commentaries

"It is not 'discrimination' to treat different things differently."

Ah, quoting Maggie Gallagher of the misnamed National Organization for Marriage, I see. Using that logic, it's not discrimination to treat blacks differently than whites because their skin tone is *different*. Or males differently than females, because their genitalia are *different*. Or left-handed people differently than right-handed people, because they have *different* dominant hands. There must be a trillion examples I could come up with.

How does one decide which differences matter? You can always find differences between people -- even between identical twins.

You and Maggie are mistaken, Katherine. The very definition of discrimination is to treat "different" things differently. First you identify the difference, then you write laws to treat people with those differences differently, then you try to justify it, and then you paint yourself as the victim when people call you out on it.

We're on to your games, Katherine. They may fool some people, but fewer are falling for them.

Although this article attempted to rationalize discrimination, it only reminded me that there's some old dry straw in the barn that needs to be removed...

Re: "If you think the marital forms just described are fantasy, you should know that some very smart people are telling us that promotion of such arrangements is the logical next step in the marriage debate." Right, Ms. Kersten. Would those be the same very smart people who are telling us that the next logical step after mandated health care insurance coverage is that government will be forcing us all to go to the gym? to drive Chevy Volts? to eat broccoli?

Re: "First, we will weaken the institution's ability to support men and women in forming permanent, sexually exclusive unions." (1) How much weaker can permanent, sexually exclusive unions get? (2) What's the cause/effect connection between same-sex marriage and impermanent, non-exclusive opposite sex unions???

So if marriage is defined only by the partners, does that mean ANY couple can get tax benefits? I could offer to 'marry' anbody who needs health insurance, green card, tax benefits? I mean sex and gender are off the table so I can 'marry' whoever, whenever, WHYever???? Why wouldn't EVERY couple (16-99) pay the clerk of court for a license that lets them into every benefit?

"I'd guess, for example, that 95 percent of Minnesotans would oppose redefining our marriage laws to include temporary marriages, where the partners' marriage certificate includes an end date; marriages of three or more people (say, two lesbians rearing their child with a gay male sperm donor), or marriages between siblings in a nonsexual relationship."

Seems to me that 50% of marriages already include an "end date" -- that's your divorce rate.

But beyond that, no one (or at least hardly anyone) is seriously advocating for plural marriage or marriage between close blood relatives. These are slippery-slope arguments that have nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

The same arguments were made against legalizing interracial marriage. They didn't happen then, and the won't happen now. They may happen in the future, but they will have to be debated on their merits (or lack thereof) first -- and I don't think there's enough push for legislatures to take up the issues.

Put these arguments to rest where they belong, Katherine.

Re: "[The] public purpose [of marriage] has been the same [across the globe and through the millennia]: To connect men with their children and the mother who bore them, so that every child has a loving, committed mother and father." Not so, Ms. Kersten. In early millennia women of the clan raised children cooperatively; every child had a loving, committed network of women until it was time for boys to learn to hunt and make tools. Understanding of reproduction was iffy; men were not connected with "their" children. For the next several millennia, the public purpose of marriage was to protect property rights.

Re: "Though the best environment for raising children is a married mother and father, the power and inconstancy of human sexual attractions make this hard to achieve." So much research begs to differ with the premise of the subordinate clause of that sentence! In addition the independent clause begs the question: "What's the cause/effect connection between same-sex marriage and the power and inconstancy of human sexual attractions?"

Clearly, if "same-sex marriage," gains legal status, it will forever change the concept of marriage in this nation. KK is absolutely correct in her analysis. All this for a 1% demographic that is upset, but......its impact will be mostly economic based for other groups, and the two most likely examples are very clear---> One will be the marriage of two older heterosexual females, as there is a great predominance of widows. In the rough economic times ahead, this will be a natural cost-saving and living will maneuver..... The other will be the increase in two (or more if polygamy also is allowed) heterosexual males getting married for the economic benefits, and then each "plays the field" of dating their favorite females. Male heaven! The luxury tax destroying the yacht business demonstrated well the effect of incentives on people's behavior. KK's naysayers above simply cant handle the obvious truth. And there can be no argument that without polygamy, bisexuals are being denied true happiness. Who can deny this? Ask any Psychiatrist........

"One will be the marriage of two older heterosexual females..."

So it's OK when two older people of the *opposite* sex marry, but we have to worry about two people of the same sex "taking advantage" of the marriage laws.

Thanks for that clarification, goferfanz.