Post by: Desertdog on June 16, 2008, 07:56:18 AM
By Sen. Sam Brownback
CNSNews.com Commentary
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080616c.html
Last month, the Supreme Court of California handed down a ruling that many of us concerned about the institution of marriage in this country had feared. In a 4-3 ruling, the court struck down the state's one-man one-woman marriage laws -- including a voter-approved law passed by referendum in 2000 by a wide margin -- and mandated same-sex marriage.
When debating the need for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in 2004 and again in 2006, some who opposed the amendment argued that, despite their firm belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the specter of a rogue judiciary poised to overturn the will of the people of the states was a fantasy concocted by the amendment's proponents. A constitutional amendment, they argued, was not necessary to protect the people against the bogeyman of "judicial activism."
Apparently, judicial activism is alive and well, since the will of the people of California was not enough to prevent the justices on California's Supreme Court from imposing their own redefinition of marriage on the state.
In the wake of this decision, it is apparent that the marriage laws of all 50 states continue to be at risk from judges who desire to legislate their views on important social issues from the bench and that only a constitutional amendment will suffice to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Why is it so imperative that we protect and preserve the traditional definition of marriage in the United States?
In the long view of history, it seems likely that we will look back at the social changes identified with the decline of marriage and the family, which began to make cultural inroads in the 1960s, and conclude that this vast cultural experiment has been a very harmful failure, particularly for our children.
That experiment, of course, continues apace today, but there are indications that America is beginning to reevaluate the matter, to assess where it is headed and whether, as a people, we need to correct this course.
If the experience of the last 40 years tells us anything, it is that the consequences of weakening the institution of marriage are tragic for society at large. The percentage of children born out of wedlock has increased almost tenfold during this period. And the jury is in on our experiment in raising children without a mom and a dad: The verdict is that it increases the risks for children substantially.
Marriage is designed to maximize the chances that each child will be provided with a mother and a father, in a stable family setting, during the years when children are too young to fend for themselves. To redefine marriage in such a way as to remove its essential connection to parenthood is to take away its very purpose.
Study after study shows that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. Children who grow up in such homes, compared to children in other types of households, are about three times less likely to repeat a grade in school, five times less likely to have behavioral problems, half as likely to be depressed, three times less likely to use drugs, half as likely to be sexually active, and 14 times less likely to suffer parental abuse.
It is clear that the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by upholding marriage; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous.
Those costs are financial as well as social. A recent study concluded that the breakdown of marriage costs taxpayers at least $112 billion each year.
The establishment of same-sex marriage in the United States can only further weaken an institution already in jeopardy. If you want to understand what same-sex marriage could mean, take a look at the countries in Europe, where they've had same-sex unions longer than anywhere else in the world.
In Scandinavia, marriage was already on the rocks even before they created same-sex partnerships. I don't think it's a coincidence that the one place in the world where marriage was weakest was the first place to try same-sex partnerships. And that step seems to have locked in and reinforced the problems with marriage that already existed in that region.
But the clearest example of the problems with same-sex marriage is the Netherlands. This is a country where out-of-wedlock births were actually relatively low. But after formal same-sex marriage came in, out-of-wedlock birthrates shot up. It looks as though same-sex marriage had a lot to do with that.
So it seems to me that in light of the European experience, the burden of proof is on those folks who would challenge our current definition of marriage. I don't want to take a chance on bringing Europe's weakened system of marriage here to the United States.
The moral imperative today is to do things that will strengthen marriage and help children, like eliminating disincentives to marriage in our welfare benefit system and reestablishing a culture that values moms and dads who get married and honor their commitments in marriage.
Now is not the time to take the enormous risk of further weakening this vital foundation of our society.
(Sam Brownback is a Republican who represents the state of Kansas in the U.S. Senate.)
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 16, 2008, 08:34:39 AM
Apparently, judicial activism is alive and well, since the will of the people of California was not enough to prevent the justices on California's Supreme Court from imposing their own redefinition of marriage on the state.
It is the job of the judiciary to protect the rights of the minority. In other words, to combat legislative activism.
Quote
Why is it so imperative that we protect and preserve the traditional definition of marriage in the United States?
Traditional? Christian, certainly. Well, for most Christians. Personally, I think anyone who is interested in embracing the Catholic ideal of marriage should do so and in this country they are welcome to do so without fear of persecution. But marriage is not necessarily about one man/one woman. In more traditions, it is about one man/several women.
Quote
In the long view of history, it seems likely that we will look back at the social changes identified with the decline of marriage and the family, which began to make cultural inroads in the 1960s, and conclude that this vast cultural experiment has been a very harmful failure, particularly for our children.
Oh, I see. So my husband and I living together and getting pregnant before our wedding was somehow a reflection of how bad for society gay marriage is? The fact that many or most hetero couple cohabitate before marriage reflects how bad gay marriage? The fact that divorce is commonly regarded as a solution to anything from boredom to financial troubles reflects how bad gay marriage is? I see.
Quote
That experiment, of course, continues apace today, but there are indications that America is beginning to reevaluate the matter, to assess where it is headed and whether, as a people, we need to correct this course.
Actually, in most states, laws discouraging cohabitation, bearing children out of wedlock, and obtaining divorcing to show a reevaluation of our priorities: those laws are all moving towards making those choices more a matter of personal choice and less a matter of state incentives. There are a few much-vaunted exceptions, like optional "extra committed" marriage options, but those are always *options*. Family law is moving towards allowing choice. And people are generally perfectly ok with this. Personally, I think it might be a good idea to ban divorce, since that is traditional in the Catholic Church. Of course, that is unconstitutional, as is infringes on people's personal choices.
Quote
The percentage of children born out of wedlock has increased almost tenfold during this period.
Well, then. Obviously the only solution is to prevent their parents from getting married.
Quote
Study after study shows that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. Children who grow up in such homes, compared to children in other types of households,
Ah, "other types of households". Certainly we shouldn't contrast what we want with what we are railing against. It makes more sense of course to contract what we want with a culture of crack whores and absent fathers. That way they look really bad. If you want to bash gay families, show some stats on GAY FAMILIES. Not on "other types of households".
Quote
It is clear that the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by upholding marriage; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous.
What goes around comes around and now I've got conservatives telling me that raising my kid is their job. I don't think so. My kid, my job. Butt out.
Quote
But the clearest example of the problems with same-sex marriage is the Netherlands. This is a country where out-of-wedlock births were actually relatively low. But after formal same-sex marriage came in, out-of-wedlock birthrates shot up. It looks as though same-sex marriage had a lot to do with that.
That's one heck of a bizarre conclusion. How do two people who get married bear culpability for someone else getting knocked up? Oh right, we're all responsible for each other. I don't get to make my own choices because it somehow makes the air turn all permissive and then there's teenagers getting knocked up and it's all my fault. Tell me again how this is a conservative position?
Quote
The moral imperative today is to do things that will strengthen marriage and help children, like eliminating disincentives to marriage in our welfare benefit system and reestablishing a culture that values moms and dads who get married and honor their commitments in marriage.
Y'know, a BAN is pretty hefty "disincentive". Oh right, we're busy blaming welfare babies on gay guys.
Yawn. Another rant about how teh gayzors are churning out too many crack babies and it's all their fault no one stays married. So we need to ban them from getting married.
If Sam Brownback doesn't like gay marriage, he should avoid marrying a guy. Other than that, bunch of wrong-headed, terribly argued drivel demonstrating an overinflated need to control other people. Whatever happened to proselytization as the way to convince people to become good Christians?
Post by: 41magsnub on June 16, 2008, 08:39:02 AM
Yawn. Another rant about how teh gayzors are churning out too many crack babies and it's all their fault no one stays married. So we need to ban them from getting married.
You forgot that when the gays get married the health insurance rates are going increase because of all the AIDS.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on June 16, 2008, 08:49:26 AM
If I want to marry someone, be it a male, female, black, white, brown, jewish, christian or otherwise, that should be between myself and that person(or persons). The government has no business at all getting involved. The government needs to disassociate themselves from marriage completely. Allow churches to perform religious ceremonies, and for the legal areas of marriage, turn it into a simple civil ceremony granting all traditional rights and privileges to the signers thereof, be they of whatever race, religion, gender or number. A simple contract entered into by those of legal age.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 16, 2008, 09:01:07 AM
Quote
(Sam Brownback is a Republican right wing authoritarian who represents the state of Kansas in the U.S. Senate.)
Fixed it. Butt out. Marriage is a legal function of the states, not the fedgov.
Post by: taurusowner on June 16, 2008, 10:40:52 AM
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 16, 2008, 10:55:54 AM
Legislative activism? Did you make that up?
The phrase? Yes.
The concept? Hardly.
Post by: SteveS on June 16, 2008, 11:09:38 AM
It is the job of the judiciary to protect the rights of the minority. In other words, to combat legislative activism.
This bears repeating, though. I have noticed that one person's judicial activist is another person's defender of the Constitution. It just depends on your perspective. If the Sup. Ct. killed the DC Gun Ban, then I am sure there would be many who say it goes against the will of the people.
That being said, as much as gay marriage is ok by me, the legal arguments are somewhat weak. I also think that a court mandated system in this area may end up forcing the anti gay marriage people to push for a Constitutional solution that may make any future compromise more difficult.
Post by: De Selby on June 16, 2008, 12:25:44 PM
Legislative activism? Did you make that up?
It's redundant-that's what legislatures do, is act.
If they wanted to wipe out the entire constitution and replace it with the communist manifesto, they have the power to do it. They could also eliminate the judiciary, all in ways that the current judiciary would be bound to approve if it is in fact bound by the law.
What the judiciary does is ensure that the legislature has followed the necessary procedures to enact a law.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 16, 2008, 01:36:27 PM
It's redundant-that's what legislatures do, is act.
Activism has a specific meaning beyond merely acting.
Activism is indeed, btw, what legislators tend to do, and some people become legislators specifically because of activist tendencies in one area or another.
I used the phrase "legislative activism" ironically, to point out that activist is, in this context, an almost meaningless word, used as nothing more than an informed sounding but ultimately meaningless perjorative.
Quote
If they wanted to wipe out the entire constitution and replace it with the communist manifesto, they have the power to do it. They could also eliminate the judiciary, all in ways that the current judiciary would be bound to approve if it is in fact bound by the law.
Yeah...Go read the constitution again.
Post by: De Selby on June 16, 2008, 02:44:00 PM
Yeah...Go read the constitution again.
Not only did I reread it, I noted the sections you might wish to read on this subject:
http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal-law-and-documents/historical-documents-constitution-of-the-united-states/article-v-the-amendment-process.html
Quote
Article V: The Amendment Process
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Constitution can be changed by legislation to whatever degree imaginable; the changes have to go through this process, though.
The Judiciary cannot invent a new constitution because it doesn't like the one it has; that would be a good way for the judiciary to simply be written out of existence by a legislative apparatus that already had the political clout to rewrite the constitution in the first place.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 16, 2008, 03:58:16 PM
Not only did I reread it, I noted the sections you might wish to read on this subject
Wow, that's just a really sad post, isn't it?
No, dude, the legislature cannot throw out the whole constitution.
Read it again.
First, there is a difference betwen the legislative branch of the federal government and the legislative branch of the federal government plus the legislatures or other selected mechanisms for reaching concensus among at least three quarters of the states.
Second, again, you are confusing power, or as you rephrased it, "political clout" with authority.
Post by: RevDisk on June 16, 2008, 04:22:51 PM
Whenever folks start talking about amending the Constitution to ban this or that, I seriously wonder where they went wrong in life.
The Constitution exists to enumerate the rights and responsibilities of the US federal government. It does not give any rights to the US citizen, it chooses to enumerate a few pre-existing ones. It is supported to limit the government and protect the rights of the people. When you start changing the Constitution to protect the government and limit the people, you are going down a dark road. You subvert the intention of the Constitution and weaken its protection of the people.
Post by: lupinus on June 16, 2008, 04:29:32 PM
This is why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy. The majority does not have the right to oppress the inherent rights of a minority.
I personally don't believe gay marriage is right. Cohabitation? Fine, not my buisness. Government stamp of approval? Not so much.
Marriage has always been a religious institution. I say it should remain that way and the .gov should get out of the buisness altogether. Let religious institutions marry based on their guidelines, streamline common law type situations or civil unions for adults who choose to live together, and let the private sector decide what level they want to afford based on the situation of different type of couples.
Post by: 41magsnub on June 16, 2008, 05:01:08 PM
I do not give a crap about the religious implications of gay marriage, I really don't. At the same time religions should not be forced to recognize something they do not want to recognize. Fine, do not allow them in your church or perform a marriage ceremony, hell be like Fred Phelps and shout it out on the streets how evil it is.
Most likely the gay folks would not want to be associated with that kind of church anymore than the church would want them in it. However, call it a civil union, common law marriage, or whatever mechanism it needs to be: gays have should have the exact same civil rights as anyone else and businesses should recognize it as a legal document for employee benefits. Government should recognize it as a valid "marriage" for inheritance, income taxes, and all that next of kin stuff just like a traditional marriage. It does not hurt anyone and makes the gays lives a little easier.
Oh, and don't give me that "it's going to jack up the health insurance rates because we have to pay for their AIDS treatments!" BS that was brought up last time unless you are ready to also prevent smokers, drug users, and the obese from marriage as well. That is a horrible generalization that all gays engage in risky sex with multiple partners on the level of saying every male who lives in a trailer park beats his spouse. I know several gay couples and they are as faithful as can be. We get it, lots of you don't like gays. Lots of people don't like people trying to force their views on others. If you do not like it, fine... don't go the ceremony, don't attend the dual bridal showers or bachelor parties, take them off of your Christmas card list, and pretend they do not exist.. but stay out of their lives.
Post by: De Selby on June 16, 2008, 06:17:23 PM
Not only did I reread it, I noted the sections you might wish to read on this subject
Wow, that's just a really sad post, isn't it?
No, dude, the legislature cannot throw out the whole constitution.
Read it again.
It's unambiguous-"shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution". I'm confused as to why this is an issue, considering that parts of the constitution have already been taken out, and new parts have already been added. There is no "but you can't change the whole thing" rule anywhere in the Constitution.
Quote
First, there is a difference betwen the legislative branch of the federal government and the legislative branch of the federal government plus the legislatures or other selected mechanisms for reaching concensus among at least three quarters of the states.
Yes, but this is a part of the constitution that itself can be changed if you manage to do what has already been done once more-ie, go through the amendment and ratification process. There is no rule in the Constitution that says "you can't amend Article V."
Quote
Second, again, you are confusing power, or as you rephrased it, "political clout" with authority.
No, I am not confusing it-political clout means "ability to wield more votes", in this context. You get enough legislators on board, and you can change the entire constitution.
It has nothing to do with authority-that's without question; legislators collectively have the authority to change the constitution.
Post by: Nitrogen on June 16, 2008, 06:37:13 PM
It'll be a dark day in this country if drek like that passes.
Ya'all hate it when liberals legislate their morality vis a vis guns, it's just as wrong to legislate your morality about marriage.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
Post by: De Selby on June 16, 2008, 07:21:40 PM
The Federal marriage Amendment: The first constitutional amendment meant to take rights AWAY from a specific group of people that some don't like.
It'll be a dark day in this country if drek like that passes.
Ya'all hate it when liberals legislate their morality vis a vis guns, it's just as wrong to legislate your morality about marriage.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
It'll be a dark day in this country if drek like that passes.
Ya'all hate it when liberals legislate their morality vis a vis guns, it's just as wrong to legislate your morality about marriage.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
No question that it would be bad news indeed.
Post by: roo_ster on June 17, 2008, 08:13:18 AM
Post by: Hugh Damright on June 17, 2008, 11:01:15 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on June 17, 2008, 11:04:17 AM
Post by: Hugh Damright on June 17, 2008, 11:12:50 AM
Post by: ilbob on June 17, 2008, 11:29:47 AM
I'd like to see an amendment that says (1) marriage in the US shall be between a man and a woman, (2) the official language of the US shall be English, and (3) the interstate commerce power shall not be strictly construed.
I edited it a bit. Maybe add a line that says "congress shall pass no law" means "congress shall pass no law" and not that anything remotely tied to religion is out of bounds.
Post by: Balog on June 17, 2008, 03:10:09 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on June 17, 2008, 03:56:04 PM
Is it REALLY *THAT* important if Bob and George get married? Does it REALLY require the time of congress?
The main thing that bothers me about this, besides the obvious predjudicial nature of the thing (to me it's no different than laws banning miscegenation) is that it just doesn't seem that IMPORTANT. It's like congress holding hearings on steroids in baseball; it's a waste of time and my tax money. Let's deal with real issues first, okay?
Post by: De Selby on June 17, 2008, 04:49:24 PM
I'd love to see the abortion that is the "interstate commerce clause" totally excised.
That would be great until you end up trying to cross state lines, only to realize that they all tax everything up the wazoo to protect their local businesses.
Post by: Nitrogen on June 18, 2008, 10:19:46 AM
I'd love to see the abortion that is the "interstate commerce clause" totally excised.
That would be great until you end up trying to cross state lines, only to realize that they all tax everything up the wazoo to protect their local businesses.
I dont understand what you mean by this.
Do you mean the equivilant of tariffs between, say, Louisiana and Texas?
yes, that would indeed suck, but if it's something the government wants to discourage, it's better done via a directed law or ruling. The Hydrogen bomb that is the "interstate commerce clause" is way too broad.
Post by: Balog on June 18, 2008, 10:58:09 AM
I'd love to see the abortion that is the "interstate commerce clause" totally excised.
That would be great until you end up trying to cross state lines, only to realize that they all tax everything up the wazoo to protect their local businesses.
A state that tried to impose harsh tarriffs on incoming goods would be quickly cut off. Since something like 97 percent off all food comes from outside sources, the .gov that tried that would be gone gone gone real quick. The same for "exporting" restrictions. Hell, that'd be a great way to see the incumbents get thrown out on their asses.
I seriously doubt you could find any business that is not largely dependant on goods and services provided from out of state. Any state level attempt to interfere with this would cause near total shutdown of pretty much all industry.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 18, 2008, 11:20:44 AM
However, at least define the issue correctly. Gay have the same rights as straight people, govt recognition of a marriage to someone of the opposite sex. The push is to add recognition of same sex marriages. I know everyone likes to blur that distinction to make their point.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 18, 2008, 11:37:35 AM
Gay have the same rights as straight people, govt recognition of a marriage to someone of the opposite sex.
Yeah, but that's kind of like outlawing Judaism and then telling Jews that they have the same rights as everyone else to practice Christianity. Kind of pointless.
Post by: pinoyinus on June 18, 2008, 12:33:41 PM
Hugh, you forgot 'the official religion shall be Christianity'.
The 1st amendment already guarantees freedom of religion. The above suggestion goes against that amendment. Defining marriage between one man and one woman is not a religion so I wonder under what context is the suggestion being made.
Post by: RevDisk on June 18, 2008, 12:57:46 PM
Hugh, you forgot 'the official religion shall be Christianity'.
The 1st amendment already guarantees freedom of religion. The above suggestion goes against that amendment. Defining marriage between one man and one woman is not a religion so I wonder under what context is the suggestion being made.
Yes, but one of the prime reasons for defining marriage as one man and one woman is religion. All of the other non-religious arguments fall short.
"Gays cannot breed". So infertile couples should not be considered married?
"Gays will destroy the institution of marriage." Last stat I heard was that 55% of all marriages end in divorces. The failure rate of straight marrages are higher than the success rate. I'm racking my brain here to figure out how they could make the divorce rate significantly higher.
"Gay marriage will destroy modern civilization" Not sure how, but taxes and overregulation seem to be doing the job anyways...
"Gay marriage is contrary to custom." Fair enough. So what? Women voting is historically contrary to custom. But it really hasn't destroyed our country. Historical custom should not be a valid reason to restrict individual civil liberties. Hey, ladies, what would be your responce if your right to vote (and own property, right to buy a gun, enter into contracts, right to initiate divorce, etc) were suspended because it was contrary to historical customs?
I personally believe it would be wiser to get the government out of the marriage business. Let couples form civil partnership. Let each religion dictate its own customs. I have to side with BridgeWalker.
Post by: Firethorn on June 19, 2008, 03:55:29 AM
I personally believe it would be wiser to get the government out of the marriage business. Let couples form civil partnership. Let each religion dictate its own customs. I have to side with BridgeWalker.
Another vote for BridgeWalker and Revdisk.
One thing I'd work on is making sure priests* and religious institutions such as churches aren't counted as 'businesses' in the traditional sense, and are therefore exempt from some of the more extreme equal opportunity/anti discrimination requirements. A Catholic Priest shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriages. On the other hand, if the church of the immaculate king** wants to perform them, they can.
Honestly enough, I'd have prefered the gay community to wait until it got the laws passed through congress. Then we wouldn't be seeing this constitutional ammendment crud.
*Yes, all the other names for them as well.
** Elvis Presley
Post by: roo_ster on June 19, 2008, 05:47:41 AM
Hugh, you forgot 'the official religion shall be Christianity'.
The 1st amendment already guarantees freedom of religion. The above suggestion goes against that amendment. Defining marriage between one man and one woman is not a religion so I wonder under what context is the suggestion being made.
Yes, but one of the prime reasons for defining marriage as one man and one woman is religion. All of the other non-religious arguments fall short.
"Gays cannot breed". So infertile couples should not be considered married?
"Gays will destroy the institution of marriage." Last stat I heard was that 55% of all marriages end in divorces. The failure rate of straight marrages are higher than the success rate. I'm racking my brain here to figure out how they could make the divorce rate significantly higher.
"Gay marriage will destroy modern civilization" Not sure how, but taxes and overregulation seem to be doing the job anyways...
"Gay marriage is contrary to custom." Fair enough. So what? Women voting is historically contrary to custom. But it really hasn't destroyed our country. Historical custom should not be a valid reason to restrict individual civil liberties. Hey, ladies, what would be your responce if your right to vote (and own property, right to buy a gun, enter into contracts, right to initiate divorce, etc) were suspended because it was contrary to historical customs?
I personally believe it would be wiser to get the government out of the marriage business. Let couples form civil partnership. Let each religion dictate its own customs. I have to side with BridgeWalker.
Hokay, there are a lot of straw men in this post as well as incorrect information.
50%+ Divorce Rate
This bit of crap stats lives on, just like the "fact" that more women get beaten up during the Super Bowl.
The data collected shows it was never as high as 55%. It was never close to 50%, or "one in two."
The NYT addressed this in 2005:
Quote from: http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html
Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think
By DAN HURLEY
The New York Times
April 19, 2005
How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the
statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and
campaign speeches.
The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there
were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics.
But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are
divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and
that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In
fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has
never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that,
with rates now declining, it probably never will.
The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is
to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced.
Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers
say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that
the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch
downward.
"At this point, unless there's some kind of turnaround, I wouldn't expect
any cohort to reach 50 percent, since none already has," said Dr. Rose M.
Kreider, a demographer in the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the
Census Bureau.
By DAN HURLEY
The New York Times
April 19, 2005
How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the
statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and
campaign speeches.
The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there
were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics.
But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are
divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and
that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In
fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has
never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that,
with rates now declining, it probably never will.
The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is
to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced.
Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers
say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that
the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch
downward.
"At this point, unless there's some kind of turnaround, I wouldn't expect
any cohort to reach 50 percent, since none already has," said Dr. Rose M.
Kreider, a demographer in the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the
Census Bureau.
Thing is, demographers pretty much discount the percentile stat and prefer to use the rate per 1000 population.
Divorce in America peaked in 1981 and has fallen since then.
Rates by year since 1950:
http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
Code:
Year
Divorces per 1,000 population
1950 ...........
2.6
1955 ...........
2.3
1957 ...........
2.2
1960 ...........
2.2
1965 ...........
2.5
1970 ...........
3.5
1971 ...........
3.7
1972 ...........
4.0
1973 ...........
4.3
1974 ...........
4.6
1975 ...........
4.8
1976 ...........
5.0
1977 ...........
5.0
1978 ...........
5.1
1979 ...........
5.3
1980 ...........
5.2
1981 ...........
5.3
1982 ...........
5.1
1983 ...........
5.0
1984 ...........
5.0
1985 ...........
5.0
1986 ...........
4.9
1987 ...........
4.8
1988 ...........
4.8
1989 ...........
4.7
1990 ...........
4.7
1991 ...........
4.7
1992 ...........
4.8
1993 ...........
4.6
1994 ...........
4.6
1995 ...........
4.4
1996 ...........
4.3
1997 ...........
4.3
1998 ..........
4.2
1999 ..........
4.1
2000 ..........
4.2
2001 ..........
4.0
Divorces per 1,000 population
1950 ...........
2.6
1955 ...........
2.3
1957 ...........
2.2
1960 ...........
2.2
1965 ...........
2.5
1970 ...........
3.5
1971 ...........
3.7
1972 ...........
4.0
1973 ...........
4.3
1974 ...........
4.6
1975 ...........
4.8
1976 ...........
5.0
1977 ...........
5.0
1978 ...........
5.1
1979 ...........
5.3
1980 ...........
5.2
1981 ...........
5.3
1982 ...........
5.1
1983 ...........
5.0
1984 ...........
5.0
1985 ...........
5.0
1986 ...........
4.9
1987 ...........
4.8
1988 ...........
4.8
1989 ...........
4.7
1990 ...........
4.7
1991 ...........
4.7
1992 ...........
4.8
1993 ...........
4.6
1994 ...........
4.6
1995 ...........
4.4
1996 ...........
4.3
1997 ...........
4.3
1998 ..........
4.2
1999 ..........
4.1
2000 ..........
4.2
2001 ..........
4.0
Here is a 2008 article addressing marriage rates:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P1MG601&show_article=1
I'm running outta time, but I might get back to the rest of them and add some others useful and accurate data.
Post by: RevDisk on June 19, 2008, 06:56:11 AM
Hokay, there are a lot of straw men in this post as well as incorrect information.
50%+ Divorce Rate
This bit of crap stats lives on, just like the "fact" that more women get beaten up during the Super Bowl.
The data collected shows it was never as high as 55%. It was never close to 50%, or "one in two."
Thing is, demographers pretty much discount the percentile stat and prefer to use the rate per 1000 population.
Divorce in America peaked in 1981 and has fallen since then.
I'm running outta time, but I might get back to the rest of them and add some others useful and accurate data.
50%+ Divorce Rate
This bit of crap stats lives on, just like the "fact" that more women get beaten up during the Super Bowl.
The data collected shows it was never as high as 55%. It was never close to 50%, or "one in two."
Thing is, demographers pretty much discount the percentile stat and prefer to use the rate per 1000 population.
Divorce in America peaked in 1981 and has fallen since then.
I'm running outta time, but I might get back to the rest of them and add some others useful and accurate data.
Ok, I can buy the inflated number. That's why I said "I heard", not "I know this to be exact". Thing is, those rates look to be per year, not cumulative. I'd like to see total number of marriages from Year XYZ to current (or current - X years) compared to total number of divorces from Year XYZ to current (or current 0 X years). I'll admit, I'm not a demographer, but I think a straight forward percentile stat would be interesting.
But I gotta ask, can you outline a couple non religious based arguments that support banning gay marriage, let alone a Constitutional amendment to limit civil liberties?
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 19, 2008, 07:36:26 AM
But I gotta ask, can you outline a couple non religious based arguments that support banning gay marriage, let alone a Constitutional amendment to limit civil liberties?
Yes. Marriage is traditionally a function of civil law and government traditionally may regulate it as it wishes. "Tradition" doesn't work when explaining the rationale behind limiting marriage, but it does work when explaining the scope of Federal and state authority. A major aspect of constitutional interpretation, both state and federal, is legislative intent and that is generally determined by examining the state of common law at the time of the passage of the constitution in question.
There are excellent arguments to be made that because of the grave danger posed to state autonomy by laws expanding the scope of marriage in combination with the full faith and credit clause. California, by the way, is positively notorious for finding clever ways to expand its jurisdiction to other states. They've even claimed personal jurisdiction over children based on the possibility that said child may have potentially been conceived in California. There have been other jurisdictional abuses, but that is the most egregious.
Thus, it is not too great a stretch to say that to protect states' autonomy and based on the 1789 understanding of marriage and the (pick your favorite) tax implications/commercial implications/full faith and credit implications, a federal regulation of marriage is legal. Further, a constitutional amendment is necessary because of the very complex and far-reaching nature of the issue, especially since the above rationale indicates that it is actually not counter to the spirit or intent of the constitution.
Still, that don't make it right.
Legally, it's a close call, and there are good arguments either way. Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores. Deliberately marginalizing large groups of people is never a good idea.
Post by: MechAg94 on June 19, 2008, 09:43:07 AM
Gay have the same rights as straight people, govt recognition of a marriage to someone of the opposite sex.
Yeah, but that's kind of like outlawing Judaism and then telling Jews that they have the same rights as everyone else to practice Christianity. Kind of pointless.
As far as religion itself goes, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from going to a church and getting married. It is the govt and legal recognition part that is at issue.
As far as the OP, I am not really in favor or an amendment. I think I would rather see the govt get out of the issue all together. My main concerns are related to side issues such as "equal rights" discrimination issues and things such as adoption and such.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 19, 2008, 10:50:08 AM
As far as religion itself goes, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from going to a church and getting married. It is the govt and legal recognition part that is at issue.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for a member of the clergy to perform a marriage without the couple obtaining a marriage license.
Post by: Balog on June 19, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
As far as religion itself goes, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from going to a church and getting married. It is the govt and legal recognition part that is at issue.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for a member of the clergy to perform a marriage without the couple obtaining a marriage license.
Nope. It's not legally binding, but anyone can get "married" to anything they want.
Post by: Hugh Damright on June 19, 2008, 03:48:48 PM
Quote
Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores.
I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ... that sounds like my kind of culture and society. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 19, 2008, 04:09:18 PM
I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ...
You're mixing 'em up a bit. The first two are out of a pretty basic list. Incidentally, it also forbids sabbath-breaking and disobeying parents. Personally, I like that I was able to use my own judgement to decide to disobey my parents and become a Christian. I'm sure glad I get to choose for myself how to keep the sabbath, instead of being required to follow the government's idea of what it should be. They could simply close down the interstates should they decide that driving on Sunday (or Saturday) is sabbath breaking. Well within Federal jurisdiction if you accept the premise that "culture" as derived from the words you know as the Bible is an acceptable basis for regulation and legislation.
The third is one of the long, long, long list prohibitions against sexual impurity and other types of illicit blendings. It's not just guy-on-guy, it's also wool-on-linen. Maybe the FedGov should update it to poly-on-cotton?
Should you be prohibited from entering any government building until you can prove that you've been properly purified after experiencing a nocturnal emission?
Quote
that sounds like my kind of culture and society.
Nifty. Mine too. And I keep it in my home and where I go. I don't shove it down the throats of other people. Mostly, because I'm grateful that once I became an adult, others couldn't shove theirs down mine, and I could be baptized and confirmed.
Quote
And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.
Where someone can be raised a Jew and become a Christian?
Where someone can write openly arguing for or against virtually anything?
Where people can choose how to live, and what to exclude from or include in their lives?
Don't like women serving? Strongly discourage your daughters from enlisting, and until they are eighteen, withhold your permission. Don't want men marrying men? Don't marry a man. Simple.
But if you don't want an Establishment Clause, you're gonna have to find some other place to live, because most of us like to be able to choose our faith, or lack thereof.
I'm not, actually, pro-gay. Abomination. I'm right there with ya. I wasn't, if you notice, arguing for the irrelevancy of the Bible. I'm arguing that it's a terrible idea to use it as a basis of civil law.
Hm, actually, I've done some pretty well-thought our writing about the nature of legal interpretation and why Biblical precepts don't make good law in another context, although that essay is about Catholic and Halacha (Jewish law) a lot of it translates pretty well. If anyone is interested, pm me for a URL.
Post by: Dntsycnt on June 19, 2008, 04:33:26 PM
Quote
Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores.
I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ... that sounds like my kind of culture and society. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.
Those values predate Christianity and Judaism. In fact, it'd be pretty hard to find anyone who really DOES base his/her morals off of the Bible. And if you did, you'd want them hanged.
Pity you hate the world we live in. I love it.
Post by: pinoyinus on June 19, 2008, 06:11:49 PM
One of the questions raised here is whether govt. should be involved in marriage. Govt. sanctions certain activity and discourages others. Both are usually reflected in the penal code and in the tax codes. For example, govt. encourages renewable energy and gives tax breaks for buyers of hybrid vehicles. Govt. subsidizes public transportation (encouragement) and taxes gas consumption (discouragement). Obsiously, marriage has earned govt's blessings and has bestowed upon it benefits. Why? Because all societies, as a means of survival, must produce a next generation. Well one may argue that marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation. This is true. But it is an undeniable fact that generally, the best environment for raising children is a home where there is a father and a mother. Some people will come up with the stupid argument that "hey there are heterosexual parents that are just lousy parents". Well it is true. But it s a general statment and we all know that there will be exceptions. On the other hand, I doubt it if there are any studies out there that can show that children raised in a polygamous or gay/lesbian environment is best.
So why is there all this discussion about gay marriage? Some gay rights advocates say that all they want is to be recognized so that in certain situations, they are in a position to take care of their partners (as in the case of one partner in a coma and the other partner needs to be recognized as the closest kin). They also want to have equal benefits in terms of health insurance (so that partners will be recognized as dependents). But then again, these benefits were the promises of civil unions. The gay rights advocates said no to civil unions. For them only full pledged marriage is the answer. That's why we have this question of gay marriages before us.
The real motivation from the left is to destroy the existing foundations of our society. The family, being the very basic unit of society, is now their focus of attack. A couple of years back, it was the boy scouts (remember when the gay rights advocates were petitioning the govt to revoke the boy scout charter/privileges?). They tried to destroy the boy scouts - an institution that has served this society countless times - because it espouses the belief in developing boys into responsible men, love of God and country, preparedness, charity, etc. Instead of putting up a Gay Scouts of America, the left chooses to destroy an existing institution. They tried with the boy scouts and failed. Now they trying ther hand at marriage. Look down in history and you 'll see this behavior repeated. Our military service branches are great institutions. Have you noticed how the left hates the military (they refuse the military recruiters entry into high schools during career day)? Have you noticed how religion has been totally shut out from the public educational system? Countries like Canada, Australia & New Zealand can hardly be characterized as "right-wing" or "fascist" societies and yet they have a voucher system where parents have the choice to enrol their children in an accredited church-run private school. But here in America, the left has succeeded in totally shutting out religion from the public school system. Another attack on the family was the women's lib movement. Didn't women' lib promote the belief that women don't need men in any way, shape or form? That men are the "enemy"? The left is out to destroy our society. We should recognize this and do our best to stop them.
Post by: RevDisk on June 19, 2008, 06:40:32 PM
Quote
Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores.
I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ... that sounds like my kind of culture and society. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.
I've been deployed with females. Including one young lady that was hell on wheels with a M82A1. I trusted her to have my back and I was never let down, not once. Some women I served with were basically worthless. Some were worth their weight in gold. While you sneer ar liberty and equality, that is the basis of this country. Perfect, it ain't. We took a long time to get some things right.
The 'false religions' of individual liberty and equal rights are religions a lot of folks have died for and killed for. It isn't going away. A theocracy of the likes you describe sounds like a rather foreign and horrid place to me. Tho, I would pay serious money to hear you preach at some of the young ladies I know. I know I'm going to be laughing if Lady Smith swings by this thread.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 19, 2008, 10:45:53 PM
Quote
. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, t
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
Post by: Hugh Damright on June 20, 2008, 05:40:47 AM
Quote
Don't want men marrying men? Don't marry a man. Simple.
That's beyond simple. Obviously I'm not going to marry a man, but how does that stop the practice? Virginians have amended our Constitution to say that there will be no homosexual marriage or union in Virginia. Simple. Now we need a US amendment. Simple.
Quote
Pity you hate the world we live in. I love it.
What?? I don't think that we should have women in combat and men marrying men, and you conclude that I hate the world we live in? It seems to me that the people who hate the world are the ones who are trying to tear it down and give us women in combat and men marrying men.
Quote
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Maybe I need to explain to you what that means. It was a denouncement of monarchy and the idea that a King is born to rule over the people. The meaning is that a King is not born to rule, and that sovereignty resides in the body of people and not in an individual or small body of men. It was not a declaration of gender equality, race equality, or a declaration that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Not even close. And it does not say that we are endowed by our Creator with a right to bugger other men. You are way, way off.
The Declaration that you struggle with is a frame of free government: all men being equal, sovereignty resides in the body of people; but there are limits to this sovereignty because a free government is not absolute.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 05:51:12 AM
Quote
Now we need a US amendment. Simple.
Elaborate on this. What possible interest of yours does it serve to prohibit John and Sammy in California from marrying each other when you live in Virginia?
Quote
It seems to me that the people who hate the world are the ones who are trying to tear it down and give us women in combat and men marrying men.
Women had fought in virtually every conflict since the beginning of the world to some extent or another. It's very clear the Old Testament, at the very least, has no problem with it I give you Deborah and Ya'el.
Quote
And it does not say that we are endowed by our Creator with a right to bugger other men
No. However it does list that the purpose of the government is to keep me free. Not to make me a better person. Not to equalize my income with that of Joe Idiot. Not to make me comply with your religion. But to keep me free.
Post by: Hugh Damright on June 20, 2008, 06:24:58 AM
Quote
What possible interest of yours does it serve to prohibit John and Sammy in California from marrying each other when you live in Virginia?
Because, as you and I both know, that will not be the end of it. John and Sammy will come to Virginia and try to get the SCOTUS to make Virginia recognize their marriage. It will never end until all the States have similar institutions of marriage. In the end, either every State will have to allow/recognize homosexual marriage, or every State will have to disallow and not recognize homoexual marriage.
Quote
Women had fought in virtually every conflict since the beginning of the world to some extent or another. It's very clear the Old Testament, at the very least, has no problem with it I give you Deborah and Ya'el.
So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.
Quote
it does list that the purpose of the government is to keep me free. Not to make me a better person. Not to equalize my income with that of Joe Idiot. Not to make me comply with your religion. But to keep me free.
And now you're asserting that the purpose of government is to protect your right to buggery? This is starting to sound like Lawrence v Texas ... about how the 14th, when it says that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, really means that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty in any manner.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 06:31:55 AM
Quote
Because, as you and I both know, that will not be the end of it. John and Sammy will come to Virginia and try to get the SCOTUS to make Virginia recognize their marriage. It will never end until all the States have similar institutions of marriage. In the end, either every State will have to allow/recognize homosexual marriage, or every State will have to disallow and not recognize homoexual marriage.
This applies to all laws. Why not abolish the Federal structure then?
Quote
So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.
Put them into combat? I didn't say anything about putting women into combat. It's not like the U.S. Army rips young Melissa from the hands of her loving family and forcibly sends her to an unknown warzone.
Would you say that all men qualify to be in combat? Or is it an individual quality?
What we should have is individual health, IQ, and sanity tests, uniform for all applicants. If a woman is physically fit to do the 60-kilometer forced marches that are required to graduate into Israel's Golani Brigade, and has the good reflexes to defeat a terrorist in close combat, or to pilot an F-16, I see no good reason why she should be denied.
Quote
And now you're asserting that the purpose of government is to protect your right to buggery? This is starting to sound like Lawrence v Texas ... about how the 14th, when it says that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, really means that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty in any manner.
So you think that the State has the legitimate power to imprison people for anal sex? What about oral sex?
Post by: Hugh Damright on June 20, 2008, 07:08:28 AM
Quote
This applies to all laws. Why not abolish the Federal structure then?
I don't follow ... yes it isn't just the institution of marriage but rather there is a general tendency to do away with distinctions between the States, to consolidate them into one sovereignty ...but that is not a reason to do away with the federal structure but rather a reason to return to the federal structure ... in the meanwhile, since it is given that the feds are out of control, perhaps an amendment to define marriage in the US to be between a man and a woman would be enough to stop the SCOTUS from ruling otherwise.
Quote
If a woman is physically fit ...I see no good reason why she should be denied.
My point was that the Declaration's "all men are created equal" was not intended to say that we should have women in combat and men marrying men. Nor was the Bible intended to say such a thing. You can believe that children should be in combat if you fancy, but don't tell me that the Declaration and the Bible support such a thing.
Quote
So you think that the State has the legitimate power to imprison people for anal sex? What about oral sex?
I don't see why not ... or is it your assertion that sodomy laws violate some clause of the US Constitution, as if the federal government has jurisdiction over sexual acts? I reckon Virginia has the same right to pass sodomy laws as Iraq or France or any other sovereignty. I think it is beyond absurd for the SCOTUS to say that the 14th's "due process" clause makes State sodomy laws unconstitutional. It is crap like that which makes me think we need a marriage amendment.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 07:15:39 AM
Quote
..but that is not a reason to do away with the federal structure but rather a reason to return to the federal structure
So tell me. If you think that the law of marriage should uniformly prohibit gay marriage everywhere, why not amend the constitution to ban gay sex? After all, if you think you in Virginia can ban Sammy and Joe from having sex, wouldn't California allowing it be a threat to your 'lifestyle' in Virgnia?
Quote
Nor was the Bible intended to say such a thing.
If the author of the Bible (whoever he is) opposed women in combat, he wouldn't have had Deborah lead the Jewish armies to glorious victory, would he?
Quote
I reckon Virginia has the same right to pass sodomy laws as Iraq or France or any other sovereignty.
So you think it's okay for a state to pass a law to prosecute a person because he performs an act of anal sex? What about oral sex? Is it okay to pass a law to prosecute me if I perform oral sex on a woman?
Post by: Manedwolf on June 20, 2008, 07:16:46 AM
So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.
There is a difference between "putting" and "allowing if they are qualified". I've met women who are stronger than some men, I've met some who are excellent shots with large caliber weaponry. Are you saying that if they meet or exceed all qualifications and volunteer for combat, they shouldn't be allowed, even if they have higher qualifications than a man next to them?
I don't understand that, myself.
I've got a picture somewhere of recent Indian village defense forces practice. There was a grandmotherly type holding a 303 Lee-Enfield like she damn well knew how to use it, and probably had her entire life. I think any jihadist sneaking out of Pakistan would have an unpleasant surprise if he tried to bother her home.
Post by: MicroBalrog on June 20, 2008, 07:19:10 AM
Quote
I've got a picture somewhere of recent Indian village defense forces practice. There was a grandmotherly type holding a 303 Lee-Enfield like she damn well knew how to use it, and probably had her entire life. I think any jihadist sneaking out of Pakistan would have an unpleasant surprise if he tried to bother her home.
I served in the Army under several female officers. I see no reason to say they were worse than the men.
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 20, 2008, 07:45:45 AM
My point was that the Declaration's "all men are created equal" was not intended to say that we should have women in combat and men marrying men. Nor was the Bible intended to say such a thing. You can believe that children should be in combat if you fancy, but don't tell me that the Declaration and the Bible support such a thing.
Wow, Hugh, you know exactly what the writer of the Bible intended? Would you sign my copy please? I'd love to have a copy signed by the author.
Like Micro pointed out, the OT clearly has no problem with women in combat. But OT does prohibit men laying down with men. It doesn't prohibit women laying down with women, nor does it prohibit anal sex. It does prohibit mixing crops in your field or harnessing different animals together. Come to think of it, it's pretty nonsensical. That's why religions based on the Bible have long traditions of which laws they follow and how they follow them.
Heck, the Jews have an "oral tradition" that's devoted so much time and energy to biblical interpretation for the past three thousand years or so that their body of law makes the US Code look like the McGuffey Reader. The Catholic church has been determining to what extent the moral laws of the OT reflect Christian standards of behavior for only about two thousand years, and we've got a pretty impressive body of canon law. I know less about various Protestant approaches to law, although it seems to me that an awful lot of groups like to convince themselves that they "follow scripture." That, to me, is laughable, since scripture without interpretation is somewhere on the spectrum of truly bizarre to merely pointless.
So, you want to talk about what the bible intends and why it should be the law of the land? No freaking way. I've lived according to the law of the bible my whole life. Except for that my life changed in nearly every respect in the middle of that. It's all in the interpretation. And I don't intend to ever live by your interpretation. So, I don't care what you think the Bible says about gay people and women in combat. I care what I and my church think the Bible says about gay people and women in combat. And I live accordingly.
To put it even more simply: There is no such thing as judeo-christian values. Anyone who says there is is utterly clueless about the diversity of Judaism and Christianity. You'd think that in a nation that has spawned more Christian sects than congress has stupid laws, we'd realize that demanding a "Christian culture" is so illusory a goal as to be laughable.
Post by: Nitrogen on June 20, 2008, 08:36:14 AM
Quote
What possible interest of yours does it serve to prohibit John and Sammy in California from marrying each other when you live in Virginia?
Because, as you and I both know, that will not be the end of it. John and Sammy will come to Virginia and try to get the SCOTUS to make Virginia recognize their marriage. It will never end until all the States have similar institutions of marriage. In the end, either every State will have to allow/recognize homosexual marriage, or every State will have to disallow and not recognize homoexual marriage.
Good. As it should be. Disallowing blacks and whites from marrying was just as wrong. Ending of segregation took similar action, and was morally and ethically correct, as would this.
Quote
Quote
Women had fought in virtually every conflict since the beginning of the world to some extent or another. It's very clear the Old Testament, at the very least, has no problem with it I give you Deborah and Ya'el.
So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.
Quote
it does list that the purpose of the government is to keep me free. Not to make me a better person. Not to equalize my income with that of Joe Idiot. Not to make me comply with your religion. But to keep me free.
Quote
And now you're asserting that the purpose of government is to protect your right to buggery? This is starting to sound like Lawrence v Texas ... about how the 14th, when it says that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, really means that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty in any manner.
Yes, precisely. The government should protect anyone's right to buggery. There's nothing wrong with it if it's between two consenting adults.
Banning things you don't like is wrong. The Brady campain makes the SAME argument when it wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban guns. It's just as wrong as anyone's arguments to repeal the first amendment "for our own good"
Post by: Firethorn on June 20, 2008, 09:43:01 AM
Banning things you don't like is wrong. The Brady campain makes the SAME argument when it wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban guns. It's just as wrong as anyone's arguments to repeal the first amendment "for our own good"
On that note, I'd like to point out the disaster that was the last time we passed a constitutional ammendment banning something...
On the same note, in a society with a ~40% divorce rate, how does gay marriage or civil unions harm the institution?
On adoption, child rearing and such, I'd rather a child be raised by a dedicated couple, whether that be a man and a woman or otherwise, than a single parent - even if that parent is straight. Definitely better than a fighting or abusive set of parents. Meth, dope, alcohol addicts. The list goes on.
I'd hope, at least, that the adoptive parents would be as understanding of their child(adopted or otherwise)'s orientation as they'd hope their families were of theirs.
I say let them do what they want, as long as they're consenting adults. Even adopt children, provided they can meet othe rest of the requirements of not having a screwed up home.
Honestly enough, the percentage of gays is low enough for it to be, ultimately a null issue. I'd rather concentrate on balancing the budget, reducing waste, etc...
Post by: Nitrogen on June 20, 2008, 10:07:57 AM
Honestly enough, the percentage of gays is low enough for it to be, ultimately a null issue. I'd rather concentrate on balancing the budget, reducing waste, etc...
This is the right answer for everyone, right here. Spending so much time and effort on less than 5% of the population is stupid. Some think it's as much as 10%, that's still stupid.
numbers I found:
Kinsey-NORC 1970 8.2% M, 4.3% F after age 15
FRI-Dallas 1984 10.7% M, 7.4% F after age 12
NCHS 1988-91 ² 3.5% M since 1977 (over 50,000 respondents)
GSS 1989 < 6.3% M after age 17
RTI-Dallas 1989 7.6% M, 2.7% F since 1978
GSS 1990 4.8% M after age 17
Billy/Guttmacher 1993 2.3% M in last 10 years
Post by: Firethorn on June 20, 2008, 10:12:17 AM
This is the right answer for everyone, right here. Spending so much time and effort on less than 5% of the population is stupid. Some think it's as much as 10%, that's still stupid.
I wonder about those studies a bit; especially the higher percentage ones, do they include bi's as homosexuals? Did they perform the study in a city like SanFran? I ask because I figure the percentage of gays is much higher there due to the favorable conditions resulting in more moving there.