We need corporate and public policies that are family friendly. Corporate policies need to address the stigma that so often attaches to use of flexible work arrangements. And the issue of work hours -- of overtime gone wild and of the need for quality reduced-hours jobs -- should be placed on the public policy agenda at both the state and national levels. Only when government and business work together to end the family-hostile climate in U.S. workplaces will Americans get what parents want -- and children need.

What is frustrating is when advocates like Tom Sylvester, Stanley Kurtz, and Maggie Gallagher assume, assume, assume that mixed-sex marriages are invigorated and sustained by the oppression of gays and lesbians.

Interestingly, if they are correct that mixed-sex marriage is really so Vampire-like that it can't exist without sucking the blood out of gays and lesbians, we should put a wooden stake in its heart, because it can't coexist with individual human dignity. Indeed, that's exactly what we did with another institution, black slavery, that similarly invigorated one class through the wholesale oppresion of another.

I prefer, however, to take a more charitable and realistic view of mixed-sex marriage's independent self-sustaining power. I choose not to indulge in baseless fantasies about the sky falling in Vermont, particularly when the hypothesis that it will fall is so pathetically weak. But, then, I think gays and lesbians are entitled to full and equal respect as human beings and I'm not searching for pretexts to oppress them. (Copyright 2003 Stephen Clark. This text may not be reproduced without the express consent of the author)

No, the distinction you want between bigot and honorable opponent of same-sex marriage is not as easy to draw as you'd like to comfort yourself by supposing it to be. The opponent of same-sex marriage who is truly respectful of gays and lesbians must actually address the real lives of actual gays and lesbians, acknowledge what his policy of denying secular marriage will mean to their lives, and justify it on its own merits, not by changing the subject to other issues in an attempt to flee from the concrete implications of what he is proposing. That kind of opponent of same-sex marriage is rare, and Kurtz certainly doesn't fit the bill. (Copyright 2003 Stephen Clark. This text may not be reproduced without the express consent of the author.)

[T]his issue has an inescapable element of tragedy about it�.rooted in the fact that two important needs are clashing here. On the one hand, we have the desire of gays for greater social recognition. On the other hand, we have the need to protect and support the vital and already greatly weakened institution of marriage. [Jonathan] Rauch says that if there is any reasonable possibility that the tragic trade-off is imaginary, the need to relieve the condition of gays obligates us to adopt same-sex marriage. But can we not say with equal or greater justice that if there is any reasonable prospect that the tragic trade-off is real, the need to protect marriage obligates us to reject so radical and dangerous a social experiment?

That approach (�you�re either with us or you hate gay people�) is effective in that it discourages people from openly expressing concerns about ssm. Nobody wants to be called nasty names. But that approach is seriously flawed, as it boils down to an accusation of bad faith.

I�m not as opposed to ssm as Clark thinks. I was just calling for an open, fair debate. Naturally, many ssm advocates are happy with current media coverage, which presents their opponents as little more than cranky old white guys holding �Homos Go To Hell!� signs.

Judging from many of the gays I�ve talked to or heard from, the demand for marriage is less strong than the demand for the tangible things they want: social security benefits, hospital visitation, health insurance etc. etc. I understand the argument that conceding these items would be giving gays an inch when their [sic] hell-bent on taking a mile. But I�m not at all sure it�s true that all that many of them want the mile. As we�ve learned from the presidencies of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, co-opting some of the agenda of the opposition more often takes the wind out of the sales [sic] of the opposition. Opponents of gay marriage want to concede nothing. I think that�s misguided on public policy grounds. And, in political terms it keeps the pro-gay marriage coalition unified....

Lastly, obstinate resistance to any and all legal assistance to same-sex couples is forcing the very marriage issue that the resistors oppose most. I suspect many same-sex couples would readily settle for a comprehensive domestic partnership system or a civil union system. First and foremost for them is being acknowledged as the next-of-kin of the person they've been committed to for years when, in times of personal difficulty, like sickness or death, it matters whether the law deems you a kinsman or an utter stranger, no more relevant than some plucked at random from a football stadium. If you don't want same-sex couples to have marriage, you better give them something else to take care of the innumerable practical problems that stem from trying to maintain a committed relationship amid this forced legal denial of and constant undermining of their relationships. If not, they're going to push for marriage, and because Americans are ultimately a fair and sympathetic people, same-sex couples are going to win it all - if you make them push for it. The long-term public opinion trend and political evolution make that conclusion crystal-clear. (Copyright 2003 Stephen Clark. This text may not be reproduced without the express consent of the author.)

I can't fathom why someone worried about strengthening mixed-sex marriage would devote roughly half of his web posts to the utterly unrelated, divisive, and counterproductive question of whether the state should recognize same-sex marriage. I can't imagine a quicker way to shatter a liberal-conservative coalition in favor of strengthening mixed-sex marriage. The question is do you care about improving mixed-sex marriages or do you want to subordinate gays? (Copyright 2003 Stephen Clark. This text may not be reproduced without the express consent of the author.)

As for the slippery slope argument, that is really the last refuge of the obstinate, isn't it? One can always deploy a slippery slope argument when one would rather talk about a parade of horribles than the actual issue under consideration. I suppose Western societies never should have stopped burning sodomites at the stake because now we've inevitably slid to same-sex marriage. And should we have never eliminated race requirements from marriage law because now we must face the question whether it is fair to retain gender requirements? By proving everything, the universally applicable "slippery slope" argument never actually proves anything, except perhaps that the person deploying it has exhausted all the legitimate arguments against the actual thing under consideration.

And it is hardly free of anti-gay bias to contend that thousands of same-sex couples should be deprived of marriage rights solely because one doesn't want to grant marriage rights to groups. Why are same-sex couples entitled to so little consideration that they can be exploited as social insulation against the "threat" of group-marriage? ... The very willingness of people to make the slippery slope argument about group marriage (or bestiality or necrophilia or pedophilia) reveals that the person making the argument believes the lives of individuals in same-sex unions have so little value that they may be reduced to the status of pawns. That attitude is not far removed from those who believe gay and lesbian lives may be snuffed out as part of a male-bonding ritual. (Copyright 2003 Stephen Clark. This text may not be reproduced without the express consent of the author.)

(I find it ironic that Professor Clark ends his criticism of slippery slope arguments by suggesting that opposing gay marriage for these reasons �is not far removed� from supporting the murder of gays and lesbians. Is there really a fine line�or, say, a slippery slope�between those points of view?)

The court was told the biological parents were a couple in 1997, but within a year the mother, known as BM, left him to begin a lesbian relationship. She underwent a "ceremony of marriage" with her female partner, known as LP, in 1998.

Soon after, the women asked ND [the former boyfriend] - and he agreed - to donate sperm for their child.

In the seven to 10 days following the agreement, the three decided the man would have no legal rights to the child, the child would not be told he was the father, the man would not seek any parental role, he would not financially support the child and should the women separate, LP would provide financial support.

I'm sorry to see that you think Stanley Kurtz represents the model of a "thoughtful, secular argument[] against same-sex marriage that [is] not rooted in anti-gay animus." His argument flows directly out of sexist and antigay Catholic theology. For instance, he accepts as a premise the Catholic teaching that same-sex couples are incapable of forming a supposedly true union because they lack the "complementarity" of one man and one woman. This is pure dogma - and highly sexist at that - which is reproduced virtually verbatim from the current Pope's recent catechism for the faithful.

It is not secular to believe only one man and one woman can truly be joined as "one flesh," as Kurtz assumes. ... And you'll have to explain how relying on premises that demean same-sex relationships as metaphysically counterfeit does not, in fact, exhibit anti-gay animus, prejudice, or bigotry�.(Copyright 2003 Stephen Clark. This text may not be reproduced without the express consent of the author.)

I often feel the natural place for a gay person is on the right. Conservatives should be all about an individual's right to his or her own life, his or her own business, without the interference of hypersensitive, offended others. And it follows that true conservatives ought to support gay marriage, particularly those partial to family values. It's difficult to argue that society doesn't benefit from stable relationships. And what better way to encourage stable relationships than to support gay marriage? It is hard not to snicker at the idea that same-sex marriages would threaten straight ones. We straight people in Canada and the US have done a good job of bringing the divorce rate close to 50 percent all on our own.