1

That's certainly one issue. Potentially a more explosive one will be the attack on statutory rape laws and the like which presume a lack of consent if someone is under a certain age. If a 30 year old guy and a 16 year old boy want to head off and get married, will the SF mayor issue the license? Betcha he will . . .

2

I don't see what you think the problem is - or, I see it, but keep wanting to think you're not just arguing for discrimination plain and simple.

The young age-of-consent laws were generally passed to allow shotgun weddings for teenagers who got pregnant (hence the younger ages for females, in many cases), and to provide a legal out for adults who took advantage of teenagers. Since gay sex was illegal across the board,your complaint, if you have one, is with heterosexual perverts and bluenoses. The laws were written for their benefit, not gays'. And if you think 12 is too young to get married, you might want to re-think mandatory marriage as a general strategy (George Bush and Maggie Gallagher are waiting to take your calls).

But you complain only that these laws might also apply to gay couples. You've never said a word about age-of-consent laws until now. (It's 13 for girls in your state, by the way - with parental and judge's consent, 14 with parent or judge's consent only. Your kid could be married in less than two years if you agree, three if you don't - but of course it's some gay kid you're worried about.) You seem to think it's horrifying that gay teens might get married, but say nothing about straight teens. That's nothing but prejudice.

As for 18 year olds - of course they can get married. They have always been able to. They're legal adults, free to make contracts, join the military, vote, get married, and do virtually any "adult" activity except purchase alcohol. But, again, it's only gay adult teens that you're worried about. Straight 18-year-old couples could easily have gotten married in any city in the nation - but you're worked up about the hypothetical possibility that one couple might have done so in San Francisco. This obviously has nothing to do with marriage laws themselves; you just can't stand the thought of gays doing things you have no objection to, or at least gave no evident thought to, in the case of heterosexuals. That, again, is prejudice.

You are now just reacting to any aspect of the case you can think of. You make no pretense of a principled position or of applying the law equitably - you just dredge up any implication of gay marriage and, because gay marriage makes you feel icky, declare that that aspect of gay marriage also makes you feel icky even when you don't object to the very same thing for heterosexuals. "Gays can get married at 18!" "They can get married at 14!" "They can open joint checking accounts!" "They might have pets!"

Calm down. If you're not uptight about straight 18-year-olds getting married, you have no grounds to be upset about gay 18-year-olds. And if you think the marriage laws are too permissive, speak to the heterosexual lechers and reactionaries who wrote them - gays are innocent on that one.

3

Kevin,

And if you think the marriage laws are too permissive, speak to the heterosexual lechers and reactionaries who wrote them - gays are innocent on that one.

Personally, I think there is only one reason why a minor should be allowed to marry and that is because of either the underage girl is pregnant or the underage boy has impregnated an older woman. Neither case will apply to homosexuals so I can't see a reason to justify allowing them to marry so young. Can you?

4

Kevin,

I see it, but keep but keep wanting to think you're not just arguing for discrimination plain and simple.

This and your post is, of course, a straw man. Yes, Joe wants to discriminate; I want to discriminate, and you want to discriminate. All laws discriminate. The point of any law is to discriminate. The law discriminates against thieves, rapists, and murders. The law discriminates in favor of marriage, inventors, and writers. The law imposes punishment or gives benefits to people based upon behaviors that have been determined to benefit or harm society. For example, theft undermines productivity; copyrights encourage creativity, and marriage encourages people to be responsible for the children they create. Marriage is a benefit; otherwise why do the homosexuals want it? Therefore, marriage itself is discrimination and you are arguing for discrimination in favor of homosexual couples. Both you and Joe are arguing for different types of discrimination.

In general, discrimination is wrong when it is not based upon things the person can control, that is to say, when it is not founded in behavior. This is why discrimination against racial minorities is wrong. Second, there is a difference between discriminating against someone and for someone. Discrimination against something needs to be justified based upon the harm to society avoided, but discrimination for something needs to be justified based upon the benefit to society gained. The subtle difference is that the argument that homosexual marriage does not hurt anyone is specious. Granting writs of nobility will not hurt anyone either, but is the type of discrimination that is generally thought wrong. In order to make a logical argument for homosexual marriage, you need to address why giving the benefit of marriage to homosexuals would benefit society.

5

Kevin,
Okay, so we're arguing for discimination. So what?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a 13-year old getting married in Texas. If I were Texan, I would perhaps militate to change the law. I'm not in Texas, and so that's the business of Texans.

Here is Alabama, we would vote that homosexuals cannot marry. Here. You wanna get married, and you're gay? Move to Canada. Or Massachusetts. You have a 13-year-old daughter you want to marry off? Move to Texas. You don't want to pay income taxes in the state of Louisiana? Move to Pennsylvania--they won't make you.

What's wrong with that? We don't want homosexual marriages here. So they gotta move, if they want to be recognized as husband and . . . well, husband, I guess.

6

I have spilled some virtual ink analyzing Philip Jenkins's argument. On multiple grounds, I don't think that it has much real merit. However, as I wrote over at my own site, the most salient point is this:

. . . I am not so certain that the age of consent and the age at which persons may wed without parental or state permission coincides in the manner in which Jenkins suggests. For example, in Texas, the sexual age of consent is 17; however, with few exceptions (e.g., parental consent for a child of 14 years of age or older, court-granted permission) one must generally be 18 in order to obtain a marriage license. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 2.101-103; Tex. Pen. Code § 22.011(c)(1). If state law follows a similar pattern in the majority of other states, then the argument that Jenkins presents is a strawman altogether.

As you note, Mr. Carter, state law almost universally follows the same pattern in other states (i.e, the age at which one may autonmously wed is generally 18 years of age notwithstanding younger ages of consent for purposes of sexual relations). So gay marriage would in no way be revolutionary in the sense that Jenkins's is asserting. It's recognition would simply allow gays of marriageable age to do what their heterosexual teenage counterparts of comparable age may already do. I am quite sympathetic to the notion that granting gay marriage legal recognition as an institution may be rather more farreaching in its implications than has been considered. However, Jenkins's argument goes nowhere, because he misapprehends the relevant law.

Setting this legal misunderstanding aside, the empirical premises that underlie Jenkins's thesis are also rather dubious. I have briefly corresponded with Professor Jenkins, I and include my reasons for questioning his assumptions in an update that is appended to my original post. Whatever criticisms may be leveled at gay marriage on consequentialist grounds, Jenkins's case falls flat.

7

Joe: I think there is only one reason why a minor should be allowed to marry and that is because of either the underage girl is pregnant or the underage boy has impregnated an older woman. Neither case will apply to homosexuals so I can't see a reason to justify allowing them to marry so young. Can you?

First, it's perfectly possible that (female) candidates for gay marriage can get pregnant. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll want to marry the father of that baby. They may prefer to raise the child, if they have it, with their gay lover. The choice then is a one-parent family, a coerced heterosexual marriage, or a desired homosexual marriage. The latter is best.

But, that's not really the point. Although pregnancy is part of the justification for the young ages for marriage, the laws do not stipulate that the teen must be pregnant to take advantage of the loophole. If your concern is for pregnancy, you should be upset about the possibility of any non-pregnant teen marrying. Yet, as I point out, you raised this issue only in the context of gay marriages, and as an apparent argument against gay marriages tout court. You don't suggest a change in the law to prevent non-pregnant straight teens marrying, but you support laws prohibiting gay adults from marrying - and on the justification that gay teens might get married too. You're grasping at a pretty distantly-related straw to block an entire category of marriages, most of which have nothing to do with the statutes you cite, yet you still don't call for a change in the law to prevent the (straight) marriages you say you object to.

I honestly don't know what the best law on teen marriages might be. I agree that very young teens are probably not good candidates for marriage, but what the law should be is trickier. (Allowing marriages only for non-pregnant teens might encourage teen pregnancy as a way to get out of the house. Disallowing all young teen marriages might prevent young parents from raising their children together even if they want to. The best policy is often to find the best way to do something you wish people wouldn't do at all, which is why policy-making for difficult issues does not conform to the simplistic mindset of the "abstinence-only," "just say no" crowd.) At any rate, if you want to argue that the law should be the same for straights and gays, and also that some sort of change in the law is in order, then you would at least have a respectable argument. If you merely argue that you don't like the law for straights, so gays can't get married at all because they would then fall under the same law, what you have is prejudice.

JBP: This and your post is, of course, a straw man. Yes, Joe wants to discriminate; I want to discriminate, and you want to discriminate. All laws discriminate.

You missed the part about "discrimination plain and simple." I am not objecting to "discrimination" (in the sense of making distinctions), I am objecting to discrimination for its own sake (in the sense of indulging personal animus). As fallacies go, my post is not a straw person, but yours is an equivocation.

As for the grounds for discrimination, the argument about things you can change vs. things that are innate is a canard. We discriminate against many things people can't change (we quarantine infectious diseases, we test for intelligence and physical prowess, and so forth). On the other hand, we prohibit discrimination on the grounds of chosen behaviors in many instances (religious affiliation, inter-racial marriage, etc.).

The question is not whether the disapproved factor is innate or chosen, but whether it is something we are entitled - on some moral ground that has to be worked out in its own right - to discriminate against. The right argues that hating gays is A-OK because gays are bad. They then invent reasons to discriminate that sound rational but are clearly disingenuous: gays will undermine the "sanctity" of marriage (by . . . getting married); gays will not be monogamous (like straights are . . .?); gays will get married too young (because they are permitted to do so by laws written exclusively for . . . straights). The left simply holds that discrimination against gays serves no larger purpose than indulging in animosity against gays, and is therefore wrong. The increasingly-tortured justifications the right offers for that discrimination seem to make the point for us.

8

Wow. I'm sorry i didn't find this post earlier. This is just the tip of the iceberg Joe...

When gay marriage is legal, GLBT clubs will be required in every public school. The movement to push acceptance further and further until "gay dating" is as commonplace, normalized, and as much "a healthy part of growing up" as your daughter's first kiss.

Boy Scouts, traditional churches, and parents of principle will quickly suffer the withering intolerance that we've seen the movement use time and time again, until we are completely marginalized from society.

When your 15 year old son tells you he's going to elope to mexico city, to marry his 23 year old mentor - there will be nothing you can do to stop him.

And how dare you even try, you intolerant bigot!

yes, its the tip of the iceberg. I'll have much more to say on this topic, and a personal testimony, in the not so distant future...

For now, this is what you must know:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, you will soon be asked to make a difficult choice. Either to fight for our nation's children, or to fight those of us who will. You do not have to decide today, but you will have to decide."

9

Marty: GLBT clubs will be required in every public school

Boy Scouts . . . will quickly suffer . . . withering intolerance

your 15 year old son tells you he's going to elope to mexico city, to marry his 23 year old mentor - there will be nothing you can do to stop him.

Joe - you're a hair's breadth from sounding like this wingnut. Stop, Joe. Turn back before it's too late.

Joe: NAMBLA will use this as an opening to push their agenda.

OK - less than a hair's breadth.

Look - everybody just chill out about NAMBLA. They're the Michigan Militia of the gay-rights movement. Nobody takes them seriously, and they have zero political pull. I've actually seen NAMBLA contingents booed by the (huge, virtually 100% gay) crowd at Gay-Day parades. Of course they will make hay out of any easing of discrimination against gays. They've got two huge strikes against them: they favor the sexual freedom for gays that is currently authorized for straights, and they favor sexual relationships with children, which are currently authorized for nobody. If the first burden is lifted, it makes their job that much easier - but lifting the first burden in no way lightens the much greater second burden.

Look at it this way: age-of-consent laws will be lifted for straights sooner than, or at any rate no later than, they are lifted for gays (i.e., in no reasonably foreseeable future in either case). Nobody seems worried that adult men will soon be free to date 10-year-old girls, and you have much less reason to be worried that adult men will be free to date 10-year-old boys. As to whether making consenting adult gay sex legal might even move society a bit closer to making consenting man-boy sex legal, that's obviously not the case, for two reasons: first, the legal theories for the two cases are unrelated (equality for all adults has nothing to do with complete elimination of the "incompetent minor" doctrine), and, second, note that adult hetero sex has been legal forever (and socially accomodated for decades) with no movement at all toward legalizing hetero adult-child sex - and there are a lot more straights than gays, so if legal adult sex meant anything for legal child sex, we'd have seen it by now.

NAMBLA is the radical fringe of the gay-rights movement - and in some ways the "least-gay" part (most gays don't like them, and it's not the gay-sex part of their platform, but the child-sex part, that is most controversial). They have a right to say what they want, but they don't have a right to act out sexually with children. That's not going to change.

NAMBLA does play nicely into stereotypes of gays as child molesters. In that respect, they play the role for gays that Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell play for Christians. I'd like to see more Christians take the lead in repudiating those slime (and I'd like to see more gay groups take the lead in repudiating NAMBLA), but I'm willing to believe they don't represent the whole group. In anti-gay advocacy, however, it seems any stereotype, myth, or hysterical fear is good enough to tar an entire segment of society: "Teen marriages!" "Pre-teen marriages!" "Mandatory GLBT club meetings!"

Let's try to keep things in perspective.

10

Kevin

Look - everybody just chill out about NAMBLA. They're the Michigan Militia of the gay-rights movement. Nobody takes them seriously, and they have zero political pull.

They don't need any. They'll simply ride on the backs of SSM supporters.

Also, you might want to check out this post from Clayton Cramer at Volokh. I think that the aversion to NAMBLA probably isn't as strong as you might think.

11

From today's VigilanceMatters.com

I could accept this, if it were only about the children of gays and lesbians. It's not. It's about what they will insist MY children be taught, and YOUR children be taught -- that the barren homosexual lifestyle is just as good and valid and moral a CHOICE as fulfilling their instinctive duty to their family.

Any 14 year old boy who doesn't "fit in" at school will be vulnerable to the counselor, teacher, priest, or friend who will offer him a choice. To choose a life of sexual freedom, rejecting his instinctive duty to his family for a lifetime. Or to go on feeling like he doesn't fit in.

Lets call it Queer Pressure.

12

Kevin,

You missed the part about "discrimination plain and simple." I am not objecting to "discrimination" (in the sense of making distinctions), I am objecting to discrimination for its own sake (in the sense of indulging personal animus).

This is silly. No one wants to discriminate for the sake of discrimination. Conservatives do not hold secret meetings to determine who they should discriminate against. A lot of people, like myself, are against both sodomy laws and gay marriage. Therefore, your thesis, which seems to be that the only reason for disagreeing with you is that people are mean, is not true because many people support some homosexual issued but not others. If it was a matter of simple hate, then they would oppose all homosexual issues.

If these mean conspirators are discriminating to indulge personal animus, then are they not discriminating for a reason? Therefore, they are not discriminating "plain and simple," but for a purpose. In addition, your post confirms a suspicion that I have had for a while. My suspicion is that most gays do not care about gay marriage for the sake of marriage, but they care about gay marriage for the sense of affirmation that it will produce.

As for the grounds for discrimination, the argument about things you can change vs. things that are innate is a canard. We discriminate against many things people can't change (we quarantine infectious diseases, we test for intelligence and physical prowess, and so forth). On the other hand, we prohibit discrimination on the grounds of chosen behaviors in many instances (religious affiliation, inter-racial marriage, etc.).

Fundamentally, the law is concerned with behavior. Your examples show the weakness of your arguments: Quarantining infectious disease -- the point of this it to stop behavior that spreads diseases. Testing for intelligence -- I thought intelligence test to enjoy civil liberties are illegal, but what do I know, I am merely a mean conservative. Do you mean intelligence tests in college admission or government hiring? If so, then you are not really talking about law but policy. Private colleges and employers also test. If a private entity can legally perform the same functions, then such actions are fundamentally different from imprisoning murders. In other words, we are not really talking about the law. Interracial marriage -- without taking notice of the person's race, one cannot even know whether one is engaging in this behavior. Religious affiliation is of course a good example for your point. I acknowledge that I took a short cut for the sake of brevity, but the behavior/characteristic notion is a good proxy for the more complicated notion of causal relevance to behavior.

The right argues that hating gays is A-OK because gays are bad.

This is another straw man combined with an ad hominem. No one is arguing this. The funny thing is that, except for being a bit tautological, this is not really a bad argument form. Hating murderers is A-OK because murderers are bad. Hating rapists is A-OK because rapists are bad. Hating gay bashers is A-OK because gay basher are bad.

They then invent reasons to discriminate that sound rational but are clearly disingenuous: gays will undermine the "sanctity" of marriage (by . . . getting married);

Back to the conspiracy theories of mean people. Terrorists will undermine the military by joining the military. Spies will undermine the government by working for the government.

gays will not be monogamous (like straights are . . .?);

Would you argue that we should expand gun rights because some do not obey current gun laws? The fact that we are having a hard time getting people to obey a policy is not a good argument for bringing others under its scope. The more people who are under the scope of a policy that is not obeyed, the more people will not obey the policy. The more people who disobey a policy, the less legitimacy the policy will tend to have. The fact that marriage is not as strong as it ought to be and is concerned with how we raise children, is an argument for caution.

If you wish to call someone a liar, then you should actually demonstrate that they lied lie not find cleverly specious ways to phrase things.

The left simply holds that discrimination against gays serves no larger purpose than indulging in animosity against gays, and is therefore wrong.

If this is factually wrong, then does the argument for gay marriage fail?

I think you are demonstrating the old axiom that the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. You have argued logically and intelligently in many a post, but here you seem to be reduced to calling people who have legitimate concerns mean. Maybe these people are wrong, but that does not mean that they are out to get you.

13

Kevin,

You missed the part about "discrimination plain and simple." I am not objecting to "discrimination" (in the sense of making distinctions), I am objecting to discrimination for its own sake (in the sense of indulging personal animus).

This is silly. No one wants to discriminate for the sake of discrimination. Conservatives do not hold secret meetings to determine who they should discriminate against. A lot of people, like myself, are against both sodomy laws and gay marriage. Therefore, your thesis, which seems to be that the only reason for disagreeing with you is that people are mean, is not true because many people support some homosexual issued but not others. If it was a matter of simple hate, then they would oppose all homosexual issues.

If these mean conspirators are discriminating to indulge personal animus, then are they not discriminating for a reason? Therefore, they are not discriminating "plain and simple," but for a purpose. In addition, your post confirms a suspicion that I have had for a while. My suspicion is that most gays do not care about gay marriage for the sake of marriage, but they care about gay marriage for the sense of affirmation that it will produce.

As for the grounds for discrimination, the argument about things you can change vs. things that are innate is a canard. We discriminate against many things people can't change (we quarantine infectious diseases, we test for intelligence and physical prowess, and so forth). On the other hand, we prohibit discrimination on the grounds of chosen behaviors in many instances (religious affiliation, inter-racial marriage, etc.).

Fundamentally, the law is concerned with behavior. Your examples show the weakness of your arguments: Quarantining infectious disease -- the point of this it to stop behavior that spreads diseases. Testing for intelligence -- I thought intelligence test to enjoy civil liberties are illegal, but what do I know, I am merely a mean conservative. Do you mean intelligence tests in college admission or government hiring? If so, then you are not really talking about law but policy. Private colleges and employers also test. If a private entity can legally perform the same functions, then such actions are fundamentally different from imprisoning murders. In other words, we are not really talking about the law. Interracial marriage -- without taking notice of the person's race, one cannot even know whether one is engaging in this behavior. Religious affiliation is of course a good example for your point. I acknowledge that I took a short cut for the sake of brevity, but the behavior/characteristic notion is a good proxy for the more complicated notion of causal relevance to behavior.

The right argues that hating gays is A-OK because gays are bad.

This is another straw man combined with an ad hominem. No one is arguing this. The funny thing is that, except for being a bit tautological, this is not really a bad argument form. Hating murderers is A-OK because murderers are bad. Hating rapists is A-OK because rapists are bad. Hating gay bashers is A-OK because gay basher are bad.

They then invent reasons to discriminate that sound rational but are clearly disingenuous: gays will undermine the "sanctity" of marriage (by . . . getting married);

Back to the conspiracy theories of mean people. Terrorists will undermine the military by joining the military. Spies will undermine the government by working for the government.

gays will not be monogamous (like straights are . . .?);

Would you argue that we should expand gun rights because some do not obey current gun laws? The fact that we are having a hard time getting people to obey a policy is not a good argument for bringing others under its scope. The more people who are under the scope of a policy that is not obeyed, the more people will not obey the policy. The more people who disobey a policy, the less legitimacy the policy will tend to have. The fact that marriage is not as strong as it ought to be and is concerned with how we raise children, is an argument for caution.

If you wish to call someone a liar, then you should actually demonstrate that they lied lie not find cleverly specious ways to phrase things.

The left simply holds that discrimination against gays serves no larger purpose than indulging in animosity against gays, and is therefore wrong.

If this is factually wrong, then does the argument for gay marriage fail?

I think you are demonstrating the old axiom that the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. You have argued logically and intelligently in many a post, but here you seem to be reduced to calling people who have legitimate concerns mean. Maybe these people are wrong, but that does not mean that they are out to get you.

14

OK - YOu've got me scratching my head ?? :))

In my fruitless quest to engage the anti-gay fundamentalists I followed a link to this blog
and read this topic - and what I see here is a
gap in perception so wide that I really am having
trouble understanding the subject under discussion.

Do you people really think that when we have
"gay marriage" that allowing 18 yr olds to marry is an "unitended consequence" ??

That somehow Mayor Newsom should REFUSE to marry
18 yr olds who are gay, but not 18 yr olds who are straght ??

Tell me - I really can't understand what thought process
shold lead to such assumptions ??

15

NEVER MIND :))

I went back and read Jenkins original "editorial".

He wasn't really attempting any kind of cogent
argument ( professor of "history and religion"),
he was just trying another variation of the
"gay = pedophile" meme.

Been thru that one already :))