. The individual right to maintain order, which has been delegated to the police, will give you a citation for disturbing the peace. You have assumed more rights to yourself than you actually have. There is no conflict but in your own arrogance you have crossed the line and impinged upon some one else’s rights.
You do need your eyes check since I stated in my first comment: “A right is defined as something you can do yourself that harms no one’s person or property nor imposes any obligation on some one else’s person or property.” While the definition you cited is not as precise, my argument will work the same with either. Marriage is a privilege and not a right because it requires consent.

Dafydd,

Touche' again since I meant to write "noncupatory", without knowing precisely what it means, but having inferred from the context in which Jack Vance used it that it meant "getting us nowhere". I did not mean "noncupative" (obsolete variant of "nuncupative") because until prompted by your comment to go to an unabridged dictionary I did not know the meaning of that word either. Oxford -- Webster's did not have it. "Noncupatory" is not a word as far as both are concerned.

Septagon,

I really do have poor eyesight at close distances and it's my fault for refusing to wear reading glasses yet. My sarcasm was just as much self-deprecation but I apologize in any case. Our conversation is "nuncupative" since we disagree on the names we should give our concepts (I think). I don't know why our disagreement should be oral to be called nuncupative but before I challenge Dafydd, who makes his living with words, on this I will read the definition of "nuncupative" a few times more.

Progress (humiliation on my part). "Nuncupative" is a term of art in law: A nuncupative will -- spoken will -- as opposed to a written will. I should have known that.

nk,

I would agree that discussions are fruitless if you cannot agree on the meaning of the terms used. This is why from my initial comment I defined what is a "right". I am certainly not original in this definition. I have relied on numerous sources for this meaning:
Second Treatise of Government,
Declaration of Independence,
Federialist Papers,
US Constitution,
Restoring the Lost Constitution,
The Quest for Cosmic Justice,
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors Of Socialism
etc...

Septagon, I have enjoyed our discussion but perhaps we can agree to disagree and allow our host's bandwidth to be used for a new subject. I apologize again for my sarcasm. It was not my middle-aged eyes but my middle-aged memory which made me miss your definition of rights in your first comment.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)