Your contract clause argument is incorrect. First, you’re talking about the Full Faith and Credit Clause, not the contract clause. Second, I believe all states have the ability to decide that, for public policy reasons, they do not have to honor contracts from other states, if those contracts would be illegal to enter into in their state.

As far as polygamy is concerned, I suppose that should be legal too, but I can see regulating that some, to make sure that it’s not a situation where young girls are being exploited by disgusting old men.

Honestly, I see this as deciding between two enemies, neither of whom supports me but one of whom pretends to support me at times of convenience. I’d rather support the one whose views are made clear or go off to support a third alternative. I’d rather face down the wolf knowing it is a wolf than cozy up with a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I believe you can be a centrist and support a marriage ammendment to the Constitution, because, in my opinion, the contract clause in the Constitution is so clear. States must recognize the contracts formed in other states. Therefore, the 4-3 decision in Massachusetts will eventually become the law of the land through judicial fiat, cancelling out the will of the people expressed in Congress, expressed in those 45 state laws, in all of their legislatures and all of their courts.

That’s the scare tactic being used by Republicans but I have yet to see a well versed legal position stating that this could or would happen. Until I see a legal expert make a sound statement with support that this could happen, I will continue to view it as a scare tactic.

As to your position that government should get out of the marriage business seperating the civil and legal aspects from the religious aspects, I have heard an increasing drumbeat for that over the last 18 months as part of the discussion about gay marriage legalization. That would simply be part of the complete secularization of our society which I believe is coming. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that you think that would be a good thing. I do not. My intuition is that it would lead to further cultural disintegration. If I had the time, which I do not, I would try to present arguments as to why I think that is so.

Honestly, if you have the time, I would love to see those arguments. Why would getting the government out of inherently religious practice be a bad thing? Currently, we have states essentially legislating religious practice. How on Earth is this separation of church and state? Nobody is saying we should devalue marriage, simply that we should leave marriage up to the church and the legal aspects of relationships up to the states. Why would this lead to, as you state, cultural disintegration?

Finally, in your original post, both you and Justin Gardner in his reply to you, talk about the right of two consenting adults to form a union. Why just two? On the basis of what do you withhold this right to polygamists?

I suppose I wouldn’t. I’d leave that up to individual states to decide. I would suspect, though, that at least most states would stick with two. Heck, some states may stick with man and woman. I think that would be a shame but it should be up to them to decide, not up to the federal government and definitely not something that belongs in the Constitution.

I believe you can be a centrist and support a marriage ammendment to the Constitution, because, in my opinion, the contract clause in the Constitution is so clear. States must recognize the contracts formed in other states. Therefore, the 4-3 decision in Massachusetts will eventually become the law of the land through judicial fiat, cancelling out the will of the people expressed in Congress, expressed in those 45 state laws, in all of their legislatures and all of their courts. Not a very centrist outcome, and not a very conservative position, using the term conservative in the best sense of the word.

As to your position that government should get out of the marriage business seperating the civil and legal aspects from the religious aspects, I have heard an increasing drumbeat for that over the last 18 months as part of the discussion about gay marriage legalization. That would simply be part of the complete secularization of our society which I believe is coming. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that you think that would be a good thing. I do not. My intuition is that it would lead to further cultural disintegration. If I had the time, which I do not, I would try to present arguments as to why I think that is so.

Finally, in your original post, both you and Justin Gardner in his reply to you, talk about the right of two consenting adults to form a union. Why just two? On the basis of what do you withhold this right to polygamists? Justin Gardner has framed the question as a matter of human rights; as a matter of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If three or more consenting adults want to form a union, how can you deny them and their definition of happiness. In fact, since presently you have quite a number of polygamists families living off the state, wives 2 thru whatever posing as single mothers, wouldn’t allowing polygamists to marry make sense. That would certainly change the institution of marriage, wouldn’t it.

Yes, it remains possible that there is some connection between the increase of babies born to unwed parents and the advent of gay marriage in the Netherlands. But neither causation nor correlation is implied in that data. Kurtz was wrong to suggest that there was.

BUT whenever you increase the supply of something (in this case marriage), the price (a reflection of value) goes down. Gay-marriage in the purely economic sence will lower the value of marriage.

Oh, please. Value is not equivalent to price, and the “value” of marriage cannot be measured by the price of wedding photographers.

By the same thinking, we could “maximize” the “value” of marriage by preventing as many people as possible from getting married. So let’s illegalize marriage. Then the value will skyrocket!

Personally, I think a lot of “centrist types Websites” fall into the second classification. Some visitors to the sites believe gay marriage should always be legal, some believe it should be left to the states, some believe there should be a federal law defining marriage. However, nearly all believe that the Constitution should not be used to decide this.

As for me, I believe government should not be in the business of marriages anyway. Leave it to the churches to decide who can and can not get married. Then, leave it to the individual states to decide what kind of legal rights two consenting adults can obtain and what qualifications they have to meet to obtain those legal rights. Think of it as churches handling the marriage end for social and religious purposes and states handling civil union type legal contracts for legal purposes. A couple could presumably get married without the legal contracts or get a legal contract without getting married.

Forty-five states have enacted either laws or constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage, most in response to the Lawrence decision, or in reaction to the 4-3 judicial decision in Massachusetts that required the enactment of laws to institute gay marriage. There will never be a centrist victory that does not include social conservatives in its coalition and respect their views. Millions of faithful Catholics and conservative Protestants who hold traditional views of morality should not be written off. A true centrist party would concentrate on the economic and foreign policy issues of this country with a laser-like focus and not take a stance on the social issues in its platform, leaving each member of the party to speak out as they wished and to vote their conscience. Such a party would have members with diverse views, unlike, for instance, the Democratic Party, which did not allow a single pro-life speaker at it last convention.

In visiting the Centrist Coalition site and looking over their favored candidates, most all were graded on their stance toward gay rights. The favored position, of course, was pro-gay rights. After reading it over and over again in each profile, I wondered if being pro-gay rights was some kind of litmus test for being a centrist. In my opinion, being aggressively pro gay marriage is not centrist at all, and if you think so, you are self-deluded and out of touch with the political reality of this country.

No-Fault Divorce. The legal inception of No-Fault divorce had the effect of making the marriage contract less valuable, because it became exceding easy to get out of the contract. Think about what would happen if there was: no-fault construction contracting. There would hardly ever be a building ever completed. The contract would be worthless.

Now there is intensely strong evidence showing a correlation between the inception of no-fault divorce and the rate of divorce, but because as I’ve stated before, I won’t make a definitive causational argument that NF divorce caused the increase in divorce — for all I know, it could have something to do with global warming.

Kurtz argues that he finally has data that support his claim that same-sex marriage ’causes’ high rates of children born outside of marriage. For several reasons, this data reveal no causal link.

Exactly. Tom, I don’t believe this is the same as saying there is not a connection — it is saying exactly what is says – “the data reveals no causal connection.” I couldn’t agree more, but I would suggest that an enormous amount of data would do no better. Scientifically, the problem is not with a lack of data — there is enough data out there to “prove” (falsly) anything some fraud huskster wants to try to pawn off to fulfill a political agenda.

The problem is that soft-sciences, like sociology, can not provide the objectivism to make definitive statements of truth like: Gay Mariage = Increase in Out-of-Wedlock Births. However, despite the inherent lack of objectivity, it would be idiotic to say: Gay Marriage = No Change to the Culture/Social Status Quo.

How might gay marriage effect heterosexual marriage: Very easily. If my marriage is legally equivalent to a gay marriage, I might chose to simply not get married, because rightly or wrongly, marriage as a legal contract, at least, has lost some of its positive utility. Look, I’m not saying it would be a good thing or a bad thing, BUT whenever you increase the supply of something (in this case marriage), the price (a reflection of value) goes down. Gay-marriage in the purely economic sence will lower the value of marriage.

I believe there is compeling evidence that the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands has increased about 2% per year since they passed their same-sex marriage act. Is there a connection?

Nope. That particular argument got spread around, notably by Stanley Kurtz, but he twisted the study’s findings significantly.

To follow up on Cal’s point, the political subtext of Bush’s choice is interesting. Democrats have been nervous for a while now that Bush would launch air strikes on Iran and use this as a wedge issue. But as it turns out, air strikes just don’t look very feasible – or prudent – at this point. So without the possibility of running on national security again, the Republicans are left to this pathetic number.

I’ll give Bush credit, though, for putting prudence with Iran above political gain at this point.

In this country, we used to treat both african-americans (and other minorities) and women as if they were not worth the same as white men. Now, we know (i guess) that differences in skin color and gender do not make people worth any more or any less.

I know that this next one is a bit of a curve ball, but try to guess whether people with a different sexual orientation have just as much worth as other human beings.

Since the answer is yes, a homosexual counts for one whole person, just like everyone else, we should allow them to have the same rights as everyone else has. It’s just that simple. It’s really embarassing that this administration is encouraging and promoting a rebirth of discrimination, especially when they are singling out one minority in this country. And really, what have the homosexuals done to anyone? If you think they’re going to hell, then let them go or pray for them, or, mind your own business for god’s sake.

One more thing: Whether you “legalize” gay marriage or you “ban” it, men and women are going to live with, have sex with, and have kids with, members of the same sex. I think all this talk about not wanting to legitimize this because it will hurt the institution of marriage is just a bullshit screen. Whenever the extreme right wants to stop someone or something they try to criminalize it, and if and when that fails, what’s next? Pull the funding/benefits. “I guess we can’t stop you from riding on the bus, but you’re going to have to sit in the back next to the fat, sweaty guy, and you’re not eligible to receive any of our special package deals.”

Listen, this is about good people. But good people make mistakes too, as history has shown us time and time again. And in particular, we’ve been show how organized religion’s attempts to control social progress has eventually been thwarted every single time. As if there’s only one way to have a relationship when nature itself suggests a myriad. And as I type that, my mind sees a near future (absolutely in my lifetime) where millions of same sex couples are happily living in this country raising children. Oh wait, that’s happening now. It’s just in the future, they won’t be second class citizens anymore.

And I think this piece of a previous comment bears repeating…

In my mind, the only threat to the sanctity of marriage are those who refuse to allow it to evolve.

Say what you will, but this is no slur.

Causational arguments on the battlefield of the culture wars is hard, if not impossible to prove empirically, because it is almost impossible to find an ideal control group in reality to test the hypothesis against.

I don’t agree with those who reflexively attribute a negative effect with same-sex marriage on the family, culture and society. Likewise, I am weary of those that confidently declare there will be NO effect, period, end of story. It is because I don’t know that I caution against drastic measures either way.

so it could very well be a hot topic for the Sunday best crowd

I don’t want to let that swipe pass. Justin, you undercut yourself when you insist on throwing in little statements like this.

Try formulating a similar statement that dismissively whacks at other crowds and see if you think it’s OK. You keep saying you respect people of faith, but then you whip out little phrases like that, I believe unthinkingly and probably unintentionally, that ooze condescension. Assuming that that, indeed, is not your attitude or intention, perhaps you might wish to reconsider such toss-off phrasing.