(I've been kind of sick lately with not much to do, so I'd thought I whip up a quick case against gay marriage. *smiles*)

The Case Against Gay Marriage

Question of Equal Rights/Protection

The mindless mantra of equal rights without proper application swaps ideals of liberty for ideals of socialism. This is simply because equal rights only apply to similarly situated people. This is why, for example, criminals are locked up in jail and denied certain rights or why illegal aliens don't have driver's licenses, or why a person may have their license revoked. Equal rights cannot apply to people in unequal situations. This is shown by "Rights, Liberties, and Justice", p. 653, by Walker, T.G. and Epstein, L.

Common sense suggests that heterosexuality is fundamentally different than homosexuality, and so types of marriages built upon the basis of those terms must also be different. Therefore, similar situation does not apply. I'll show specific evidence of dissimilarity in Appendix A, yet the ideals of monogamy in gay culture generally consists of open relationships. At any rate, common sense suggests that "gay" and "straight" are dissimilar behavioral terms. Therefore, similar situation simply cannot apply.

Question of Discrimination

Also according to Walker and Epstein, p.653, the equal protection clause goes no further than prohibiting invidious discrimination. This is where one group passes laws to disadvantage a second group out of malice, since the second group is felt to be inferior. Yet marriage laws were never invented to disadvantage gays, especially since marriage likely existed before any type of gay union. Marriage was simply invented to help a man and woman care for their family, not to disadvantage other classes such as inbreeders, pedophiles, homosexuals, or even single people. So there cannot be any real discrimination by denying gay marriage anymore than marriage exists to disadvantage single people.

In reality, gays are actually jealous but call this discrimination. This is actually reverse discrimination based upon socialist ideals rather than that of a free society. Consider child A having a sucker and child B being jealous and thinking he/she must have a sucker too. Yet A doesn't even know B, being wholly dissimilar, so the sucker wasn't given to A out of malice towards B. Likewise, the idea that gays are discriminated against, simply because straights have a social "sucker" (e.g. status), is just as ridiculous. Should we also hand a sucker out to single people because they don't have the same social perks? How about say inbreeders? Giving everyone these sorts of perks amounts to socialism.

And besides, we've already tried giving a sucker to child B, or homosexuals, but they aren't content with civil unions. Instead they must have the same sucker of marriage, which forces the sucker to be split in two as a compromise, meaning the definition is changed and re-expressed. Yet this actually disadvantages straights because they have less of a sucker, and besides, the motivation was always out of jealousness. What is really being sought is social equality, meaning socialism. How this is obtained is irrelevant. What matters is that gays be on the same par as straights, marriage or not. This reminds one of Solomon's solution to two mothers fighting over one baby. Solomon proposed to split the baby in two and give each mother a half. The false and jealous mother was satisfied but the real mother was horrified. Solomon then knew which mother the baby belonged too. Did the real mother have the baby to disadvantage the false mother? Hardly, yet this is what is claimed by gays concerning marriage when discrimination is claimed. And in reality, the false mother is the one who wishes to disadvantage the real mother in order to obtain social equality. This false mother, gays who champion gay marriage, are just as satisfied if marriage is done away with altogether.

Question of Civil Rights

Civil rights only apply when the government, rather than private individuals, sponsors some kind of discrimination (yet private individuals can illegally discriminate upon other laws of course). Has the government sponsored segregation of blacks? Yes so segregation has applied there and extended to racial marriage. But has the government segregated against gays? No because they are still free to enter any public place, so one is hard pressed to find that the government has also discriminated against gays. The same goes for inbreeders, pedophiles, or polygamists for that matter. So none of these people's rights have been violated. Moreover, these others types just go to show that just because marriage is denied, civil rights have not necessarily been violated. If "equality" is invoked after that regardless, one should ask whether this buzzword actually means socialism because it entirely ignores the proper application of equality, as if gays were better than inbreeders etc, which is not the proper way to look at it.

According to:

<link>

all four of the following criteria must be met to be a civil right. The group must:

1. Have immutable characteristics.
2. Have a history of discrimination.
3. Be politically impotent.
4. Be a discrete and insular minority.

Just about the only thing that applies is being a minority. Having a history of discrimination might apply, but they aren't segregated against today really and can generally enter any public facility. However, they are not politically impotent as an internet search might reveal (I refrain reference in the interest of space). Yet the main criteria that can never qualify is that orientation is immutable. Plenty of straights who were married (thus demonstrating a level of arousal for the opposite sex) have adopted the gay lifestyle, plus plenty of gays have opted for the straight lifestyle according to many testimonials of psychiatrists and their clients. This suggests that orientation is a question of behavior and morals rather than an immutable characteristic. Indeed, one can hide their orientation unlike their skin color. Orientation is mutable indeed because otherwise one identical twin wouldn't be gay and the other straight. (Note this implies epigenetics more than genetics, look up the terms if the reader doesn't know what these terms mean. Epigenetics implies a level of turning genes on or off with proteins via say lifestyle and diet.)

Besides, if this really was a civil rights issue, one should ask why the Massachusetts Supreme Court didn't adopt the strict scrutiny basis over the mere rational basis. Hence, gay marriage is not a civil rights issue based upon the above four criteria and the issue of strict scrutiny verses rational basis. Indeed, sexual orientation cannot be a civil rights suspect criterion anyways because sexual orientation also applies to many other orientations like pedophilia, inbreeders, polygamists, and so on. And again, nor can it be a civil rights issue since orientations can change.

And besides, the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme court in Goodridge would invalidate Roe vs. Wade. This is because Goodridge said that Massachusetts, "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." Roe vs. Wade simply says that if a woman wants an abortion before the last trimester, she may do so without the consent of the biological father. Yet this can be interpreted as sexual discrimination towards the biological father and makes him a second-class citizen, devoid of the process. Therefore, Goodridge's decision is irrational (hence bye bye "rational basis") unless two things happen irregardless of civil rights issues. First, Roe vs. Wade must be changed, at least in Massachusetts, to include the father in the decision. Or second, if the father can be denied fairly without discrimination, one can also deny gay marriage fairly. Otherwise the basis of legalizing gay marriage has generally been irrational.

The Question of Marriage as a Corporate Institution

Marriage possesses corporate personality, and so is a type of corporation. This means that the man and woman are legally the same corporate person, as shown by various laws like "community property laws", which says that each spouse owns what the other spouse owns (not counting debts). The doctrine of joint ownership says that a couple may jointly own something upon the basis of "joint tenancy with the right of survivorship", which guarantees the spouses survivor the deceased spouse's share. There is also the doctrine of "tenancy by the entirety", which forbids one spouse from selling property without the other's permission. There is also a basic historical aspect of this fact found in many ancient cultures, such as the ancient Hebrew where a man and woman like Adam and Eve were legally "one flesh", meaning a single corporate entity.

In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the courts were of the opinion that corporations were legal persons. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. vs. Beckwith (1889) gave them due process and equal protection guaranteed by the fourteenth Amendment. This implies that a married man and woman as a corporate entity is guaranteed equal protection, which is violated with the idea of gay marriage. Note also that Grosjean vs. American Press Co. (1936) gave corporations the first amendment right. Then we consider BSA vs. Dale, which gave the Boy Scouts the right to refuse being forced to admit a gay man into the ranks of their leaders. This was guaranteed upon the first amendment clause of expressive association.

Now just look at the facts? Marriage creates one legal person out of two, and marriage is morally restrictive in the first place, meaning that certain criteria must be met (e.g. inbreeders can't marry, etc). This moral restriction implies an expressive association beyond safety reasons or reasons of harm. And note that expressive association need not suggest only morals but in this case it does. Plus marriage is an institution made up of these corporate entities.

Then consider that there are laws protecting the names of corporate entities, in this case it would protect the name "marriage" itself. This further says that some particular corporation like say "McDowell's", and imitator of McDonald's, cannot take the same name being different entities. Or just consider the difference between the 4-H Club and the Boy Scouts. The guarantee of expressive association also forbids the Boy Scouts from having to allow a member of the 4-H Club from leading them and calling that person "scout".

Indeed, the courts have even likened the marriage entity to corporations. See for example "The Private Rights of Organizations: The Tangled Roots of the Family, the Corporation, and the Right to Privacy" (Bloch, R. and Lamoreaux, N.), from

<link>

This source discusses Dartmouth College vs. Woodward (1819), and shows an applicable analogy between corporations and marriages.

New Hampshire's attorney tried to compare corporations to divorce and some degree to marriage. Yet the argument was that the state had a right to change the school's charter. The Supreme Court didn't think so because it argued that schools were corporate entities, and therefore persons, with a degree of protection against the government.

Both Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Story made the key point that marriage vows establish the couple as a private organization with the same right of protection from state interference as corporations. Story also remarked that granting the change of charter was like the state dissolving a marriage contract without any breach on either side. Yet in all fairness, it must be remarked that Story saw women as property, but that was a sign of the time; the basic idea of marriage is still retained though.

Indeed, the basic principle and underlying feature of marriage is thus shown to possess corporate features. So granting a dissimilar entity (e.g. couple) like homosexuals (verses heterosexuals) the term "marriage" is like the government forcing the Boy Scouts to adopt the 4-H Club name or vice versa. More than that, this violates the right of expressive association. This expressive association, however, really has nothing to do with morality per se but about corporate image (it just so happens that morality plays a role in that expression). Hence, Microsoft Windows could deny Macintosh their name on the sole basis of expressive association, never mind trademark laws against using the same name as another company. Therefore, gay marriage cannot be called "marriage". It must come up with another name if indeed "civil unions" will not do.

Summary

So ultimately denial of gay marriage is not discrimination because gays are not similarly situated as straights, nor does marriage exist to exhibit invidious animosity towards gays, inbreeders, or anyone else. And it is certainly not a civil right, seeing how orientation is quite mutable and behavioral (while color is not). And finally, marriage is a corporate entity deserving of rights, specifically of expressive association. As government cannot dissolve corporate charters, government cannot dissolve marriages, neither therefore can they change the "charter" of the moral restrictions of marriage (at least not without majority say of those married). Marriage is by nature morally restrictive and to force straights to adopt "gay" into those restrictions is like forcing the BSA to adopt a gay person as their leader or the 4-H Club as a branch of their organization.

Implication of Gay Marriage Coupled to "Equality"

As suggested above, to grant equality to a group because they cry loud enough and long enough implies socialism or at least quasi-socialism. See appendix B for more thoughts. This all implies that gay marriage basically promotes a further move towards socialism. This is especially the case when one considers if the government forces changes to marriages expressive association as the government would force changes in a corporate charter. When the government does that, we are close to socialism. Many of you may see otherwise, given a false sense of peace, but it's there when you look long enough. There are those who seek to change our society and therefore freedoms:

1. " 'Gay Rights' Strategies Involve Conscious Deception And Wholesale Manipulation of Public Opinion", at <link>

2. According to Tony Marco, a Washington Blade (e.g. D.C.'s gay tabloid) article (January 31, 1991) has Eric M. Pollard (founder of an organization called ACT UP/D.C.) saying that his group promised to use:

"...subversive modes, drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf [by Adolf Hitler], which some of us studied as a working model. As ACT UP/D.C. grew, we struck intently and surgically into whatever institution we believed to stand in our way...".

3. This same technique was used by American communists (i.e. a "Communist Party directive, quoted in the 1956 Report of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities", Vol. 1, p. 347):

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics... When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic... [or "bigot"], Constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become `fact' in the public mind."

4. Tony Marco says in "Gay militants admit..." (at <link>

"Gay militants Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen express clearly their contempt for an American public they are confident they can 'convert' to acceptance and subsidy of the gay extremist agenda: '...By conversion we actually mean something more profoundly threatening to the American way of life. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack. We mean `subverting' the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends -- using the very process that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard -- whether they like it or not (After the Ball, op. cit., pp. 153-154)."

Logic suggests that if the same techniques are used to promote gay marriage as Fascism or Communism, then there's a connection to the ideals of gay marriage and socialism. This was also shown by how readily welfare states, or quasi-socialists have accepted gay marriage. If any of this is true, gay marriage gains more importance as certain capitalist ideals are replaced or rather "deconstructed" with other ideals.

In fact, children are being educated in schools to only have only one alternative if they even think they are gay: they must be gay and nothing else; the alternative help is not generally allowed. See perhaps Tony Marco, "Gay Activist Inroads Into Elementary and High Schools", at <link>

This is like Prussia's old program to "educate" her children in order to seek a defense against another Napoleon. Prussia thought they were too passive before, yet if they educated the children to be more tough, the next Napoleon would get their ass kicked. The fruition of this ideology 100 years later produced the Nazi death machine of WWII. I would expect that sort of change with gay marriage, which is ridiculous, but the point is that children can be molded as tools to invidiously help your campaign. Who knows the worth of this information. All I really see is that gay marriage tends to wear the banner of "equality" when it's social equality that is after, which strongly suggests indirect ties to socialism. This implies that the states who grant gay marriage have moved one step closer to socialism or into being welfare states. One might ask, is that so bad? All I know is that maybe it is bad when our freedoms are subtly being restricted, like the expressive association of what marriage can restrict morally. One should find it strange when the government starts to define our morals. Once that happens, well can't help but think it's a step away from capitalism and more towards socialism. I don't think it's good whatever it means precisely.

Appendix A

Evidence suggests that most gays seek open relationships, as follows and do not care much for marriage. So their ideals are different, which makes them different, let alone the common sense notion that "gay" is different than "straight":

1. "The Male Couple", by McWhirter and Mattison: "...the single most important factor that keeps [gay]couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together."

2. Laumann, "The Social Organization of Sexuality", p. 216; McWhirter and Mattison, "The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop", p. 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," p. 170). Supposedly, only 4.5% of homosexuals report being faithful in the long-term. Yet a more recent survey conducted by the gay community itself ("Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships", www.glcensus.org) showed that 5% lasted 20 years or more, meaning "long term". So the 5% seems to be an accurate assessment.

By comparison, the 2002 Census Bureau by Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields entitled, "Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996", reports that 55.9% of straight women and 57.7% of straight men last as long. Not that great, but better than 5%! For further comparison, the glcensus said that 15% of gays last in a relationship 12 years or longer, while the Kreider and Fields 2002 census said that 70.7% of women and 71.8 of men reached their tenth anniversary. A little off by two years but one can still make a reasonable judgment as to the general difference.

3. USA Today, January 7, 2004:1, ""Vermont's Gay Civil Unions Mostly Affairs of the Heart". Assuming that somewhere around 3% of the U.S. population is gay (as is generally claimed), the adult population of Vermont is 608827 (http://www.census.gov/census2­000/states/vt.html), which means that 3% is 18265. "USA Today" reports that only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (or 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions as of January 2004. That means that only about 10.2% of the homosexual population (e.g. 1872/[608827x0.03]) of Vermont entered into civil unions around 2004.

In other words, ~90% of Vermont gays didn't want a committed, long-term relationship. (To make matters worse, the stats of #2 above suggests that only 15% of those will last 12 years or more, leaving 140 original couples (e.g. 936x0.15). Whereas we still have around 70% of the original straight couples left since 2004. This proves that long-term gay relationships are rare exceptions to the general rule.)

4. Perhaps the low figures of Vermont's gay community is due to a homophobic society? This is not likely when considering the Netherlands, which is more tolerant and even legalized gay marriage. The Office of Legislative Research reported that, "As of October 2002, only 2.8 percent out of an estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 242,000 have registered their unions as 'married'" ("OLR Backgrounder: Legal Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships," OLR Research Report, October 9, 2002; see <link>

jkriveart4.htm). This implies that only 3388 couples got married (e.g. 242000x0.028/2; divide by 2 because couples are "two").

5. The journal of "AIDS" reports that the average duration of steady same-sex partnerships was only 1.5 years. In addition, many had an average of eight steady sexual partners per year (Maria Xiridou, et al, 2003, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam", 'AIDS' 17:1031). Of course, this could describe many straights, but common sense suggests that there is a much higher percentage from the gay community than straights, since higher percentages used affect the gay community (indeed, the previous acronym before "AIDS" used to have 'G' for "gay" in the letters for a reason).

This establishes that the idea of marriage as important and as monogamy creates a similar situation to matter, never mind the dissimilar behaviors.

Appendix B

A source entitled, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" (2/2/4; The Weekly Standard vol. 9, issue 20), discusses if gay marriage strengthened marriage. The author mentions sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson who say, "Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family - neither legally nor normatively...What defines and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to parenthood." However, later we learn that marriage is also influenced in these countries by the welfare state and cultural attitudes of Scandinavia. For example, they have some of the highest taxes around. And that welfare state makes it easier to divorce since the state will support you; married families are more difficult to obtain, which is why the focus has shifted upon parenthood.

Kurtz, the author of "End of Marriage", also mentions another sociologist, Mai Heide Ottosen who "gently chided Scandinavian social scientists for ignoring the 'quiet revolution' of out-of-wedlock parenting". And another sociologist, Kari Moxnes argues in an article called "Det tomme ekteskap" ("Empty Marriage") that gay marriage was a sign of marriage's growing emptiness, not its strength. Moxnes is for gay marriage, but she welcomed it as a "death knell" for marriage itself. "Moxnes invoked homosexual families as proof that 'relationships' were now more important than institutional marriage".

We also have an account of social theorist Henning Bech and sociologist Rune Halvorsen, who dismisses claims that gay marriage promotes monogamy. "According to Halvorsen, many of Norway's gays imposed self-censorship during the marriage debate, so as to hide their opposition to marriage itself. The goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark...was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality. Halvorsen suggests that the low numbers of registered gay couples may be understood as a collective protest against the expectations embodied in marriage".

Moreover, in a publication of "De Gay Krant" (The Gay News), Kuntz cites Cees van der Pluijm as favoring a neutral system of relationship regulation and opposing marriage. According to Pluijm, marriage is "a fairy tale of permanent monogamy that deserves to be repudiated by all". Another article was cited (published in 1984) that calls "for the total removal of marriage from the sphere of the state."

This is also suggests that gay marriage is more accepted in socialist type countries, not necessarily socialist per se but welfare type states, because of the political similarities between gay marriage and socialism, perhaps via the "equality" mantra, which is actually an assault on a truly equal society minus the social statuses. This leads one to predict that gay marriage will be more acceptable in other countries when those countries are corrupted more towards socialist ideals hidden in the garb of "equality".

Plus in such a society, marriage looses meaning because its unique sphere is torn down. The article on Scandinavia mentions this in part, which is similar to appendix A: only 2,372 couples registered after nine years of Danish law, 674 after four years of Norwegian law, and 749 after four years of Swedish law. Gee, marriage hasn't lost any meaning since so many gays rushed to marry. This demonstrates further the idea of dissimilar situation, but more importantly it shows a link between socialist ideals and gay marriage.

Is this the same case you whipped out last year (or the year before, whenever it was) with the 29 appendices that went on for e...v...e...r...

Wasn't there something about robot gorrilla sex slaves in here somewhere? I'm not reading it again.

Patrick:

I've been kind of sick lately with not much to do, so...

This is why you don't get well.

But, despite the length, I find this piece to be rather shallow and superficial.

It ignores the legal protections that are solidified, not by religious law, but rather by civil code, that married people enjoy. Protections that gay couples would likely have to pay thousands of dollars in order to obtain.

It also ignores the fact that virtually identical arguements were made in the past to deny the right of mixed race couples to marry.

Finally it preys on juvenille stereotypes, homphopia and fear of "The other"

Oh, and not to mention hitting in to Godwins law there at the end.

Patrick, just admit your own homosexuality to yourself and you won't feel the urge to spend so much time writing this tripe.

Looks like your basic Gish Gallop to me, throw out so many different arguments at the same time that it would be a ridiculous and huge exercise to tackle them all...still, most of these ideas, like Patrick's 'corporate institution,' are familiar to me, have been tackled and debunked before.

I take heart in knowing that Connecticut has changed, and states already permitting gay marriage have not imploded, burst into flame or fallen into the sea.

"It ignores the legal protections that are solidified, not by religious law, but rather by civil code, that married people enjoy."

It doesn't ignore anything like that. To the contrary, you ignore the expressive association that married people enjoy. That's the real civil code in the matter - moral restrictions.

"It also ignores the fact that virtually identical arguements were made in the past to deny the right of mixed race couples to marry."

To the contrary, I addressed civil rights. Are you sure you're not the one doing the ignoring? Please explain why gay marriage is similar to your mixed race marriage and why they qualify for civil rights based upon the necessary four criteria.

"Finally it preys on juvenille stereotypes, homphopia and fear of "The other""

It doesn't prey on anything like that. That, however, is what you are trying to cash in at. Mine has simply been to define the rights of married people because gays cannot really establish invidious animosity and the like, regardless of your silly homophobia card, and married couples have rights that are akin to corporate charters, which consists of expressive association. All the belly aching in the world by you guys won't change those facts.

"Patrick, just admit your own homosexuality to yourself and you won't feel the urge to spend so much time writing this tripe."

Why not? It's fun to stir up a hornet's nest every once an while. What's a matter? Don't like that? Maybe I'll stop writing when the hornets stop responding. Of course what's amusing is when you guys try to sting me. Keep trying I guess?

[Y]ou ignore the expressive association that married people enjoy. That's the real civil code in the matter - moral restrictions.

This statement is nonsense. I am married and have been for 35 years. To the same woman. I have never cheated on my wife in all those years but 50% of all married men have. Am I in an expressive association with them? If I am, must I cheat or must I deny the right of those cheaters to be married?

Frankly, I would rather associate with a homosexual couple that had been faithful to each other for 35 years then with a heterosexual couple that cheats on each other at every opportunity. (Or with homophobes.)

What happened to MY right of expressive association?

"That's the real civil code in the matter - moral restrictions."

As I said, I'm not reading this whole thing again, but please tell me concisely exactly what morality is restricted by marriage? And how is it legislated? As far as I know, civil marriage confers some civil rights and obligations, but makes no mention of morality whatsoever.

Gosh Patrick, that's a lot of work to justify your homophobia.

I have to wonder what is going on inside that head of yours to lead you to get so worked up over an issue that has such a minuscule effect upon your life.

Perhaps you should seek professional counseling regarding this issue.

Perhaps we are it?

Apparently you have little idea what it means to be "corporate".

Hmm, what's it mean when people like you think they are above the issues and suggest to others they should seek counseling. Hmm, who needs what?

And "so much work"; it is to laugh. I already had those references handy.

Not gonna read it eh? I show an older court's interpretation of marriage as analagous to corporations.

And if you think there's no morality, you're crazy. First of all there's non-legal morality like adultery, which actually gives legal grounds for divorce. Secondly, there are moral restrictions like the fact that inbreeders can't marry. This is enforced by the majority who can marry.

Btw, why can't I talk about this? Why's it crazy? It's like saying those who post faith-based topics here so much are crazy because they talk about religion so much.

Or...maybe it's a little crazy when people like you continue to post on a faith-based forum with little to no faith? You guys acts like you're not looking for faith, but here you guys hang out like there's no tomorrow. How ironic? Who's obsessed with what since you guys are obsessed with playing the obsessed-card so much. It's like the biggest cosmic irony of all time, especially when you think "you're all that" and I'm the loser. These quips; your quips; are quite amusing.