pls report to the nearest FEMA camp for waterboarding, confession, & re-education. and bring ur tax forms. dont make us hunt u down citizen

OhioOrrin: HA!

Not sure how you would define the "act" part of marriage but there is very little logic for saying legally recognized marriage with legal incentives is a civil right.

Almost everything Michele Bachmann says makes me want to wretch. Where is the bucket?

Have you seen her husband talk?

Limiting marriage to one man, one woman, means gay couples cannot file jointly at lower rates. Why to the Republicans love higher taxes so much?

A license is a legal document. Civil rights were written in our laws, therefor any American citizen who wants one is entitled. Judges marry people too!

A CHL is a license, too. Not everyone who wants one is entitled. Governments have a right to dictate its licenses especially when such a license gives citizens benefits under said government that nonlicense holders are not privy to.

That is a very, very weak argument. There is such a thing as the equal protection of the law as well as personal liberty.

What compelling interest do governments have in preventing same-sex couples from marrying? The same interest that they had in preventing different-race couples from marrying: none whatsoever.

The arguments made in favor of preventing different-race couples from marrying were refuted in Loving v. Virginia; and as the arguments made in favor of prohibiting different-race marriage were essentially the same as those being made in favor of preventing same-sex couples from marrying, Loving appears to be relevant.

In Loving, the Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws deprived different-race couples of personal liberty and the equal protection of the law. It is pretty obvious that laws against same-sex marriage also deprive people of personal liberty and equal protection. Just as there is not compelling state interest in preventing different-race couples from marrying, there is nothing so terrible about marriage equality as to justify the state in depriving same-sex couples of the same liberties and the equal protection of the law as different-sex couples enjoy.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

-United States Supreme Court, 1967

Nathan Alan said: "Governments have a right to dictate its licenses especially when such a license gives citizens benefits under said government that nonlicense holders are not privy to."

That may be true in a totalitarian communist government. But governments in the United States do not have the right to arbitrarily deny a class of people a service. A US State must provide a rational reason for denying a class of people a service or license because in the United States we have due process.

What compelling interest do governments have in preventing same-sex couples from marrying?

Governments are not preventing same sex couples from marrying. They are merely opting to not recognize, as a legal licensed marriage, one with same sex couples.

Their rights to exclude same-sex marriages are founded in the logic of having legal marriage where the government grants benefits to married couples.

Why would a government want to offer incentives for two people to marry?

The only reason I can see for any legal marriage recognition with benefits is the affect of marriage on the strength of family, which is the most efficient way of growing a state with solid citizens, good family.

So, if a state concludes strong families benefit them enough to give incentives toward marriage, then the state is within its rights to say some marriages, such as those involving more than two people or a marriage that cannot organically reproduce children, do not benefit the state, do not produce strong enough families consistently enough, to offer incentives for the creation of these marriages.

Personally, I do not agree with the idea. I think the families that a same-sex marriage would produce on average would be beneficial to the state. However, I see the legal room for the states disagreeing on this basis, only. Unfortunately, no states at this time use such arguments and instead rely on bigotry.

Paul Clement weakened argued something similar in a motion during Golinski v. OPM, a DOMA case, but of course my argument only applies to the police power of states as the federal government has no authority to regulate family.

Nathan, the state can't just conclude same-sex marriages aren't as beneficial as heterosexual marriages. It must provide evidence. Again, due process. Perry v. Schwarzenegger is working it's way through the court system and so far proponents for banning same-sex marriage have not proven they have a good reason to.

Same-sex marriage is legal in several states already.

Um, actually that is exactly what states do. Gambling, marijuana, prostitution, speed limits, how many MPG a car gets, texting while driving... almost all "general welfare, morals, health, and safety" issues are decided at the discretion of the state without any solid evidence, originally.

Criminal law reveres evidence... constitutional law is satisfied with logic.

"The only reason we, the state of [X], offer legal benefits for marriage is we see positive influence on society more consistently from citizens who experience early life with a married mother and father. This is why we do not merely give benefits to unmarried individuals who are parents; because we see the value of the strongest family when parents are married. And seeing that a same-sex marriage consisting of two males can not reproduce within itself, we question if the benefits of this type of marriage to the state equal that of the marriages the state does give incentives for loving individuals to create."

And the fact that a same-sex marriage cannot grow or progress society organically or independently of a third party EVER... makes families much more complicated than a husband and wife doing the nasty and 9 months later becoming parents... is a reasonable fact in my opinion. It requires a few more laws to be written by the government, at the least...

The point is that this logic is enough. Now obviously because of the bigotry that clouds this issue, the reasonable legal arguments are degraded into nothingness and while if I ran a state, I would have open marriage laws... I can't deny the legal argument is there. I mean, did you notice that my argument didn't mention sexual orientation? Equal protection arguments fall by the wayside if there is no discrimination.

Nathan, I really find your arguments to be offensive. Marriages must be of benefit to the state in order for the state to recognize those marriages? Really? You really insist on being that fascist about it?

The state does benefit from stable, legally-recognized relationships, but the primary benefit to marriage (when there is one) is to the people directly involved in the relationship. The state has an interest in the institution of marriage, but who marries whom is a matter of individual liberty, civil rights and the due process of law. People do not need to justify to the state that they are at liberty to marry; it is the responsibility of the state to prove a compelling interest in interfering with that liberty, and there simply isn't one where same-sex couples are concerned.

Reproduction is not an issue in marriage, otherwise the state would claim a compelling interest in preventing infertile individuals from marrying. States never have and so, under the equal protection clause, the state can never be justified in prohibiting same-sex marriages on the grounds of an inability to reproduce. To prohibit marriages in one case on the basis of an inability to reproduce, and to allow marriages in another case despite an inability to reproduce, is a plain violation of the equal protection of the law as well as due process.

The only real grounds anyone has for arguing that same-sex couples may not marry is simply identity. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, weaselly rationalizations for a conclusion reached by prejudice rather than reason; but identity is never a legitimate basis for discrimination no matter how vigorously you tap-dance around the issue.

You position is dead and the dirt is being shoveled in on top of it's casket, Nathan, so stop twitching already and just quietly rot away.

Gay men can father children. Lesbians can get pregnant. Invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, adoption.

The reproduction argument is as simplistic as it is stupid.

Of course, I probably should have made mention of all that, but I was too busy going after the use of the reproduction argument to attack its speciousness. Oopsie.

's all good baby! Olly-OOP!

The state has an interest in the institution of marriage

Because you say this after disagreeing with what I literally wrote, it seems to me that you are attacking my lack of clarity that I've been talking about the institution of marriage the entire time. My argument is that state's interest in the institution of marriage is that institution's ability to maintain the health of society, which it does through family. Family can happen outside the institution, obviously, but obviously states prefer families within the institution of marriage otherwise the benefits they afford married couples, they would afford any parent...

the state would claim a compelling interest in preventing infertile individuals from marrying. States never have and so, under the equal protection clause, the state can never be justified in prohibiting same-sex marriages on the grounds of an inability to reproduce.

To prohibit marriages in one case on the basis of an inability to reproduce, and to allow marriages in another case despite an inability to reproduce

Seriously, you don't see the difference between infertile individuals marrying and individuals of the same-sex marrying? Well, let me explain the legal difference. One requires a violation of the 4th amendment in order for the state to find out that it cannot reproduce and the other is, with current technologies, biological fact that it cannot reproduce.

The state does not get to violate a couple's constitutional privacy (requiring checks of fertility before issuing marital license to a couple looking to marry) based on the fact that it gives small benefits in a marriage. Such "case-by-case" analysis would be unnecessarily invasive and unreasonable, practically, for the state. And likewise, so would requiring couples to make a statement of intent to have children prior to giving them a license. These things are unreasonably impractical for the low level of interests a state has in marriage.

But same-sex marriages do not require any intimate, invasive "looking into" in order to discover that the marriage will not reproduce. Two men cannot reproduce a child together nor can currently two women.

Gay men can father children. Lesbians can get pregnant. Invitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, adoption.

In regards to marriage, one's ability to have a child outside of that marriage is not important. A marriage between two men can not produce a child within itself. I don't need to run fertility tests or ask personal questions of the men... There is no need for any secondary investigation. We all just know this to be biological fact.

MeddinglingMonk, Don Quixokie, the two of you are trying to say that states have different interests for recognizing a marriage and thus rendering it into a legal institution than family. And while this is obvious outside a legal argument... it is politically likable and a cultural and historic institution... a legal entity like the courts will not merely assume the sole reason states turned marriage into a legal institution was for political and cultural reasons. It will want a legal interest and family is that legal interest.

And once that is established the only issue is whether the biologically complicatedness of same-sex marriages is enough for the state to question its family value in comparison to the families that currently recognized marriages consistently produce. And based on that questioning, and supposed uncertainty, leave it out of those marriages with incentives to form.

personally, i dont think there should be any incentive from the government to marry. all the benefits to take that leap into contact should be there between one another.

it's like the government dangles a carrot over the contract, persuading people to marry and to stay married. it gives marriage a cheap name, because it keeps people together on the sole basis of money, not vows of love.

May I point out that Nathan has in no way endorsed the views he/she has spelled out? Arguing with the devil's advocate is very little help, but understanding what is being said is often important. In a twisted way, this could be the argument an institution can use to deny such a couple due recognition - and Nathan is showing how it would be held up in court, not that it is how he/she thinks. Just saying, "Shut up, Nathan," doesn't change that.

What does need to be looked at is why it would be legally applicable; what makes it so that it is only interpreted as male-female marriage? The institution of marriage that is supported in this country is largely based on the Christian ideal, and the coupling of two people of the same sex is counter to that ideal. What needs to happen for gender equality in marriage is we need to divorce our idea of the government contract from the beautiful church wedding. As soon as that can happen, and I'm not saying it can, then any gender can constitutionally marry any gender - but it will probably not be recognized by any church. Divorcing the entrenched religious ideals from the government contract can open the way for the laws to be more accepting of multitudes of different human to human relationships.

A comment, though, Nathan - If the state governments truly support this idea about giving breaks to families because of the importance of raising children, why would it stop there? How about giving breaks to teachers, or fixing our ailing education system? How about supporting think tanks as social partnerships "for society's betterment?" The fact that no other social relationships have been so endorsed points me back to the issue with the separation of Church and State, or lack thereof.

The fact that no other social relationships have been so endorsed points me back to the issue with the separation of Church and State, or lack thereof.

exactly.

Nathan, let me rephrase for you, the state cannot discriminate against a class of people without a rational reason because of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Sexual orientation is a class and gender is a class just as race is a class and religion is a class.

Gambling, marijuana, prostitution, speed limits, how many MPG a car gets, texting while driving

These are all behaviors, not a person's status. The Supreme Court has already ruled in the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that when it comes to sexual orientation it declines to make a distinction between conduct and status. Comparing sexual orientation to gambling is completely illogical and the court would laugh in your face if you brought such an argument up.

As MeddlingMonk and I have both pointed out, there is already a precedent made by the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia in which the federal government overturned every state ban on interracial marriage in every single state that had one because Virginia failed to prove it had a legitimate reason or vested interest in banning such marriages.

The lower courts have already decided in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that banning same-sex marriage doesn't even pass the lowest level of scrutiny that is rational basis review.

I'm fine with people playing devil's advocate, but making legal arguments while complete ignoring already existing case law is just ignorant.

Finally, a family doesn't have to have children. A married couple also takes care of each other. It is in the interest of the state for such couples to have the legal tools to take care of each other rather than being dependent on the state in times of failing health or financial hardship.

Yeah, I've read Loving. It was a terrible setback for same sex marriage as the court ruled marriage was, “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” which would allow interracial marriage but would also strongly reject same sex marriage, as seen in Baker.

The current Supreme Court precedent for same sex marriage is the Minnesota Supreme Court case Baker V. Nelson. And it is not in favor of open marriage.

but making legal arguments while complete ignoring already existing case law is just ignorant.

The case law isn't on the side of same sex marriage, not yet. So, I have to ignore existing case law on this subject because the judges who've ruled on same sex marriage have used absurdly illegitimate logic.

I have not read Perry v. Schwarzenegger but from its wiki page... it is not going to change any state law other than CA's unless the Supreme Court "overrules" itself on Baker.

The federal Supreme Court didn't rule on Baker. It just dismissed it as not having anything to do with federal law. Perry, however, is in the federal court system.

In 1971's Baker, gay people weren't defined as a class. In today's Perry, gay people are defined as a class. It's a different argument today, but you're still arguing from the view that homosexuality is behavioral and not a trait. Today, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is a trait.

http://documents.nytimes.com/us-district-court-decision-perry-v-schwarzenegger

The federal Supreme Court didn't rule on Baker. It just dismissed it as not having anything to do with federal law. Perry, however, is in the federal court system.

Yeah, and the highest court in the land saying a case does not have anything to do with federal law is its way of saying the 14 amendment is not applicable in state marriage laws. IT'S A BIG DAMN DEAL.

And while you are right that the courts have recently corrected their outlook on sexual orientation, it seems Perry has been ruled on by only District courts and Bruning, a 2006 case, was ruled on by the 8th Circuit of Appeals Court, which is higher than district courts, so any way we want to look at it, case law, for now, favors closed marriages.

Hopefully, the courts will agree with MeddlingMonk and include sexual orientation in the same legal bracketing as race, which requires "compelling interests" for the government law, but I just don't see it happening.

Loving v Virginia was decided on the 14th Amendment. It IS applicable to state marriage laws when it finds that a group of people are being discriminated against as a class. The Perry decision actually cites Loving v Virginia. It's going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Hopefully, the courts will agree with MeddlingMonk and include sexual orientation in the same legal bracketing as race, which requires "compelling interests" for the government law, but I just don't see it happening.

You don't see it happening? Are you blind? As I said, the Supreme Court has already ruled in the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010) that sexual orientation is a class. It happened in Lawrence v Texas (2003) too in Sandra Day O'Connor's concurrence with overruling state sodomy laws. Sexual orientation is even codified as a class in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

But wait, there's more!

"in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, the United States has recently taken the position that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. See Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 3:10-00257-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (Doc. 145, July 1, 2011) ("gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination"); Letter from Attorney General to Speaker of House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011) ("there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities"). Appellants/cross-appellees state that the process of repealing Section 654 is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer. The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay.

That is from the 9th Circuit's decision to stop enforcement of DADT. What you don't see happening has in fact already happened more than once. By the time Perry gets to the Supreme Court, sexual orientation will have been defined as a class so many times they won't be able to legally say it isn't.

i just love how civil rights have to be "somehow found" their way through the holes in the cases of court in this country. *chip chip chip*

Hopefully, the courts will...include sexual orientation in the same legal bracketing as race...but I just don't see it happening.

GrrrlRomeo has given a great reply to this comment by Nathan, and I have nothing really to add to her fact-based comments; but her rhetorical "Are you blind?" makes me think. Is Nathan blind? Can he really not see what is happening on this subject? No. I think he can, but he simply is not willing to go where events are clearly leading.

In comments like what I quoted above he appears to be admitting that marriage equality is a desirable thing, yet he continually makes excuses (and they are only excuses) to deny that it can or should come about. GrrrlRomeo has picked his exercises in denial apart pretty thoroughly, and it will be interesting to see what reply he may come up with, but I submit that it would be better for him personally to examine himself concerning why he keeps trying to run away from what he semi-acknowledges to be a good thing if (when) it comes about. There's a reason why he's resisting, and it can't be found in the arguments he's making.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. That has always been the way civil rights have advanced.

Nathan is really arguing that justice can't happen. It doesn't square with American history. Progress can be delayed, but it can't be delayed forever. I cannot see how it can be stopped. Between the courts and the polls, there's no way to go but forward.

There are, unfortunately, plenty of examples of injustice in American history but, yeah, digging one's heals in only works for so long.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that is my only argument. Homosexuals are accountable for the same laws as heterosexuals. The laws should be accountable to them as well. The view of same sex marriage being non beneficial to states should be a clear violation of separation of church and state.

The sad fact of the matter is they were better off as slaves. So much for what the Republicans have done to us as they continue to chip away at labor laws, import cheap labor, and export jobs.

We're all slaves! We were never free. Only death is truly free. Now they're taking the smoke and mirrors away from us.

Mr. DeClue, your statement is offensive.

Sorry but there is NO equivalence between 19th Century slavery and modern labour regulations and making such an equivalency is offensive.

I hate what the GOP is doing to the middle class but this is just over the top ignorance.

DeClue, you are right. Compared to what we have today it was so much better when slaves were shipped over the Middle Passage that killed 9 out of every 10, when people were treated as expensive beasts of burden worked from sun up to sun down under the whip of the overseer or anyone else who wanted to have a go, to be raped without recourse, to have your children sold. To be killed out of hand when you outlived your usefulness.

They had it so much easier then didn't they? Oh what truly barbaric times we live in!

Mr. DeClue, Your ignorance and arrogance are beyond the pale. What if your partner (no such thing as marriage) was repeatedly raped, taken away from you in order to breed better stock? If you were subject to live long malnutrition & dehydration working from sunup to sundown 6 days a week? If you lived with constant fear of being beaten and sold from the ones you love? Not being able to pick your own name, practice your religion and culture.

This just the beginning of what American slavery ion the land of the free was like. Think about that for 5 minutes you ignorant oaf, before you dare to pontificate on something you obviously know nothing about!

I taught 24 children, 20 whom were AFrican Americans. I guarantee you none of them could image being slaves. This is hilarious, silly boy.

"beyond the pale"?! How dare you, you white supremacist!

I think Mr. DeClue was being sarcastic

Unless, of course, your mother or father was sold off to some other plantation -- so much for the two parent family then.

Actually Bachman may be correct.... the children indeed had two parents.... the plantation owner and his wife..... LOL

On the other hand it could be said that the enslaved Africans were the trend setters of the time...... they invented slave chic..... having their children being taken care of by 2 white nannies.... while the children's parents took care of their plantation and their owners....LOL

So what if the parents of these children were breeders or breeding stock or even surrogates.... with a little or plenty of S and M thrown in for good measure or per Bachmannites.. for pleasure.....Hmmm LOL

Oops talk about what is happening in society these days..... see octomom, the Duggans or those folks with the 19 kids and counting, and even those folks who 'buy an egg and rent a womb' these days...... Plus must not forget that there are some folks in society today that still like a bit of leather, chains and spanking while wearing diapers/loincloths....for pleasure...... Hmmm LOL

But seriously though.... there has been a conditioning of the masses going on by these folks..... we are being serfed.

Now Bachmann is even trying to show/ tell us that slavery back then was not all that bad, because it gave even black kids 2 attentive caring parents..... so therefore how could slavery(serfdom) be that wrong, bad, harmful etc in the 21st century....Hmmm

Could this be why the republican conservative teabaggers and dinos keep trying to outlaw birth control, abortion etc and are trying to regulate the masses especially women's reproductive organs?

Is this their 'breeding' program.... for the purpose of cheap labor or better yet no pay labor?

See the new laws that were passed in many of the republican controlled states and the only laws that were passed or attempted to be passed or bills introduced in congress from January through June 2011.... It has been all about reproductive issues instead of being about jobs creation bills......

Now Bachman states this well thought out ignorance.... and doing a hard sell of it..... of... it worked for the blacks (slaves) back then, if they can do it/accept it and thrive, then so can the rest of you....now. LOL

Perhaps she and who ev is running her is thinking that if we get them i.e. the blacks on board we can get them 'chic' it up...... make it chic to be serfed...... LOL

Be strong peons..... it is chic to be a slave.....

Serfdom.....It's the new app..... to the gathering clouds and beyond....LOL

Pray for us... prey on us...

But it's about small government, don't you get it? Me either.

Small government, yes. Using a microscope instead of a magnifying glass. Tiny, tiny government: in every uterus, every bedroom, making sure the baby is born and the penis goes into the approved orifice... all the right people screwed.

I love that. After creating a bible based panegyric on the value of christianity based government action, they invoked the First Amendment at the end, praising the wisdom of 'Congress shall make no law....' even though these people clearly want Congress to make quite a few laws respecting, maybe even Venerating religion. THEIR religion. Others need not apply for this particular kind of government assistance.

These people don't believe in limited government; they believe in government which is limited to doing only what the kook right finds "godly."

the current Mormon polygamy

The Mormon church that Romney, Huntsman, and pretty near any other Mormon you're likely to run into rejected polygamy a long time ago.

The oddball sects that you see in the news, such as Warren Jeffs', are offshoots that the main church does not accept. Please don't confuse them.

What on Earth are "Sharia polygamy" and "Sharia Islam" supposed to be, anyway? Since when is the word "Sharia" a modifier? "Sharia Islam" is just plain idiotic, as the phrase implies there is an Islamic sect that goes by that name. Such incredible ignorance.

Mainstream Islam has long-ago rejected polygamy as well. Please don't confuse American Muslims with violent and intolerant sects from overseas.

If the statement is truly worried about polygamy itself - really? that's a pressing problem in our society? - it should say so without the bigotry of calling out a specific religion.

@D.C. Sessions You make a valid point. However, if a Democratic candidate for President was as tenuously tied to a group that currently practices polygamy inside the US, it would be brought up repeatedly as an attack against him or her. I believe it is worth pointing out that any attacks on polygamy should be directed at people who actually practice it and not some made up threat of "Sharia polygamy". Personally, I don't find it an issue worth worrying about, but apparently Bachmann does and I'd like her to address it with some semblance of reality.

just the kind of ignorance one can expect from MS. Bachman...she is pretty much brain dead..no matter her alleged education...

Zusya361, all non-extremist/Taliban Muslims the world over reject violence and intolerance.

@crockpot: alleged education? she went to pat robertson's tax shelter for higher ed. that's like brainwashing central right there, not a reliable field of thoughtfulness and contemplation.

And Oral Robert's University, the last stop on the itinerary of damn near every homosexual in search of a cure for the gay. If that sounds like a sweeping and unfair generalization, I have a gay uncle who went there and my wife is a graduate from there and they both pretty much tell the same tale. And should you ask why I'm married to an ORU grad, I was really sure it would be a deal breaker when I first found out. But her experiences there have made her so delightfully cynical about organized religion and Christianity, it works out just fine.

Two words: "Overton Window"

That window slides more easily, when it's greased by Obama giving up his best negotiating chips before the game has even started, as he did again today, declaring in advance that he doesn't have the stomach for a constitutional fight over the debt ceiling.

You are right! but, civil rights were included in the constitution. As for the USDA, they are only intended to promote industry. As for the arms, back then the Government was not big enough to kill off all the natives themselves.

Michael..perhaps you missed the day in History class when the genocide of Native Americans was covered. I think our government came pretty damn close to 'killing off all the natives themselves'.

White land owners did they're part. Besides the stories of slaves, sharecroppers, and Native Americans get passed down from both my Mom's and my Dad's families. The stuff to raw for public schools.

Amen! The Republicans want uneducated children to work cheap and for cannon fodder in their endless wars to make Dick Cheney richer.

So the people who get married by a justice of the peace aren't really married? Shocking!

Baptism is a church function. Marriage is much more a civil function, in terms of the number of civil rights and responsibilities and the fact that dissolution of a marriage is almost alway a strictly civil function. I would be quite comfortable declaring that marriage is strictly a church function if there were a parallel civil ceremony, and all the legal issues rested on the civil union.

The state regulates contract law, and civil marriage is nothing more than a legal contract that confers about 1200 benefits. The state has the right to change the terms of that contract if it chooses, just like any other element of contract law.

The state may not force churches to recognize that changes though. If your church doesn't recognize same sex marriage that won't change. If you are opposed to same sex marriage then don't get same sex married.

Weddings can be held at churches (and many many other locations) and presided over by a minister or priest (or judge, etc.), but the marriage certificate is not provided by religion, but the county or state. You are married when the marriage license you applied for at the county office is returned properly signed.

If I as a Wiccan can legally marry my fiance w/o a church or Christian officiant in sight, and be recognized by all relevant bodies as a legitimate wife, I'd wager the concept of marriage as an exclusive church function is null and void, wouldn't you?

in this day and age I think the "sanctity" of marriage has a lot more to worry about than two consenting adults that love each other, perhaps everyone who is so concerned with upholding the purity of marriage should start focusing upon the adulterous heterosexuals who so flagrantly disregard their vows...

Do the word "by the power vested in my by the STATE of......." mean anything to you? It doesn't say ""by the powers vested in my by the church of........." now does it? Just saying!

My 1040 begs to differ...

Robert, you are confusing what you wish to be true with what is true.

So, Mr. De Clueless, does that mean that only religious people should be allowed to marry?

Hit "like" by mistake. Actually, the state has no business deciding who we can or can't marry.

"toujoursdan

The state regulates contract law, and civil marriage is nothing more than a legal contract that confers about 1200 benefits. The state has the right to change the terms of that contract if it chooses, just like any other element of contract law."

This is the correct statement as to civil law. A religious ceremony that is recognized in civil law, is a privilege to the religious community that the state grants through civil law. A state is not required to recognize a religious ceremony. A state dictates who can get married and under what circumstances which is why we have age requirements, blood tests, etc. Consequently, the state is free to expand civil marriage and its attendant legal rights.

Or in that case anything called marriage! De Clueless

My Catholic priest could not marry me and my husband without a marriage license issued by....wait for it....wait for it.......waaaaaaaaaiiiiiiittttt foooooooooooooorrrrrrrrr it...the State. BOOM!

My husband and I could not be married in the Episcopal Church in Virginia without a marriage license from the state. Marriage is one of the sacraments of the church, but there must be official sanction from the state as well. So there you have it.

If the great JC, himself, were to appear and preside over a wedding, he'd still ask for that little slip of paper issued by the county clerk's office for the state. It's a fact, people. Whether or not your church will "bless" your marriage is up to your church. Right or wrong, they do not have to grant this blessing. The fact remains that even they cannot bless your marriage until Big Brother has signed off on it. And you don't have to subscribe to any one faith, but you do have to abide by the laws of your state and country. Since we all have to abide by the same civil laws, we should all be given equal treatment under the law. The basic act of getting married is a civil right. Denying this right to certain groups of people is a violation of civil rights.

And even if we were to not consider marriage a civil right, it is still a matter of personal liberty and the equal protection of the law. So saith Loving v. Virginia. What's good enough for different-race couples is good enough for same-sex couples.

well, and another thing about the religious objections to homosexual marriage... homosexuality is mentioned as bad like twice in the bible, and is never even addressed by jesus. divorce is mentioned like a thousand times and condemned every time, including condemnation by jesus. homosexuality existed back in the day too, it wasnt invented in the 1960s... so must not have been that horrible then me thinks...

That's a point. I've heard the assertion made by more than one religious-right "leader" that sexual sins are the number-one focus of the Bible, yes there is vastly so much more concerning social justice that I think confirmation bias is at work. The religious right are obsessed with sex, so that's all they see in the biblical texts.

yes, sexual purity is the focus of one commandment, yet there are nine others. how often does the religious right abhor covetous behavior of property and things? or the fact that everything but alcohol is sold on sundays when people should have a day of rest? the bible is merely used to elevate the values they worry about most, not whatever god they say they worship would actually want these people to live.

The "sanctity of marriage" is a joke. Half of all marriages end in divorce. I think maybe they meant sanctimonious marriage?

Marriage started out as a means of consolidating business holdings, or countries. Arranged marriage. No love, just business. That would make it a civil function even if there were no phrases like: "by the power vested in me by the state of..."

Semantics really. Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah. Block out those words and ignore terrorism, jihads and Crusades and they get mighty hard to tell apart. Especially in regards to gays and women.

While your logic may have internal cohesion, I don't think "Marriage for no one!" is going to catch on anytime soon, and any pol supporting such an extremist view would never get elected to anything.

And as to why you're blatantly wrong, marriage via state contract protects people's rights and gives people the ability to go through life together as a unit. This recognizes the reality that people tend to couple up together and cohabitate and raise children - a reality that won't stop if the government ceases to recognize such contracts. People have an absolute right to enter these contracts with each other and choose to do so at very high rates. And these marriage contracts are completely different than business partnerships and other types of contracts.

Almighty, while I respect your right to believe what you will, I disagree with your beliefs. Matt explained it quite well. I hardly think that two people who are committed to each other, love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives taking care of each other should have to form an LLC or INC to be granted the same rights as everyone else. But, then again, we already know that businesses get tax breaks, so hmmmmm.....maybe not such a bad idea afterall.

I'm being facetious there. This attitude is a slap in the face to dear friends and my aunt whom I love. I will never truly know their pain of being treated as lesser beings, but it is heartbreaking to see them bear it, nonetheless.

Almighty, for your vision to be realized, the government must also eliminate each and every statutory preference for married couples as well as for widows/widowers, and must proscribe any private enterprise from having such preference as well.

Could this BE ANY MORE RACIST?????

You don't really want an answer to that, do you?

And if you mess up you can always re-up your vow because you MEAN it this time! Its not your fault that your wife got cancer and how unappealing that makes her!

Well, sinners have already been forgiven as long as they're believers, so they've covered their, uh, bases pretty well.

That was nice of them to think of him but I don't see Newt being dumb enough to sign this drivel.

He is absolutely dumb enough to sign it.

Look how fast Newt backpedaled on saying the Ryan plan was bunk! Of course he'll sign, and then say he worships the ground she walks on! These people have to say and do exactly the same thing, or they have no future in their party. Hopefully the rest of us are awake enough to notice the creepy Stepford quality and vote against it wherever it crops up!

Voting is a right that was hard-won for many of us. It is absolutely our responsibility to exercise it for things more important than DTWS or American Idol! How about a little lock-step behavior from the dem/indy side of the equation, and a shoulder-to-shoulder denial of the right-wing anti-American agenda!

Well, if thinking were part of their SOP, they might recognize redundancy and hypocrisy...

The only pledge ANY elected official should EVER make is their oath of office. Making pledges like this or the Norquist pledge and then holding them as more important than your duty to your constituents, your office, your country, the Constitution or the American people as a whole should be considered equivalent to treason and make all such pledge takers either ineligible to hold office or eligible for criminal charges if they are in office.

When you choose to run for elected office, you are accepting that your first and only allegiance is to the United States of America and it's people. Putting any other oath, pledge or promise above that is betraying the very country you promise to "serve, protect and defend". Betraying your country is treason - plain and simple.

Time to throw all the traitors in prison where they belong. We can start with every member of the GOP who is currently holding the nation's economy hostage in order to protect their pledge to Grover Norquist. Terrorism and treason are one in the same - and both are criminal offenses.

Maureen,

who wrote: *When you choose to run for elected office, you are accepting that your first and only allegiance is to the United States of America and it's people. Putting any other oath, pledge or promise above that is betraying the very country you promise to "serve, protect and defend". Betraying your country is treason - plain and simple.*

This is something I have been trying to tell my friends for a while. You have said this brilliantly, thank you.

I didn't understand what was meant by that, and I'm not sure I want to.

You're probably right not to want to. Some crazy is too deep to wade in.

Monk: Voted up just for the "Some crazy is too deep to wade in" line. I will be using it in the future.

LOL

;)

Oh yeah, I like that too..."Some crazy is too deep to wade in." Most excellent.

But isn't that like ummm factual and history and like such and stuff?

You expect the party that embraces Paul Revere riding through Lexington to Concord up there in "New Hampshire" ringing the liberty bell and a'shooten and a'hollaren to warn them thar Brits they can't take our guns would actually know what actually happened in 18 BC and/or by whom?

You don't want too much do you! Ha.

I was in the library and saw a book called “What Every Woman Should Know About Divorce and Custody; Judges, Lawyers, and Therapists Share Winning Strategies on How to Keep the Kids, The Cash, and Your Sanity” and it just got me thinking about the system, how it works and why. I just think a lot of the problems we face as a nation stem from the fact that fatherhood is marginalized. Until ten or twelve thousand years ago the function of the male was to impregnate the female. He might also function, at Mom's pleasure, to provide care for her and for her offspring; but if Mom became dissatisfied with Dad, she gave him his walking papers and found a new boyfriend, kind of the way things are in large parts of society (the ghetto, the trailer park, the reservation). The male role has no stability. Children depend primarily on Mom and it creates a cycle of whole parts of society dependent on the courts and government doll. We, as humans, are different from animals because of childhood, we have the luxury of allowing our children many years to grow up. Why can humans do this? Fatherhood. Mothers (in most 'normal' family units (married with Mom, Dad, child)) are allowed to not have to 'provide' and stay home for years with the child because the father works and brings home money for the family (I do realize there are many, many situations, but this is pretty standard, or at least was fifty years ago). Mothers make infants but when the infants become children they are likely to be less well socialized if they have no fathers. It is largely father absence which creates ghettos and gangs and messed up kids -- boys trying to find their identity through violence and girls trying to find their identity through sexual promiscuity -- which generates the male violence of the next generation. They need real fathers, sociological fathers, not merely biological studs interested in one night stands or a brief or superficial relationship. In the ghettos biological fathers seldom become sociological fathers, seldom amount to much, because Mom's sexual promiscuity (or disloyalty) -- her belief in what feminists call a woman's right to control her own sexuality -- denies them the role of sociological fatherhood (they aren't needed to get a job and provide for the family unit). Lawyers and judges fail to understand that fatherhood is a social invention, that it must be created and maintained by society. Until lawmakers and judges see that they must support the father's role because it is the weak biological link in the family we will have more matriarchy -- along with its accomplishments: educational failure, illegitimacy, teen suicide, gangs and the rest.

Enough with the "gotcha" footnotes, Hart Williams...

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, your theory is based solely on the supposition that the fathers did not ABANDON their children.

I'll not say anymore as I'm sure most of us are aware that giving custody to fathers 100% would only worsen the problem - that's my entitled opinion on your theory.

Further as a woman born in the 50's, I can't get behind a theory that proposes ~

If women knew that they couldn't leave their husbands and get all the benefits of having a husband without having to give themselves to the relationship we may be better off as a country.

In fact, I cannot even address your opinion and remain calm and articulate; but I shall defend your right to express it - as long as you are not running for elected office that is!

I wouldn't want to seem anti-feminist Jo6Pack, and I am not against women having the same rights as a man, but to have a civilized society we have roles, a judge should act like a judge, a soldier is expected to behave like a soldier, a husband and father is expected to act like a husband and father and yes, a wife and mother is expected to behave like a wife and mother. Acceptance of such roles requires discipline, and immature and irresponsible people dislike discipline. The 'I don't need a man philosophy' that arose from the sexual revolution has created a welfare state where the government has replaced husbands and men are seen as a paycheck to support children. I truly believe in marriage. I just see many women who do not, there is nothing keeping them there, they are allowed to 'follow her heart', and aren't happy with their role as wife and mother and run off expecting she will get the kids and the man will support her along with the state while she takes up with another man. (that is where that quote I posted this morning came from, it is a law of animals) Animals have no father but we, as humans, are more then cattle or dogs who are slaves to baser instincts and with out women willing to take part in the contract of marriage, thinking they can 'do it alone,' we have seen a rise in crime, teenage pregnancy, and divorce (remember 3/4 of divorces are initiated by women). 63 % of youth suicides came from fatherless homes along with 90% of all homeless and runaway children, 85% of children exhibiting behavioral problems, 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger, 71% of all high school dropouts, 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers, and 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions. If the court presumed to give fathers custody and not mothers I guarantee that the divorce and crime rates would plummet within 20 years because women would have a reason to stay married. Equal rights should mean equal responsibility, not getting the benefits of marriage with out having to share them (Statistics from L A Times 9/19/1988 and Garbage Generation (Primrose Press 1990, p 179)

Equal rights should mean equal responsibility

I totally agree. So why don't you round up all those absentee deadbeat fathers and get them to support their children - not only financially, but emotionally as well and let's see how you can improve society.

While I could choose to be offended by the supposition the all the ills of our society were caused by the "I don't need a man" theory, I choose instead to believe that you were the object of some woman's abandonment - whether wife or mother. If your wife treated you badly, I also choose to believe that you did not have a "wife as chattel" attitude that caused it.

Also, the "I don't need a man" theory was actually "I don't need to take this $hit and/or beatdown" any more. So you see it from your side; I have my own.

You can quote all the facts and figures you want to support your theory, but it is one-sided and about as correct as Paul Revere riding through Lexington NH warning the Brits that they can't take our automatic weapons!

No abandonment, that would be like me saying you had someone physically abuse you because of your "I don't need to take this $hit and/or beatdown" statement. I didn't get a bum deal, my kids live with me and spend weekends with their mother. But I would disagree that women have been sh*t on by men, they have been taken care of by men and the only thing asked was that they remained faithful in marriage. You have been sold a bill of goods by groups like NOW that tell you women should have sexual rights that are in direct contrast to the duty they have to their children and their husband when they get married. The feminist revolution is to be understood as a protest against female sexual regulation. Feminists say "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"; "A woman has a sacred right to control her own sexuality"; "End human sacrifice! Don't get married!" Women's primary object, according to feminist Anne Donchin, is to create a society in which "women can shape their reproductive experiences to further ends of their choosing." According to the feminists, marriage should give husbands no rights --- through marriage or cohabitation still requires ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends to "protect" ex-wives and children, which is to say subsidize them. She thinks the wife is privileged to take the husband's children from him and impose slavery on him -- the performance of forced labor for another person, herself. The women that the feminist call the "new" woman is actually the autonomous, pre-patriarchal Stone Age woman, sexually emancipated, who refuses to form a permanent relationship with a man upon which he -- or her children-- can depend. She doesn't need a man and she repudiates the principle of hypergamy. Our civilization is based on the patriarchal system and by deny it, refusing to see that we have a duty to take part in the civilization we live in is destroying our country. A duty by definition is the giving up of something that will make you happy (promiscuous sex) for the good of some thing else (the family).So why do judges routinely award custody to mothers? Three reasons. The first is that motherhood is more solidly based in biology than fatherhood (the default childrearers). The second is their recognition that women, like children, are dependent creatures. This was formerly understood to mean they needed husbands, as children need fathers. Now, in the growing matriarchal sector of society, mother custody serves to make Mom and "her" children beggars who are entitled to exploit the patriarchal sector -- either welfare or x-husbands. Third, they suppose they must choose between creating a fatherless household and creating a motherless one, which would be equally bad, and also unchivalrous. But three quarters of divorces are initiated by wives, and father custody would confront these wives with the loss of their children and the loss of Dad's paycheck -- together with an accompanying loss of status -- and few wives would care to forfeit these things. If you don't want to get married, don't but don't do it, decide you don't like it and run off with another man and try to take the kids and the money with you. Can it be doubted that the expectation of mother custody is a primary motive for divorce for women? An expectation of father custody would remove this motive and stabilize families. Few fathers would care to face the single-parent lifestyle which traps so many single mothers with double responsibilities. Father custody would place practical and economic advantages for both the mother and the father on the side of family stability. There would be few divorces. We know this because father custody was formerly mandatory and automatic, and that was the result. There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century. When divorce was rare English Common Law automatically gave the children to the father. Automatic father custody was why it was rare, just as it is common today when mother custody is virtually automatic.

The feminist movement often said that the destruction of the patriarchal system and the abandoning of sex role socialization upon which it is based would liberate not only women but men by getting rid of the stereotype that a woman was dependent on a man. Feminism, it was asserted, would make women stop "preying upon her husband" as Betty Friedan says in the Feminine Mystique. She continues in It Changed My Life, "Doing it for ourselves is the essence of the women's movement: it keeps us honest, keeps us real, keeps us concrete." They no longer try to earn their way in the world by being doll-wives. They would stand on their own two feet. Only, of course, they didn't mean it. They still expect alimony and child support that go with mother custody -- how else can they stand on their own two feet? They have their part of the contract fulfilled with out having to fulfill their end. I tell my girls that you go to college first and be able to take care of yourself before you get married for that reason. The problem is the family court system and government have made it ok to not be responsible for yourself by consistently awarding custody to single mothers; if she leaves the man is forced into slavery to support her and his children. I just think if that wasn't the presumed outcome of the woman walking away from her marriage, if they thought the father would get the kids and they would lose out on the monetary benefits, that the rate of divorce would decrease because they would have to fulfill their part of the marriage contract; they wouldn't get the benefits of being married if they didn't.

But I would disagree that women have been sh*t on by men, they have been taken care of by men and the only thing asked was that they remained faithful in marriage.

How do you know? Its not your life, you weren't there. My father physically abused my mother, he knocked out one of her teeth with his high school graduation ring. The only thing that saved them from getting divorced was him commitng suicide before they even got seperated. Why did they get involved? Because her father treated her the same way. You want to take a wild guess about MY relationship with the next man she married? More of the same.

Its been my experience than good husbands and fathers are as rare as hen's teeth...and I have tried damn hard to be one myself. So for you to roll out your spiel that men are all put upon victims of the Feminist Movement strikes me as INSULTINGLY PRESUMPTIVE and SIMPLISTIC.

Shut up Bitch! Go fix me a turkey pot pie!

What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? Nothing. You've already told her twice. That's real funny. Ain't it. AIN'T IT!

Radiator...man to man. You really piss me off. Mind your own damn business and let everybody else live their lives.

I'm practically speechless. It's people with opinions like yours who make me afraid of this country.

@ Don, get some therapy buddy

@ Quinn, you can always move

Do you know why courts tend to favor the mother over the father? It's because before the 20th Century, women held little to no rights of property or parental custody. Husbands essentially owned wives, and children, and could use those children as leverage to prevent their wives leaving them. Men in abusive situtions still do this, but thankfully they no longer have the law on their side when they do. You'll also note that while mothers are generally given primary custody, men are not denied the right to parental involvement without good cause. As women are still more sociologically conditioned than men to be devoted to their children, custody is still a weapon which can be used against us. What you refer to as "the benefits of getting married" can easily turn into an emotional hostage situation.

Marriage is a contract, a business partnership that both parties should have to live up to. If one defaults on the contract then it should be voided and the party that endured the breach should get the kids and the money and the house. It is about fidelity and a kind of sexual law and order that is created by the man because with out it civilization crumbles. The male offers a sufficient benefit to induce the female to accept the sexual regulation required for family stability -- he must settle into a long term stable job, must become the family provider. But he must also have society's guarantee that when the woman does accept sexual regulation by entering a marriage contract the contract will be enforced. The legal system is responsible to create fatherhood and to support it. This is the primary reason it exists. Only in this way can the male's non-biological contribution to marriage be made equivalent to the female's biological contribution. Only in this way can we have stable families. Only in this way can marriage be made meaningful. I would argue that a woman's primary contribution to a marriage is her sexual loyalty, without which there is no family. Women's sexual disloyalty creates matriarchy and ghettos. The patriarchal system you look down on is what enables a husband to have a family, it is an acceptance of the obligation of chastity. The feminist demand for "sexual equality", for the right "to have sex like men, on their own terms" destroys women's bargaining power, destroys what entitles her to be supported by her husband. It seems there are two kinds of women who marry, those willing to give a man a family and women who marry in contemplation of divorce and subsidization by an x-husband. The wife has a major asset, by which she places the husband under obligation to her, her sexual loyalty. The husband's major contribution to a marriage is irrevocable. It cannot be removed retroactively: he has supported his wife, paid her bills, given her a home, raised her standard of living by 73%. But the wife's major contribution to the marriage, the gift of family, is removed retroactively in over half of marriages and threatened in all: she can walk away with the kids so she never really gives the family which is the quid pro quo for his supporting her. The husband almost always finds in divorce court that what motivated him to get married and to labor during the years of marriage had no permanent existence -- it was not a gift but only a loan backed by a woman's promise --- and unbacked by the law. The contract is unenforceable on her and only binding to him.

Radiator9987

Marriage is a contract, a business partnership that both parties should have to live up to. If one defaults on the contract then it should be voided and the party that endured the breach should get the kids and the money and the house.

Other than being creepy... weird, sexist and, frankly open to a rapist husband having rights to his children when his wife divorces him because he raped her... your definition of marriage is immaterial in this argument. No one here cares about the definition of marriage... The concern is how to shape legally recognized marriage; i.e. why legally recognize your "marital contract"?

There are a number of military men I know of who have raped their own daughters who would agree with every word you say.

I have no problem with other partnerships but across large portions of this country a family is still defined in very rigid terms, why do you think we have so many places that wage ideological battles over what marriage should be defined as. A very small portion of families are female female or male male as parents and I don't know any statistics on these families, I am speaking generally about what is most common. And it has nothing to do with religion, if a woman can remain faithful, the role of religion is that many people need someone to tell them what is the right thing to do, like not commit adultery. Also it is true there are many bad fathers as there are many bad mothers; but anti-male discrimination has gone on for over a hundred years and has -- thanks to women's divorce proneness and their assurance of custody and support money --- destroyed marriage and the family (in it's most traditional sense) and is destroying civilization along with them. We can not live with a sixty percent divorce rate and a thirty percent illegitimacy rate. If fathers were acknowledged to be the head of a family (in a traditional marriage / family setting) and if he could not be deprived of his children, his home, and his income, he would be able to provide for his wife and children without living in fear that it will all be taken away on the whim of his wife's sexual desires. If men were guaranteed custody wives would be grateful to the man rather than divorce prone as she is now because of the anti-male bias of the legal system. Divorce would plummet, marriage would become the normative expectation for both men and women. Children would be brought up in two parent households as they ought to be.

You Dworkinites and Femma-Nazi's always make the man out to be a rapist or abuser, if it is creepy or weird or sexist to want children to have both parents then I guess America has gone down the toilet

You Dworkinites and Femma-Nazi's always make the man out to be a rapist or abuser, if it is creepy or weird or sexist to want children to have both parents then I guess America has gone down the toilet

Well why didn't you say you were a mindless programmed ditto-head. it would have saved me the trouble of arguing with a piece of offal for brains like yourself. So a hand that is missing even a joint of finger is not a hand, is that right? You don't know what to call it but you are sure its not hand because it does not have five whole fingers. Brilliant. A hand is still a hand without ANY fingers, you can use it as a spoon. A hook is a hand, even a dildo attached to a stump is a hand if you can use it dexterously enough and can adapt it to any use. And a family is a social unit that fills all the rolls of family: Caring for the welfare of the young - nurturing teaching disciplining -taking care of eachother (assuming its not a single parent family,) that live in a reasonably stable situation that constitutes a home. A family is whatever fufills the role of family, regardless of gender orientation or lifestyle.

Clearly you know EVERYTHING there is to know about being a successful husband and father. I'm glad I'm not your daughter.

His point comes from God. Us women are supposed to be secondary to our husbands. This doesn't mean we don't get to voice our own opinion, it just means our husbands are the final decision makers. And that's the way it should be- women are far too emotional to be rational decision makers 100% of the time. We need men and their calm collective for this very reason. This isn't to say that occasionally we will have a better view point, we will, but it's to recognize that men must make the decision(s) because men have the more stable mind-set. Men are more capable of rational thought than women. Again I don't see why this is such an issue with liberals- it's a basic fact of human nature. Why be against this when you're so in favor of so many other means of naturalism??

Independent, I hope your statement is made in jest otherwise you seem to be more dependent than your name suggests.

People (and I use the term loosely) like Radiator9987 and 1IndependentVoice are a big part of why I so dislike being biologically male. Such thuggish, brutal "thinking" is disgusting. I reject their ideas and everything else about them. I insist I have nothing in common with them other than an accident of genetics.

Voice, enjoy your status as 2nd class citizen because you lack the mental capacity for rationality. And I think you are right...I've argued with you for a little while now and have seen no evidence that you got anything going on up there.

We need men and their calm collective for this very reason. This isn't to say that occasionally we will have a better view point, we will, but it's to recognize that men must make the decision(s) because men have the more stable mind-set. Men are more capable of rational thought than women.

UH-huh. That's why my father knocked out one of my mother's teeth and eventually committed suicide. That is why my mother's father abused her as badly as he did. That is why my step-father abused me and made me live what was left of my childhood in mortal terror and depression. Because men are calm and rational. Good one.

Like I said, enjoy your status as 2nd class citizen. Don't project your own deficiencies onto the rest of your sex. Good father and husbands, like good mothers and wives, are as rare as hens teeth. No-one should put themselves at the mercy of some capricious and bestial and irresponsible because God said to.

And if, as radiator has said, marriage is primarily a financial arrangement, then all wives are just whores with longterm contracts. That explains alot actually.

It's funny that here I am a dittohead and on Fox's website I am a socialist or pinko or commie-liberal. I don't know what you are talking about with the hand thing, if you have a prosthetic limb it would be a hand but, as J G Ballard says, it would be a post human hand. I could care less if people want to marry someone of their own sex, I said that earlier and I also said I know nothing about female female or male male homes and children raised there. It is not what goes on in most families.

As for being glad you are not my daughters all I can say is maybe you'd have your head screwed on right if there was a real man that had been there to raise you. Meg Meeker writes in her fantastict book "Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" that "there are two types of women in the world: princesses and pioneer women. Princesses believe they deserve a better life and expect others to serve them. Pioneer women expect that any improvement in their lives will come through hard work; they are in charge of their happiness."

Life has taught most of us that you can't expect someone to solve your problems and that all your needs and desires won't be fulfilled. As a father I want more then anything to take care of all their problems but I can't allow myself to do this, I need to teach them that sometimes, somethings need to be taken care of by them for themselves so they don't fall into the victim mentality that is so prevalent in our culture. I love them completely, and they know this, but they must also realize they are not the center of the universe; love should be peppered by the notion that love needs to be appreciated and you should be humble and thankful for it. They are not entitled to love, many children grow up in loveless homes, and their lives will never be perfect, no ones is.

So I have had to learn to not indulge them and sometimes say "no, I can't do what you want now, I have work of my own to do" or "you can do that yourself". This teaches them that they must take some responsibility, even at this young age, for their well being. If I always do everything for them they will not take ownership of their lives and will fall, I fear, into the victim mentality where everything bad or wrong is someone else's fault and that someone else should fix any problems they have. This neediness can only be stopped by teaching them to act confidently, to be pragmatic, and dig deep in themselves to fix what is wrong in their lives; they must know that ultimately they are the only ones who will determine their fate.

The best way to get to there from here is to teach them pragmatism, give them the knowledge and tools they need to be a problem solver; to be able to step back, separate, see clearly, and develop a course of action.

What will help them to grow up and be the strong, independent women I know they can be is exactly this program-goal-action mindset. My x-wife says the girls live under 'my reign', I have created a world of discipline that, as a means to an end, is what will teach them the skills they need to grow into happy adults; confident and self sufficient. They will seek out healthy relationships, not end up in a relationship because they are co-dependent and can't function on their own. My x-wife believes because I expect them to clean their rooms, set the table for dinner, stick to a schedule, be on time, and take care of themselves I am making them live under some totalitarian regime. Maybe it is on some level because their freedom is derived from the security that things will be the same for them day in and day out, that their lives are consistent; they are free to live their lives as children because I have created a structured world for them, a world where they are learning to solve problems and think for themselves, where they are learning that grit and self determination will get them further then expecting someone to do everything for them. This is the harsh reality of a world they are rapidly approaching.

They do not have to worry about anything but a few tasks and to act right in their day to day interactions within the family and with others in school and at the stores where we shop. When a problem does arise they are learning that sometimes they can solve the problem themselves, when they fight over a doll or can't find a toy, but also that I will be there to guide them and help them solve the larger problems like not getting along with a classmate. The largest problem in their lives I am also letting them deal with on their own, the termination of their parents marriage, I am allowing them to grieve and encouraging the idea we will all survive and be the better for it. It is the one problem I can't help them find a solution for.

Beyond this I know it will take tenacious engagement to teach them the idea of pragmatism. I must hold the course and they will one day be happy, healthy adults who can and will, and even want to, be able to stand up for themselves and not be dependent on anyone for anything.

and Don Quixokie, women are not whores with long term contracts, A society that is to remain civilized must motivate its men to provide for the family, I got married to take care of my x-wife and our children, to be there for all our lives. My family was the most important thing to me and all I asked was that she remained faithful, didn't start sleeping around. I am not saying that she had to be a ready and willing partner, ready to drop to her knees at his whim, I am saying she should, when entering a marriage contract, stick to the idea that both parties will cease sleeping with other people.

You really do have some issues there buddy, sorry your childhood was so screwed up but that doesn't make other families, or all men and fathers and husbands like the one you grew up knowing, like yours.

You Dworkinites and Femma-Nazi's always make the man out to be a rapist or abuser, if it is creepy or weird or sexist to want children to have both parents then I guess America has gone down the toilet

Its been my experience that in a great many cases, they are. I've told you about my experiences, now I ask you...just what manner of role model was I supposed to have as a young man? And I am a man, though your Femma-Nazi reference pisses me off mightily and casts a VERY serious pall over all the sensible things you've said. I've had to teach myself everything I know about being a man. Do you think I'm a one off? An abberation? You think the families you describe are How Its Done? There was not a girl I personally knew in high school who had not been raped or molested. Their bastard rapist fathers...those that did the raping and molesting...would have agreed with every word you've said. This isn't hyperbole. That's NORMAL. At least for Oklahoma it is.

and Don Quixokie, women are not whores with long term contracts...

Marriage is a contract, a business partnership that both parties should have to live up to. If one defaults on the contract then it should be voided and the party that endured the breach should get the kids and the money and the house...

Yes, by that definition she is.

I will offer this to bury the hatchet however. Whatever forces move through society, what ever roles men and woman pick up and discard...

PEOPLE SUCK. Its not because they are men or women. Its because the stand erect and have opposable thumbs. It wouldn't be human if it wasn't messy. FACT!

I find that you talk like a victim and use the implicit argument that all men are victims of women and Feminism specifically...that is off-putting. I've known some very fine and admirable men, some of my best friends are men (and I'm straight should you wonder.) But I have known and been at the mercy of too many thorough bastards and bitches to make any generous generalizations about either gender. Absent an excellent character, nobody has any business putting themslves beneathe another as a matter of course. Traditional sex/gender marriage roles notwithstanding.

Just be grateful if you find ANYONE good and worthwhile. Very simply, most people aren't. Gender has nothing to do with it.

I guess I see people as good, flawed, but intrinsically good. I knew a girl in high school who was abused by her father, but only one, and yes these things are kept secret so there may have been others, but, on the whole, I saw loving and supportive fathers, as I do now in my involvement with the PTA and my girls after school activities. I have never been to Oklahoma, except to drive through it once, so I don't know what goes on there. People are informed by their experiences so you see what you do, I see what I do.

I am not anti-woman, I am pro child and I see the pain on my daughters faces their mother caused because she had to 'follow her heart', figuring that she'd get the kids and the house and my support because she decided she was in love with someone else. I got custody because I took her to task and showed the courts who the better parent was, who the primary care giver was and who would be best to raise our children. I harbor no ill will towards her even though she hasn't paid child support in a year and bad mouths me to our girls, she is doing damage to her relationship with them, not mine, they know the truth, that, although not perfect, I am a good man who is there for them no matter what. I see many other good men who aren't as lucky as me and have had the most important thing to them, their families, ripped from them because of the selfish motives of women who were raised to believe that what they want is of paramount importance to anything else, forgetting that they have a duty to the children they brought into this world.

We will never see things the same, or if we do at some intersection it will be from a different point of view, so I say good luck and god speed, may you find some happiness as you move across the days....

Good enough for me. I humbly tender my apologies. It may be that the woman who divorced you wasn't the one who married you. That happens. I myself have tried to be a good man all my life, but often my own conduct had been less than stellar. I have torn the hearts out of women the way other women had torn out mine. It was never intentional. You just reach a point where a light turns on in your head and you find yourself saying "oh, so THAT'S how that happens." Lastly, your first posts dripped with victimhood blaming a woman, all women, and the the Feminist Movement for your troubles and all the woes that plague men. Victims make the worst villains. Simply put, your wife might not of been the best person she might have been or could have been, or even was. The fault lays with her as an individual, not her sex. Not sociological forces. Peace. I sympathize. I've got one very ugly divorce under my belt and a marriage I'm working like the devil on. Try not to be bitter. Just be the best man that you can be and everything else will pretty much fall in place. Its really weird how it works, but its true. Peace.

now at the end of this very long post... i just wanted to say that i think more than anything, it's the attention and encouragement and discipline that a parent pays to their children that determines what kind of person they will be. i was lucky enough to grow up in the traditional two parent household with a good mother and good father all of my life, and i think i've turned out decent enough. i've also had multiple friends who were raised only by single parents, and not all, but many of them turned out beautifully. i had a friend raised by his dad only because dad blackmailed mom, and he has more issues than most of the single parent friends i've had. at the end of the day, i really think that what determines who will grow up to be a good person is the kind of morals that they are taught are correct. if a kid grows up thinking, "oh when i do something hurtful to someone, they hurt and it sucks for them. that's not nice and i shouldnt do it," i think that they're on a much better track than either male or female role model in their lives displaying absoloute selfishness. likewise, the only reason a 2 parent family is 'better' than a single parent is because of the potential time they can devote to the child. children with less supervision have more problems, whether they live with their mother or father.

really what i'm trying to say is that it's not who the kid grows up with, it's the attitude they're taught is correct. and i think that many people living in poverty have had the breakdown of attitude to either not care for others around them as much, or not know how to teach it to their children as well. everyone is capable, but not everyone does.

Radiator isn't familiar with statistics.

i agree, emily...

really what i'm trying to say is that it's not who the kid grows up with, it's the attitude they're taught is correct.

i also think that, not only does poverty have a potential for a breakdown of attitude - but also can be left with little choice in spending the appropriate amount of time guiding, because of having to work so much.

in turn, it also breaks down future generations in knowing the vital connection and guidance needed.

family is everything - be it by blood, or not - but positive family interactions and teachings of empathy and compassion is needed to flourish this world.

A child of a single parent might have lots of aunts and uncles as well as grandparents in their life.

I think it's strange that people would discourage certain types of family bonds if it doesn't conform to a particular formula. Family bonds (love) compel people to take care of each other. But such bonds can't be forced or stopped. I don't know what causes those bonds to fail sometimes, but when it's successful it should be encouraged.

Radiator says:

A society that is to remain civilized must motivate its men to provide for the family

Civilized men ought to motivate their own damn selves to provide for families they create.

carrie-anne, i agree with what you said too. i was thinking over this post later and realized i forgot to say what you said. i feel like that completed my thought, thank you for posting it!

you're welcome :)

That woman is an idiot! Don't expect coherence, because you'll only be disappointed.

For the record, a straight married couple with children technically fits the description "multipartner childbearing." Well, ok, not really, because strictly speaking only one person can bear a child. Bu it's definitely multi-partner childrearing.

And I hate pointing this out, but it's not actually Bachman making these statements. It's Bob Vander Plaats, the embarrassing uncle that Iowa didn't invite to the wedding, but who showed up anyway, crazy and ranting. Bachman just agrees with him.