Free time — wouldn’t that be nice? Actually, I invest my time in this debate because I am passionate about equality.
“A study from the Netherlands – the first country to legalize same-sex marriage – found the average length of these parings was two and a quarter years.”

You are on shaky ground here. Heterosexual marriage in this country hasn’t been all that successful, with a divorce rate of 50% or so. (The lowest divorce rate, incidentally, is in Massachusetts, the other state where same-sex marriage is legal.) If we allowed marriage based solely on its chance for long-term success, opposite-sex marriages probably wouldn’t be allowed either. Why not prohibit lower-income people from marrying, since their unions are far more likely to end in divorce than those of the more affluent?

“Marriage is society’s ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship. Homosexuals want that approval.”

No. We want equality. I have the approval of my family and friends. Equal treatment under the law is what I want from the state.

“researchers around the world have reported that homosexuals in “committed” relationships are more likely to engage in risky, unsanitary sexual practices than “single” gays.”

Cite your source, please.

“Homosexuals are more likely to abuse alcohol, become dependent on drugs and nicotine, suffer depression and attempt suicide.”

Gee, do you think that might possibly be linked to the fact that we have been beaten and killed, simply for being who we are? That we have been marginalized, our private behavior made — until a few years ago — illegal? That families are known to disown us, as Alan Keyes did to his daughter?

Extend marriage equality and watch the emotional well-being of homosexuals rise.

“Homosexuals have higher rates of domestic violence.”

Actually, recent research shows the opposite - gay couples tend to get along better and deal with disputes in a more healthy manner. It was written up in the June 10, 2008 issue of the New York Times.

“Children raised by lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. They are more sexually adventurous and less chaste.”

Again, cite your source. And even if it is true, that’s only a problem in terms of morality. And on a constitutional basis, your idea of what is moral is not allowed to trump MY idea of what is moral.

“Homosexual males are much more likely to abuse children sexually than heterosexual males.”

No. Most abuse is by heterosexual men. Besides, how would denying marriage equality prevent abuse? Both single and married men today engage in sexual abuse. Sad, but true. But no reason to deny equality.

“Bottom line: The hedge of protection that the state has put around traditional marriage is good public policy.”

You haven’t even come CLOSE to proving this.

“There are no compelling public policy reasons for allowing homosexual couples inside the hedge to erode those benefits.”

Yes, there are. Married couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, will still be agreeing to look after each other (so the state is less likely to have to), and to be responsible for each other’s debts, etc. Those are societal goods.

“Furthermore, there are no replicated scientific studies to support the myth that homosexuality is genetic and this “practice” is an immutable characteristic like race and gender.”

Completely wrong. Sexuality is as immutable as handedness. No one knows exactly what causes left-handedness, but the current scientific consensus is that it is a combination of genetic factors and the environment in utero. Interestingly, that is the same consensus on what causes sexuality.

Just like sexuality, a person CAN choose to use their non-dominant hand to write or throw a ball, but the results are usually as clumsy as a relationship between Rosie O’Donnell and Tom Cruise.

I await your reply.

Apparently you have more free time on your hands than I. My latest column, “The case against same-sex marriage” is an answer to many of your numerous posts. I would encourage you to go back and reread it. There are many, compelling, sound public policy reasons to encourage traditional marriage. It is a net benefit to society. There are no compelling reasons to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate your agenda.

To use one of your earlier arguments, There is nothing to prevent you from forming a legal partnership, having joint ownership of property or leaving an inheritance to any other human being or assuming responsibility for that person. Two males should be working and have their own Social Security benefits.

As far as the tax basis on your uncle’s property, a piece of property that has been in my family was reevaluated recently and the tax basis doubled. As a result, I will have to sell it if I can’t afford it. It’s sad, but a fact of life.

It’s not about equality? Why not? Isn’t that one of the foundations of this great country? That all men are created equal?

Instead, you say it’s about “sound public policy.” Which sound public policy is that? We’re not talking about people who aren’t willing to assume the responsibilities that go along with the rights of marriage, so I truly don’t see what is “sound” about denying people of the same gender who are willing to commit to care for each other (so the state is less likely to have to), to assume responsibility for each other to be able to do so in the same legal manner as opposite gender couples.

Your argument that “The government makes public policy decisions everyday that have nothing to do with fairness or equality” is a canard. If the government does not provide certain benefits to all groups, there is usually a solid reason. For veteran’s benefits (your example), you have to have served in the military. Interestingly enough, that option is available to all American citizens — except the gay ones.

What is the logical REASONING why gay Americans should be denied the right to marry? I have heard NONE. Not from you, not from any commentator. It all comes down to morality. You think it’s immoral behavior, I don’t. But because we both have the same right to believe what God wants in terms of this, your view of morality is not allowed to trump mine.

You say “there are children being raised in same-sex households but it represents a very small group.” First, children being raised in Inuit households or households led by two left-handed parents or Wiccan households also represent a very small group, yet we don’t deny the adults raising those children the fundamental right to civil marriage on those grounds.

Just because it’s a small group of gay families that are raising children, it’s OK to discriminate against them? I know you don’t believe that is true.

You may counter that being Inuit or left-handed or (perhaps) even Wiccan doesn’t adversely affect the environment in which children are raised. Yet somehow, being homosexual does. First, point me to your “preponderance of studies.” All that I have read seems to say there is no significant difference in the emotional, mental and physical well-being of children raised by same-sex couples. They probably feel a bit odd and different, but so do kids of interracial couples. We get over those things.

More important, this law isn’t about raising children. It’s about marriage. Marriage often leads to children, but not always. We don’t expect all married couples to procreate. If so, why would the state allow post-menopausal women or men who have had a vasectomy to marry?

On top of that, denying marriage equality is not going to stop same-sex couples from having and raising children. All it’s going to do is deny the children within those families the advantages of stability that come from civil marriage.

I’m not trying to badger you, Ms. Chastain. You seem like a bright enough woman, and I want to understand the logic behind your position, but I can’t seem to find any. Extending marriage equality will only INCREASE the overall stability of our society. Equality has a way of doing that.

Let me close by telling you a true story. I had an uncle-in-law who was in a same-sex relationship for over 35 years. The two men did all they could legally to formalize their relationship. But when my uncle-in-law died of lung cancer, his surviving partner did not receive Social Security survivor benefits. On top of that, because of estate law, he had to pay additional taxes on his inheritance, and the tax basis on the home they owned together changed and the taxes increased substantially.

Because of this, the surviving partner could no longer afford to remain in the home they had shared for three decades.

If they had been able to be married, none of this would have happened. But that option was not open to them, and he suffered terrible consequences because of it.

Tell me, Ms. Chastain, does that seem fair to you? Does it seem like “sound public policy?” Does it seem like what we want to aspire to as Americans?

I look forward to your answer.

Respectfully yours,
Mistereks

The answer should be obvious: This is not about equality. It is about sound public policy. The government makes public policy decisions everyday that have nothing to do with fairness or equality. I may want the health care or educational benefits available to veterans but I don’t qualify. I may want free food and housing but I don’t qualify for those programs set up by law. I may want the same tax write offs for my business as the business next door, but I don’t qualify.

When the government makes a decision that effects the public largesse it must be based on sound pubic policy.

Yes, there are children being raised in same-sex households but it represents a very small group. In public policy decisions “hard cases make bad law.” You simply cannot carve out an exception for everyone. Also, a preponderance of studies show that this is not the best environment in which to raise productive citizens for the future. However, there are benefits that flow to poor children that do not depend on the marital status of their parent or parents.

I see you’ve posted another column on World Net Daily, but you have yet — nearly ten days after you promised to do so — answer the questions I raised to you.

Just to save you the scrolling, following is the post I wrote responding to your response to my original question, which was, “how will allowing same-sex unions prevent any heterosexual couple from marrying and therefore providing a more stable environment in which to raise children?”

Your responses are in quotes, mine are not.
—

“The answer is simple: It would not prevent heterosexuals couples from marrying but it, in effect, takes away the benefits of marriage.”

No — it would EXTEND the benefits of marriage to a group of people who are currently denied the right to marry. In California, domestic partnership is almost identical, but it’s still not equal.

“A married couple is given certain tax breaks and other benefits. If the same tax breaks are given to everyone than — for all practical purposes — the tax break does not exists.”

Yes, it continues to exist. It’s still a tax break for married people. Single people don’t qualify. It supports and rewards the formation of more stable human partnerships, something gay people — and the society we live in — benefit from.

“Also, the state gives certain benefits to its employees, such as health insurance, to spouses. The state has a budget and these benefits must be paid for in the form of higher taxes.”

If I’m getting you right, it’s OK to discriminate — if it’s expensive. Or is that it’s OK to discriminate if it means YOU get more of the pie?

“When you treat same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples than EVERYONE must be taxed more in order to pay for those benefits. Therefore, you have heterosexual couples with children subsidizing same-sex couples.”

There are gay families with children. More important, there are benefits for couples with children that most gay couples and childless straight couples wouldn’t qualify for. Equality has a cost. But its benefits far outweigh its price.

“It is the same thing with a private business that gives the same benefits to domestic partners as married couples. A state or company can pay its workers only so much for a given job. The employer divides this pay into wages and benefits. If the same benefits are given to everyone, the married couple ends up with less, because the pool of money available for benefits is reduced.”

But there is no reason to deny same-sex couples these rights — as long as the couple is willing to take on the responsibilities of marriage, as well.

That’s why the gentleman on O’Reilly was unable to come up with a rational reason — because there is none.

Equality has a cost. But the benefits far outweigh the price. —

It’s closing in on a week. I’m still waiting for some answers.

You raised so many questions and some are legitimate and deserve an answer. I had planned to answer them in another column this week. However, the death of Tim Russert presented a more immediate opportunity. Stay tunned, you will have my answer.

I see you are continuing to monitor the comments here — but still no response to my rebuttal of your response to my initial question.

I’m still waiting to hear a logical, rational reason (one that would be accepted in front of the SCOTUS, so no calls to morality, please) to deny marriage equality.

I assume from your silence that you have no such reason.