<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Conservative Legal Giant Moves Sex-Sex Marriage Forward</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/a-conservative-legal-giant-moves-sex-sex-marriage-forward/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/a-conservative-legal-giant-moves-sex-sex-marriage-forward/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BillT</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/a-conservative-legal-giant-moves-sex-sex-marriage-forward/#comment-12667</link>
		<dc:creator>BillT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=8068#comment-12667</guid>
		<description>I would agree that one thing Chris Matthews failed to take Mr. Olsen to task on was when Olsen said that marriage had been defined as a basic right by the SCOTUS fourteen times.  He failed to ask him what was both implicity and explicitly meant by marriage in those cases.  It was, of course, traditional marriage.  Whether you are selling your house to one person or another, you are still selling a house.  By changing the sexes of those being married you are changing the fundemental definition of the term.  And if changing participants doesn&#039;t change the definition, as this decision suggests, would human/animal couples be able to be married or brother/sister or mother/daughter.  Hard to see how you can say no to any one or thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would agree that one thing Chris Matthews failed to take Mr. Olsen to task on was when Olsen said that marriage had been defined as a basic right by the SCOTUS fourteen times.  He failed to ask him what was both implicity and explicitly meant by marriage in those cases.  It was, of course, traditional marriage.  Whether you are selling your house to one person or another, you are still selling a house.  By changing the sexes of those being married you are changing the fundemental definition of the term.  And if changing participants doesn&#8217;t change the definition, as this decision suggests, would human/animal couples be able to be married or brother/sister or mother/daughter.  Hard to see how you can say no to any one or thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Orthodoxdj</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/a-conservative-legal-giant-moves-sex-sex-marriage-forward/#comment-12656</link>
		<dc:creator>Orthodoxdj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:49:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=8068#comment-12656</guid>
		<description>The fundamental issue-legally speaking-should be whether or not the word &quot;marriage&quot; is definable. If it is, then what is the definition? How do we know? Who decides? 

Do gays have the right to marry? Yes. They do not have the right to call something other than marriage, marriage. Reality cannot be conformed to individual whims. I do not have the right to marry my dad. I do not have the right to be legally considered something other than a human being. Politics cannot mandate that triangles are actually squares while maintaining the definition of both.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fundamental issue-legally speaking-should be whether or not the word &#8220;marriage&#8221; is definable. If it is, then what is the definition? How do we know? Who decides? </p>
<p>Do gays have the right to marry? Yes. They do not have the right to call something other than marriage, marriage. Reality cannot be conformed to individual whims. I do not have the right to marry my dad. I do not have the right to be legally considered something other than a human being. Politics cannot mandate that triangles are actually squares while maintaining the definition of both.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pentamom</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/a-conservative-legal-giant-moves-sex-sex-marriage-forward/#comment-12632</link>
		<dc:creator>pentamom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=8068#comment-12632</guid>
		<description>The problem with &quot;same sex marriage does not affect marriage&quot; is the same real world problem of Plessy v. Ferguson. If, in the real world, separate facilities could or generally would be genuinely equal, there might not be a problem with them. However, in the actual, real, extra-syllogical world, that does not happen.

Same thing here: if same sex marriage could ever be like marriage in such a way that privileging it would not undermine actual marriage, you might possibly be able to make the argument that they can and should be held equal. But humans being what they are, that will never be, even if it is not strictly true that it &quot;must&quot; be so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with &#8220;same sex marriage does not affect marriage&#8221; is the same real world problem of Plessy v. Ferguson. If, in the real world, separate facilities could or generally would be genuinely equal, there might not be a problem with them. However, in the actual, real, extra-syllogical world, that does not happen.</p>
<p>Same thing here: if same sex marriage could ever be like marriage in such a way that privileging it would not undermine actual marriage, you might possibly be able to make the argument that they can and should be held equal. But humans being what they are, that will never be, even if it is not strictly true that it &#8220;must&#8221; be so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BillT</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/a-conservative-legal-giant-moves-sex-sex-marriage-forward/#comment-12626</link>
		<dc:creator>BillT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=8068#comment-12626</guid>
		<description>Roger,
I think what would be said in response to your first point (and I am not an advocate of same sex marriage) is that the granting of marriage privilages to same sex couples does not effect the rights of those seeking traditional marriages.  Mr. Olsen alluded to this briefly.  The granting of equal rights to same sex marriages needs to be neutral in its effect on other marriage rights.  Thus its protection under an equal rights orientation.  If same sex marraige did effect the rights of those seeking traditional marriages then the legal calculus would be different and possibly the decision as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Roger,<br />
I think what would be said in response to your first point (and I am not an advocate of same sex marriage) is that the granting of marriage privilages to same sex couples does not effect the rights of those seeking traditional marriages.  Mr. Olsen alluded to this briefly.  The granting of equal rights to same sex marriages needs to be neutral in its effect on other marriage rights.  Thus its protection under an equal rights orientation.  If same sex marraige did effect the rights of those seeking traditional marriages then the legal calculus would be different and possibly the decision as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger C.</title>
		<link>http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/a-conservative-legal-giant-moves-sex-sex-marriage-forward/#comment-12625</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=8068#comment-12625</guid>
		<description>Here are my thoughts on an argument for traditional marriage.  I&#039;m not sure that this qualifies as legal, but it&#039;s certainly an argument for it. 

Traditional marriage should be privileged over other arrangements because it is the only type of family formation that both can produce children and provide partners for the most people.

It&#039;s obvious that you need at least one man and one woman to produce children.  The second part relies on the fact that the vast majority of polygamous societies practice polygyny, or one-husband-many-wives.  Since the birth rates of boys and girls are roughly equal in the natural state, polygyny produces a society with surplus men, who will not have a reason to channel their masculine aggressiveness into providing for a family.  It will tend to result in chaos, either internally, costing the state in stability or crime, or will be harnessed by the state and used against its neighbors in the form of a military.

Since the state or civilization should want to continue, it should obviously encourage reproduction.  Since the state or civilization should want to be stable and get along with its neighbors, it should promote internal stability.  Traditional marriage is the only form of family formation that satisfies both of these requirements, therefore it should be privileged by the state over other forms of family formation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here are my thoughts on an argument for traditional marriage.  I&#8217;m not sure that this qualifies as legal, but it&#8217;s certainly an argument for it. </p>
<p>Traditional marriage should be privileged over other arrangements because it is the only type of family formation that both can produce children and provide partners for the most people.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s obvious that you need at least one man and one woman to produce children.  The second part relies on the fact that the vast majority of polygamous societies practice polygyny, or one-husband-many-wives.  Since the birth rates of boys and girls are roughly equal in the natural state, polygyny produces a society with surplus men, who will not have a reason to channel their masculine aggressiveness into providing for a family.  It will tend to result in chaos, either internally, costing the state in stability or crime, or will be harnessed by the state and used against its neighbors in the form of a military.</p>
<p>Since the state or civilization should want to continue, it should obviously encourage reproduction.  Since the state or civilization should want to be stable and get along with its neighbors, it should promote internal stability.  Traditional marriage is the only form of family formation that satisfies both of these requirements, therefore it should be privileged by the state over other forms of family formation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
