Ah, Jan, always the voice of reason, always a pleasure to read your thoughts.

Yes, evolution does not mandate monogamy. When battles killed off many of the men, it became necessary for one man to service many women to rebuild the population. Or as with kings, who were supposedly superior specimens, spreading their genes to as many offspring as possible, they had harems of hundreds of females.

Later developments of virginity and exclusivity may have had to do with eradicating sexually transmitted disease, and eventually assuring the handing down of property to one's own progeny. The selfish gene, after all, is primarily interested in its own kin.

As social structures grew more complex and controlled, reproduction became a central concern, including the protection of inheritance. The churches were the controlling authority in these relationships since it took belief in a superpower to enforce the rules. Thus social units, except among Mormons and Muslims, took on the form of one-couple marriage and the requirement of their remaining together to raise their children.

As society evolved into government welfare systems, the father/mother structure loosened, and households without fathers and pregnancy without marriage proliferated. Tax policies were set up to favor nuclear families. Non-traditional households developed when housing expenses skyrocketed, leading to roommates, extended families, group homes. When tax codes changed, friends of mine got divorced but continued living together because it was more favorable financially.

I can remember when motels would check for proof of marriage when males and females wanted to share a room. These were remnants of religious management of sin, and sex was, of course, a sin outside of marriage. The sexual revolution (thank you, Hugh Hefner) put most of that behind us.

That brings us to forming household units of any consenting combination of adults. And if it were not for archaic restrictions on inheritance and power of attorney, visitation rights, etc., there would never be a question of who could form permanent unions with anyone of their choice.

The state claims to have a vested interest in the welfare of their future taxpayers, so we get Child Protective Services that can step in and remove children from their parents, sometimes on the flimsiest of pretexts.

The state claims control over children from the moment of conception, and of adoptive parents' suitability. But reproduction is no longer dictated by a household unit of one male, one female. A Lesbian couple, friends of mine, managed to arrange for sperm donation from a checklist of qualities--health, longevity, intelligence, ethnic origin--and one of the women then gave birth to a great kid.

As long as the adults take responsibility for what they create, not relying on government subsidies, they should be free to build their lives any way they see fit, and with any partner(s) they choose. What I've noticed, though, is that humans tend to live by precedent, by tradition, and carry the same template forward, rejecting alterations to how things "have always been done". While there is some residual benefit in that--considering that practices evolved that best served the needs of survival--adapting to new conditions is likewise a survival trait. And quite outside of individual desires, I fancy that nature is increasing the number of gays to level off the population explosion.

Why do people want to have children, either their own or by adopting others'? That is a philosophical question, and my tentative explanation is that living things need a future, not just the present moment. Life's prime directive is... life. And in communal living, which humans have developed for mutual benefit, the macro structure itself, the society or community, takes on a life of its own and involves its individual members in cooperating to sustain it for their own benefit.

Hence the eternal tension between the collective and the individual, and their symbiotic interdependence. What makes humans unique among all the lifeforms on the planet is their consciousness, whether used volitionally or indoctrinated by custom. And for that independent consciousness, each individual must be assured of the freedom of self-directed choice, including freedom of association, as long as no one else is harmed. I conclude that government shall make no law establishing or forbidding the forms of private relationships of consenting adults.

(I do wish I could have said all this with your elegant terseness.)

johnpe1.... why not marry the oak tree? Aside from things like the tree being (probably) unable to sign the marriage license or say any religious OR secular 'vows,' the only issue is legal... Can your 'mate-tree' be named in your will? What rights do you have over your mate and your mate over you? How will courts adjudicate laws that might apply to your 'relationship' or individual 'legal rights'?
Is a chain saw a weapon of Murder or a legal means of 'divorce'?
I think many of those questions ARE answerable, although laws tend to follow cultural norms by a good distance.
:)

Do you promise to water, fertilize and prune your mate until death (or some horrible fungus) do you part?!

hear, hear! -- j

good angle;;; some will try it! -- j

isn't it just contract law? . the second State should
apply contract law to the gay marriage from another
State, imho. -- j

I agree, and I was just reading about a similar point in an economics article:

Contracts are made voluntarily between individuals or groups of individuals (corporations etc.). Governments role, via a court, should be to resolve a contract dispute, "after the fact" of the contract being made.

On the second issue, under a proper limited government, there should be no such thing or requirement of a government to decide on or issue such a thing as a "license", "before the fact", when any voluntary contract or even simple exchange of services or goods takes place. Based on what omniscience would such a "license" be defined and issued?

That did go a little beyond your point, but so many things that government does are so taken for granted, like "licenses", that it is important sometimes to point out those little taken for granted things....

Been on the road for a day...

No, it;s not worth a glance, because I would assume Justice Scalia would have glanced at it, as I did, in high school. If he meant to instruct someone outside of SCOTUS to have a peek, fine. I still believe Greek and Roman traditions have no place at the level of argument the Supreme Court should be.

As far as your unique, personal definition of conservatism, fine with me. I only disagree with the more accurate interpretation of: it as believing in something on no rational basis, but simply because others have believed it,and, gee, for a really long time.

I've always looked at this issue from a tax/economic position rather than a moral one. It seems I remember that one of the main reasons gays were fighting for marriage rights was to afford them the same tax advantages that heterosexual married couples have. For instance, if I die, my husband inherits everything I own with no tax penalty. However, if I were a widow and wanted to leave everything to my daughter, there would be inheritance taxes as a consequence. So, if gay marriage is legalized as an institution of government, why can't I marry my daughter so she can inherit my possessions without a tax liability; after all, she is my spouse, right? I don't mind that we live in separate homes and she has a boyfriend, I'm fine with that! I guess all I'm saying is that I reject the premise that this is about love and equal rights, and really about our unfair and messed up tax policy.

I am ok with this argument, if heterosexual couples (like mine) are offered precisely the same benefits as homosexual couples, or human-oak tree couples!

Right now I can cover my wife and children through my insurance, because (like all policies) it offers spousal coverage. If spouse means "partner" ok. otherwise this widespread feature has no meaning for either.

No issue at all...unless it is unconstitutional to limit insurers to cover anyone except a single individual, like it says in the constitution...wups...
...otherwise, the lack of spousal coverage of gay partners is discrimination.

The whole issue here is that marriage remains something beyond what it should be, a contract between two people. Because the church decided to step in and institutionalize marriage, it now goes well beyond this.

As tentoone says, the government should be out of marriage.

Marriage as it is today is mostly about government. By marrying you not only get different tax treatment, but also joint property (in some states), inheritance, the right to manage each other's affairs should one spouse become ill or mentally incompetent, and the right not to testify against one another.

Therefore, anyone who says that government should get out of the marriage business needs to tell us what should become of all those special statuses once government stops recognizing marriage. Should everybody get them? Should nobody get them? Should people be able to create or destroy them by contract? And so forth.

I believe that marriage should officially exist, but is a contract and the spouses get to set its terms. And change them by further contracts. And it should have no requirement of government approval and no tax consequences.

Jan, I always thought that one's private life was private. -- j

I agree that the conundrum does exist. The question I would ask and I think is the linchpin of the whole conversation: do individual religions have the right to act as the authority on what constitutes marriage or does the State supplant them? To me, the question hinges on the origination of rights - are they external to government and merely recognized by such, or are they a product of it? Where does the authority lie?

Not that I have any say in the matter, but Constitutionally, the only way I can see to iron out this mess without abrogating the First Amendment is one of the following:

Option #1: Marriages (even between same-sex couples, multiple partners, etc.) only need be accepted as far as their originating authority. The States would be obligated to recognize marriages performed by other States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but individuals and religious entities would be under no such obligation, nor would the States be under any obligation to recognize religious ceremonies. Any religion that wished its ceremonies to be recognized by the State would then have to negotiate with the State for such. Such will inevitably throw the entire legal and social system into chaos.

Option #2: Declare that the Constitution has no authority whatsoever to alter the establishment of marriage as anything EXCEPT the union of man and woman and that any other such pairing is legally void. Such will cause consternation among the gay community, but would otherwise be business as usual.

The other - and far more sinister - outcome is to declare that the Federal Government (by virtue of the Courts) holds the authority to re-define marriage. If this happens - and it very well may given the Obamacare rulings - the Federal Government would then become the _originator_ of rights rather than the protector of rights. That to me would be the worst possible outcome as it will be used as justification for tyranny.

Oh come on. You know Ginsberg and Kagen are beyond reproach. Nobody to hold their feet to the fire so they can and will do whatever they want.

But the bias is on both sides. It is a shame that they are all put there for an agenda, but I guess it's good that It's not all the same agenda.

An aggregate of individual impact, huh? The real world might generate real numbers but in politics? That's an opportunity for the results to support the desired outcome.

There are two questions to be answered by the Court. The Court ordered briefing on both questions. The second question is not getting all the publicity but it has been heavily briefed and was argued yesterday. That second question is what you call the State v. State issue highlighted in my last comment. It is not a "stretch" to say it should be decided by the federal courts. The Constitution states in Article IV sec. 1 that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given to each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." When one state violates this provision, as is now arguably the case, who is to resolve the issue if not the federal courts?

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.."
Can we start the rendering already and finish this stupid argument?

But how does one measure the impact on society? Only as an aggregate of individual impact.

My bigger question is not for Scalia, but for Ginsberg and Kagan, who by any reasonable means should have recused themselves from the case entirely - both having performed gay "wedding" ceremonies. Their bias is evident regardless which side one is on and in my book justifies impeachment.

It's already an ideological battle but it's a lot easier and more accurate to measure "harm", or even "right or wrong", for that matter, in terms of the individual. Skipping over the individual and going straight to "society" is intentional because it is impossible to prove or disprove but it infers that individuals will be affected without having to prove it. The rights of the individual mean nothing here but he doesn't want to get caught saying that. He is just passing the buck.

Government is involved in many contracts, to make
them enforceable, in case they are violated. That
is why they are notarized. But I believe that gov-
ernment declines to enforce some contracts be-
cause they are "contrary to public policy".

in my humble opinion, no government should have
anything to say about marriage. . it is a contract
between adults (uh-oh; how is it only adults?) of
the human species....... probably not between
groups, or other life forms. . . I just resent any of
these bureaucrats interfering with my marriage!!! -- j

They should read more history.

4th C BC: The Sacred Band of Thebes - formalized pairs of male lovers comprising the elite combat force of their day (ie defeated Spartans in battle with odds against them).

There are other examples, but this is probably the most notable from the Classical world.

We need to move on from 'should we allow this' to 'is it any of our business to intervene'

Jan

"If one man and one man or one woman and one woman has evolved our species in scientific terms please enlighten me."
Maybe having one gay person in the family had some selective advantage, perhaps watching their nieces and nephews or doing things in the boundaries between traditionally male and female roles. Such a trait could have been passed down by kin selection, with those with the recessive trait having more kids who go on to pass the trait.

I think this doesn't matter, though, because I don't see people's behavior responding to marriage laws that much. I would have married my wife regardless of the legal issues, and I suspect most people are the same.

waytodude - From observation of other primates, modern paleolithic humans, and early writing it does not seem that humans evolved in a 'one man one woman' mode of culture. Primates evidence homosexual relationships and multiple partners in various degrees and conformations, depending on their genus. Primitive cultures and ancient writings indicate that a male typically has 'as many wives as he can afford'. Monogamous/monandrous relationships are actually quite recent as a philosophic majority in our culture.

So I think that this type of relationship can be eliminated as a criterion for our past evolution. It is, however, notable that sexual dimorphism is decreasing in hominins over time; monogamy might be the path to the future, even if it was not important to our evolution.

Jan

While all true, it's a stretch to say that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to get involved. The Courts can intervene (and in fact hold original jurisdiction) in cases of State vs State issues, but the cases being presented to the Supreme Court at this time are about the penchant of individual Federal Judges to invalidate (and thereby force the opposite of) individual State's legal referendums and Constitutional Amendments. The questions before the court at this time haven't been centered on the State v State issue at all, but entirely upon that State's ability to pass their _own_ definitions of marriage.

Right or wrong inherently admits a disparity of results or "harm". The Supreme Court just couches their language in terms of "harm" because it is more politically correct and less subject to interpretation. One can measure "harm" in terms of disparate impact. It's much harder to measure "right" or "wrong" without getting into an ideological battle.

I've not read anywhere if someone has asked the question of how has our species evolved to do all that has been done in the human race without one man and one woman. If one man and one man or one woman and one woman has evolved our species in scientific terms please enlighten me. I'm not a hater please don't get me wrong what people do in private is up to them. My goal is to get my species to survive and grow in a world where A=A