Gays Unions, Polygamy, and Marriage, Oh My!--UPDATED

I don't want to do it. I just don't. But I feel compelled, based on Rachel Lucas' provoking prose to do it. Blast that woman and her infernal commitment to casting a spot light on popular culture. So, last week the dumbasses that rule California decided against the people and for the few, the out, the proud and the inclined to marry. It's a clear case of judicial activism, but it's California. No one should be surprised.

Of course, this finding begs the question: Why shouldn't gay people marry? Why can't anyone marry anyone?

First, let's discuss definitions. Semantics--Marriage is, by definition, a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage. Call it something else, just don't define away marriage.

Second, this discussion is about social sanction not legal remedy. There are legal remedies for people who want to give, share, commit to, or in some way, shape or form, entwine their life with someone else's life. For example, an acquaintance who hated his wife (who hated him) but didn't believe in divorce, gave his true love the Power of Attorney at the end of his life. Well, you don't want someone who hates you deciding when to pull the plug, right? Any person can will anything to anyone for any reason. There are no stoppers there. If you want to mingle your life's possessions with someone else, you are legally free to do it. It's called a contract.

Third, marriage is an ideal. All the clap-trap about same sex partners who love each other being better parents than a father and mother who hate each other is a stupid argument. And a loving father and mother is a better situation for children than loving gay parents--in ideal terms. A child needs both positive male and female role model in their daily lives. And before you start hating on me, there is plenty o' evidence for this. Look at the inner cities where father-involvement and two parent families are scarce. Kids with divorced parents want their parents married. Kids with same sex parents want a "mom" or a "dad"--whichever one they're missing. There are consequences for mucking around with a social arrangement that has worked for thousands of years.

Fourth, polygamy is stupid. By it's very nature, women (and I don't want to hear abut societies where women marry multiple men, let's be real here) are denigrated in polygamous marriage. Go back to the old bible story about Jacob and Leah and Rachel. There will be an alpha female. There just will. The rest of the women are relegated to lesser status. But it's their choice, goes the argument. No it's not. In America, we are all viewed as created equal, therefore we are not going to encourage social relationships built on fundamental inequality. It is wrong. And forget the consenting moronic women who enter these relationships. Kids come from these relationships and they suffer. They don't get a choice about their freak parents. A polygamous relationship is unstable for the kids, it is socially isolating, it is weird. Oh, and lets not even get into the younger, horny guys who can't get a woman because all the old dudes scoop 'em up.

Fifth, marriage the sacrament should be taken out of the government realm. This is where I part ways with many conservatives. What is between a couple and God is between them. A religious ceremony is just that. I think it's a great thing. I'm all for it. I believe that when people marry, they are uniting themselves in ways that are physical, material and spiritual and that no amount of God-avoidance changes that. And that's exactly why many gays want to get married--they want the religious sanction. Their problem is with God and they need to take it up with Him. Find a church that believes the part of the Bible that speaks out against sexual sin is bunk and get unioned there. The same goes for heteros. Marriage as a sacrament is acknowledging God in your marriage. That belongs in a church.

Sixth, marriage is about the children. As a social construct, marriage is meant to protect kids and keep them supported. A man and woman who have sex chance having a child from their union. Birth control does not work 100% of the time. Abortions are the lazy man's answer to unthinking sex. The best environment for a child to be born into is one where there is a committed man and woman. You see, shit happens. Sometimes children have health problems that require one parents 100% devotion. Sometimes one parent gets sick or is otherwise incapacitated. Sometimes a parent loses his or her mind. Sometimes one person loses her job. A two-parent family is a family with back-up. A gay union, in contrast cannot, without going outside the union, create a child. Gay unions are not for the express purpose of having children. They are for the express purpose of displaying commitment to each other. There is a difference. Now, there are childless couples who choose to not have kids. Fine. Marriage is an ideal and not defined by the exceptions.

Seventh, anyone who wants a marriage-like relationship with all the implied benefits should write up a contract. Some (smart) rich people have prenups. Everyone should have them. Explicitly state what your expectations are and put them in writing. Yes, it would be more trouble on the front end, but it would be less on the back end. Too many people head into the biggest decision of their lives without thinking a rational thought. A contract would slow people down. Most people who would never dream of entering a business agreement without a contract, get married without one. The whole, "love, honor, cherish" is rather vague. What does that mean? Because people in committed marriages having children is such a good thing for society, society should encourage these relationships (as it already does, to an extent). Tax breaks, generous whatever the state wants to encourage. Bottom line, make marriage challenging to get into and a sweet deal once it's entered. Societally, we want committed, dedicated, loving, rational people to get married and procreate. That is, we want this if we value the continuation of our species, our society and our culture.

Western Civilization is built on the family, equal rights, and freedom. People are free to enter contracts (not children or animals) with whomever they'd like. People are free to go to the church of their choice and take part of the sacrament of their choice. People are free to get married if they meet the requirements of being a man and a woman of legal age. The problem with Gay "marriage" or polygamous relationships is that neither are a "right", no matter how much the California Supremes want it to be. The will of the people determines what is best for the people. And the people decided against gay marriage. They have thousands of years of evidence and wisdom to back them up--the wisdom that the Constitution itself was written from.

By what authority do the California Supreme Court Justices claim their ruling beyond their own?

Aside: Jeff Goldstein has some of the best views on this topic that have been expressed.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse wonders about Obama: Is he a modern segregationist and support "separate but equal"?

Gay Divorce: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

If a married gay couple moves and wants to get divorced in another state that doesn't recognize gay marriage a couple questions arise:

1. Is there a need for divorce when the marriage doesn't count legally?
2. If the couple doesn't get officially divorced because the state didn't recognize their union, are they committing adultery by breaking the vow they made in the other state?

My solution is simple: go back to the state you got married in and get divorced. You knew that divorce was a possibility when you got married. Why did you get married again?

When the whole gay marriage issue came up to begin with I thought: Why the hell not? Let gays suffer just like the rest of America. Let them get married, intertwine all their earthly belongings and then suffer through the legal cost, humiliation and frustration should they choose to divorce. I was just being snarky, because marriage is, by definition, the union of a man and his wife and divorce breaks up that union.

Anyway, gay divorce is problematic and complicated by different state laws. I'm guessing that Massachusetts lawyers will be making a boat load in legal fees, not to mention filled state coffers due to making taxes off of disgruntled gay people forced to stay there or move there to disintegrate their union. Ha! Looks like the same old people win, even in gay divorce.

Religion in Custody

When the mother was presumed the best place for children, divorce was simpler. It might not have been better. Children often lost the influence of their fathers which created daily tragedies. But it was simpler.

In today's multiculti world, who's to say there's a better way to raise a child? No one. And so, sensing polarized atmosphere, someone who is relatively religiously bland or a secular humanist can paint a spouse as a fanatic cultist to get custody or conversely, the religious parent can push whacked views and expect a judge to be flummoxed about, ironically, passing judgment.

A father can teach his prepubescent daughter about, say, polygamy and who's to condemn him?

Mr. Shepp petitioned for better-defined custody rights for his daughter, but Ms. Roberts objected because he had exposed the child to polygamist Mormon communities. The court upheld Mr. Shepp’s right to teach his daughter about polygamy, saying it could not find evidence that such teaching harmed her physical or mental health.

And why not? Would the judge condemn homosexuality? How about bestiality? How about incest? How about a sado-masochistic lifestyle between consenting adults? How about female circumcision? Especially if any of the above lifestyles wrapped into a religious belief, why would any rational, secular judge prohibit the teaching of it to children?

Conversely, anyone who diligently sticks to religious tenets these days is branded a fundamentalist, an extremist. A conservative Christian is painted with the same brush as a radical Islamist in Rosie O'Donnell's America. So a judge inclined to view all religion as suspect will favor the more secular parent.

In the case cited in the New York Time's article, a fundamentalist family had primary custody taken from them on the basis of their religion. The child in question prefers the strict religious dogma. Her father and maternal grandparents don't. Both sides are at war over the child. The child testified against her father at the last custody hearing.

Barbaric. That's what I call this game playing. Eventually, this girl will grow up. She may still cling to her religious dogma, but she will doubt it, too. Will she feel used as a pawn between two selfish parents, because that is surely what she is. And her religious parent's posturing and insistence on making the other parent into a villain is anything but Christian.

Expect more custody messes over religion. As American society turns into the tossed salad the Leftists love so much, and morals degrade, there are few agreed upon norms. And while individuals flex their muscle, they actually empower the state via family court--a place that is already pregnant with unchecked power.

Who are the winners in this game? Lawyers and the government.

Can This Marriage Be Saved?

A fascinating, if longish, article from The New York Times about group marriage therapy. The main characters are Clem and Marie. I left the article wondering if they would make it.

Marriages seem to have personalities as much as people do. The two people mutate and change in relation to the other and become another entity. Some feel that this new personality is an improvement. Some are disturbed by the new personality they've created. When analyzing personalities there are four views:

1. The part you see about yourself and others see too
2. The part you see about yourself and others don't see
3. The part others see about you, but you don't see
   
4. The parts that are hidden from you and everyone else

I think marriages have these same dimensions. Just like it was difficult to predict which babies would live in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, marriages can be mysteries, too.

When contempt enters though, this much is known: the couple will likely divorce.

Baldwin-Basinger Slug Fest

Does anyone need any more evidence that two people bound by a child should stay together for the sake of the child? I know, it's counter-intuitive. Imagine this: Had this family chosen to stay together they would all have access to their possession--their child--anytime they want.

Instead, they fight over the child as if she were a ..... prized thing.

Alec Baldwin is an insufferable pompous ass. Kim Basinger is not a negotiator in good faith.

Hello? There is a child in this mess and she has the pleasure of hearing her father call her names and thanks to her mom, publicly. She is forced to defend two parents doing the indefensible. Unlucky girl.

Baldwin has an anger problem. He keeps it up, he'll never see his child.

What's Love Got To Do With Marriage?

A lot. And nothing. Ace quotes Garrison Keillor who gets why gay marriage is such a queer idea.

Just to offend absolutely everyone in one blog post: abortion should be banned because it is unfair (obviously) to the child and to the father who has no say in the matter. Likewise he should pay mandatory child support whether he got deceived and donated his sperm or whether he thought he loved the lady and now doesn't. He will support that child through college based on his financial ability. Period. Yes, everyone suffers. That's what parenthood is all about. Adults sacrificing for their children. It's about the children.

Likewise marriage is about the children. It is not about the romance or the intellectual stimulation or the companionship or the shared activities or self-realization or even about the love; if all of those are a part of the relationship, that's a bonus. Marriage is about a solid foundation for a child. The love for the child should keep the marriage intact. The only time a marriage should be broken up is when the child is harmed. (And yes, children are harmed when mom gets tuned up. And it is abusive for her to subject her children to that.)

All the people running around living out self-actualization fantasies and believe fulfillment comes through getting needs met and achieving and finding that place, man, should leave parenting to the grown-ups. The downside is that means leaving sex to the grown-ups, too, 'cuz ya never know. Know what I mean?

Aside: How far have we slid as a society, that this even needs to be spelled out?