Federal judge overturns CA gay marriage ban.
A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.
Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.
“This is a victory for the American people. It’s a victory for our justice system,” said former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who delivered the closing argument at trial for opponents of the ban.
He said the ruling “vindicates the rights of a minority of our citizens to be treated with decency and respect and equality in our system.”
Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately. Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
And yet another election issue for Fall 2010 and 2012. Which party do you want? The one that holds to thousands of years of tradition or the one that gives you the finger and holds one unelected official can thwart the votes of 7 million folks?
It’s also another piece of evidence that GHW Bush was an ideological squish.
It’s not whether or not there should be gay marriage — it’s about whether the Constitution protects gays as a suspect class. It doesn’t. What’s next? Affirmative action for gays? I predict a reversal at SCOTUS. But I’m not staking my life on it.
The Judge being gay had nothing to do with the trial’s outcome. Ted Olson and David Boies had no motive in choosing a forum with a gay judge in San Francisco of all places. Nothing to see here. Come on. Regardless of your views on gay marrige — give us a freaking break.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
My flippant response to this issue is that so far as I know, homosexuals have always been allowed to marry – wasn’t that former governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevy, a homosexual who was married? What homosexuals have been prohibited from doing is changing the meaning of the word “marriage” – and along with it, the nature of the associated social institution.
In fact married homosexuals (that is, married in (kind of) the traditional sense) are not all train-wrecks like McGreevy, whose marriage was grossly unfair to his spouse. Some folks may be familiar with Vita Sackville-West – a Brit (as the name implies) who was one of the better known lovers of Virginia Woolf. She spent most of her adulthood married to Harold Nicolson, an MP (I believe) and a homosexual himself. Their marriage gave rise to two children, to whom Vita was supposedly a devoted mother – I guess the fruit of their union formally classifies Vita and Harold as bisexuals, but I don’t think there was much doubt as to what their dominant sexual proclivities were.
But my point is this – they (like homosexuals today) were perfectly free to marry, and for them (probably not for the vast majority of homosexuals), it was a useful option. So I’m afraid I don’t buy the “discrimination” argument, except in the most formal sense that making a distinction between different entities (such as a union between individuals of complementary sexuality versus a union between individuals of identical sexuality) is, in that formal sense, an exercise in being discriminant.
I don’t hear any of them argue this point, but I would think the fact that my spouse gets my social security upon my death and a homosexual’s partner would not, would be a valid argument regarding discrimination.
SCOTUS will hear it overturn it and then the fun will begin all over again. And Ted Olson should be ashamed of himself. If Barbara was alive there is no way he would have hitched himself to this fiasco.
I think Mr. Olson is wrong, too, but I don’t see why it’s necessary to bring up his wife.
Any suggestion that the judge’s sexual orientation might constitute a conflict of interest would be presumptive evidence of homophobia. And you can BET that Justice Kagan will make that point clear to anybody crass enough to raise it.
And of course we can count on the 9th to give a fair and open-minded hearing before passing this along to SCOTUS.
Keep in mind that this is THEIR country, they’re just letting us liver here so long as we serve them and remain in our place (no more of this Tea Party nonsense.)
Well, my flippant rejoinder to that point would be it will be moot in about a decade when Social Security ($5 to 10 trillion in unfunded liabilities) goes insolvent.
But seriously, it’s a good point – I expect most other considerations due to spouses could be extended to homosexual partners via private contracts short of marriage. And if those in such partnerships are concerned about Social Security benefits, it seems to me that could matter could be settled using a statuatory approach, rather than changing the nature of social institution with a track record of several thousands of years.
I agree. I think all other rights, including insurance benefits, are designatable (talk about verbing a noun!) in most states. It’s odd, but I don’t hear proponents of gay marriage using the social security argument but it seems like a natural to me. I wonder if I’ve missed something?
>>talk about verbing a noun>>
Or adverbing?
(The above directed to Rufus at 4:01 pm – maybe someday I’ll learn to use this interface, but today is not that day)
The concept of marriage predates the founding of our nation by millennia. It has been considered a Sacrament for as long as history has been recorded. So, I see this as a separation of Church and State issue. If Civil Unions are available to all citizens through government then marriage would, and should remain in the domain of Religion. Only religious institutions should be able to perform a marriage. In my opinion hedonists enslaved by the orgasm are not noble victims, but people of low self control. This has been turned into some sort of tool or “cause celeb” by the enabling “If it feels good” Left. They want to debase religion any way possible. But have any of them considered what Darwin`s opinion of this lifestyle choice was. Much harsher than any mainstream religion.
Rufus, your Social Security point got me thinking (I don’t think that’s a bad thing . . .)
There’s a reason marriage was established as a formal arrangement, and thence encouraged and supported by our social institutions, and that’s because heterosexual encounters have consequences (or at least they did until efficient contraception) – those consequences are called “children”, and as we know all too well today, those children need a stable structure – a family – to thrive.
Homosexual relationships have no such consequences – the only likely consequences (and not in every case) are a greater preponderance of particular venereal conditions among male homosexuals, largely due to the anatomical nature of one common form of intimacy between them.
So I don’t think it’s unfair to contend that traditional marriage provides societal advantages that homosexual “marriages” do not – and as such can qualify for societal privileges that other contracts do not (just like those who adopt – hetero or homosexual – can obtain tax breaks other folks can’t). Many female spouses (and some males) forego lucrative jobs to raise children, which provides a rationalization for passing on one spouse’s SS dollars to the other.
Contrary-wise, most homosexuals do not raise children, and in fact homosexuals, partnered or not, tend to earn significantly more than heteros – as couples, homosexuals (typically, not uniformly) have not made the finanacial sacrifices that one spouse in a traditional marriage typically has.
So I’m not too bothered that heterosexual spouses can pass on their Social Security benefits. Actually, I’m a whole lot more pissed that I have to deal with that stupid program at all. If I could redirect my SS contributions to my private retirement plan, not only would I come out better financially, but I could pass it on to whoever I damned well pleased as well. So I’ll be happy to blame Washington for this aspect of that problem as well.
Stosh,
If you really want to puzzle on this topic, I recommend this post, http://www.threedonia.com/archives/6727 and the post linked within it. We’ve had A LOT of discussion on this topic in Threedonia and your point has been raised by others. Personally, as you’ll learn in if you read the two posts, I believe the federal government has absolutely no role in marriage, hetero or otherwise. I’m not a fan of states stepping in either. Personally, Mrs. Firefly and I consider we are married because we had a Catholic ceremony presided by a Priest. We really don’t give a rip what our state thinks about it as long as I can grant her my power of attorney and make her my legal heir. And I don’t care if my neighbor, Charlie, wants to give his boyfriend, Fred, power of attorney over his life, or if he chooses to leave his estate to his chihuahua, Pedro. None of my business. None of the gov’ment’s business.
This is generally my thoughts on the marriage issue – it shouldn’t be a government matter anyway. As for gay rights, I don’t believe people should have protected status because of their actions, which is what a sexual preference is – an action.
As if there weren’t enough logs on the 2010 election fire …
Next thing you know, adulterers will be clamoring for free government subsidies for reduced rate “by the hour” motel rooms!
There’s no legal basis to deny homosexuals to marry. Even if you want to say it should only be considered a religious ceremony, in today’s world it is not. Therefore you can’t separate it out and must give homosexuals the same protection under the law that heterosexuals have.
Barry, they do have the same protection (protection???? don’t you mean right?) under the law as heterosexuals enjoy: the right to marry any person of the opposite sex who mutually consents to the union.
WRONG@!!!!!!!
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Those who practice it should NOT be allowed any special privileges, and especially and “rights” towards marriage, status, etc.
Marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else is perversion.
I’m not sure marriage should be considered a “right” in the first place. Voting is a right, freedom of speech is a right, marriage is based purely off religious and civic purpose.
Here’s the issue, to me. Marriage is a man and a woman. That’s it. To suggest it’s a “right” beyond that simple definition is to throw a huge wrench into the concept to begin with. If this goes to the court and is upheld, as I believe it will be, then the extreme Mormon cases, the idiots wanting to marry their dead horse, death row inmates wanting to marry each other – once it gets to this instance, where does it stop? Surely, if a man and a man want to get married, why not a man, a man and another man?
Marriage is between two consenting adults. Marrying multiple partners, marrying inanimate objects or marrying farm animals is not allowed in the heterosexual community and would not be allowed in the homosexual community (so please don’t argue silliness). Gay marriage should be allowed and can not be denied due to equal protection under the law. There’s little use shouting back and forth, it will run up to the Supreme Court and be decided just like abortion. You may not like it, but denying the citizens their rights (ok RES) is unconstitutional. At least today it is.
Why only two adults, Barry? Wouldn’t that violate the constitutional rights of bisexuals, who should be allowed to marry an adult of each sex?
And what happens when pederasts and pedophiles are declared “oriented” that way? What’s to stop a judge from lowering the age of consent to 14 or 12 based on Equal Protection — even though states have always set age of consent. There’s no legal basis for such limitations — as Scalia rightly pointed out in Texas v. Lawrence back in 2003.
“Minors” cannot enter into legal contracts. I believe all states define that age as 18.
If the federal government — a court — says “minors” can marry then they can marry. Who cares what state voters say? That is the ultimate message of this ruling.
There’s no constitutional basis under this decision for disallowing a 12 year old to marry — at least no basis a judge can’t knock down.
“Minors” can’t enter into contracts — your reliance on state law to protect minors is quaint.
But Floyd, I’m arguing from a position that the state has no purview over marriage. In my world the state only has a say in the legal aspects, in this case the contracts. I’m all in favor of states having ages of consent and prosecuting any and all bastards who prey on minors sexually.
Rufus, did you just assert that you a living in a world other than the real one? Because in the real world the government may have no legitimate purview over marriage, but it sure takes one all the same. See my comment below about Welfare and Social Security status. Because government does and will continue to award benefits (such as joint-filing status for income taxes) it does and will continue to take purview over marriage.
On a recent facebook thread, Mr. Right posed the same question on a “liberal friend’s” page. Here’s one of the responses he received:
“How about we consider tolerating all? Celebrate differences and embrace diversity. Live and let live…gay, straight, polygamist, white, black, yellow -whatever, so long as no one is getting hurt. Who sets the rules for these things? If… there are gays against Polygamists there may be Polygamists against gays That’s why stereotyping never works. There are gems in all walks of life just like there are haters too! We are all here to learn to love one another and not try and conform everyone to fit into one, narrow box. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, if you don’t some may label you a bigot.”
I think Mr. Right has pretty much had it with facebook. This was also after two other incidents with liberal FB friends (and their liberal friends). I like it here in threedonia… It feels more like home. I can smell the apple pie baking in the oven!
Funny how often that “so long as no one is getting hurt” phrase gets turned into “you are a hate-filled bigoted homophobe racist who’s hurting people’s feelings and therefore must be expunged.”
Just like all the people who got in high dudgeon that anyone questioned “their patriotism” (when in fact it was their judgment and their purpose that was questioned) have been so very very quick to denounce as unAmerican and unPatriotic anybody saying to them “Now jes’ hol’ on thar, hoss.”
“I can smell the apple pie baking in the oven!”
That’s Porvaznik’s mitt. He’s breaking in a new glove.
Marriage was also between a man and a woman until today, and the idea it would be anything otherwise was considered silliness just ten years ago, even among supporters in the gay community of “civil unions.” Your dodging my point completely. If a judge is fundamentally redefining it based on a man and a woman to “two consenting adults,” who are you to argue the basis of marriage on any pair or group of consenting adults? The precedent is set, due-process after all, why must a polygamist suffer and not be benefit of the same argument?
You’ve put your finger on my pet peeve regarding this issue, John. The same people who regard supporting homosexual marriage as the only sensible stance are the ones who called the conservatives who saw it coming “alarmists.”
“Don’t be ridiculous! Gays don’t want to get married, they just want to be able to visit each other in the hospital!” And too many people bought it, and here we are again. We see what’s coming next, so we’re just being silly.
Um, Barry – ever study logic? It is a science of quite ancient lineage, developed by the Greeks (no homophobes there) along with the idea of Democracy. The reason i ask, barry, is you’ve committed one of the most fundamental of logical fallacies (the kind which make computers have nervous breakdowns) by assuming that which you are attempting to prove. (I expect Rufus could provide the Greek term for this particular logical sin; I’m afraind I’m a little rusty in that department.)
You see, Barry, when you assert “Marriage is between two consenting adults” you are making a claim the truth value of which has not been determined. What is your basis and support for this statement, by what authority do you assert it, what rebuttals to counter arguments (for example, a “shotgun wedding” has long been recognised as a valid marriage regardless of the questionable consent of either partner to the affair; polyandry and polygamy have a tradition antedating monogamy, which is largely a Christian invention – the ancient Hebrews did NOT practice it; look up Jacob and his children out of four different women) do you proffer, and what authoritative and/or logical support do you provide for them?
As the ancients of Greece could have advised you, Barry: Logic’s a bitch.
O, Barry – one other question. When Muhammad married Aisha she was, by all records, six or seven years old (considerate husband that he was, Muhammad waited three years to consummate the marriage. Is it your position that Aisha was a consenting adult or are you declaring their marriage invalid?
…polyandry and polygamy have a tradition antedating monogamy…
One niggle, RES. The Greeks and Romans, so far as I know, didn’t practice polyandry or polygamy, either. In fact, the Romans, with their looser notions on prostitution, were a culture that were rather fierce about “family values.” If we speak of the Greeks, some Greek city-states banned homosexual relationships and others didn’t. If we’re making statements about the Hebrews, you have qualify which period you’re talking about, such as before or after the formation of the twelve tribes; in fact, it can be said that for most of their history they did, at least, nominally practice monogamy, with the exception of cases where the kings of Israel adopted foreign practices.
The one interesting thing, though, is that no past society or civilization, so far as we can tell from the historical record, (even those that tolerated homosexual relationships) have ever had homosexual marriage. That holds true across every religion, even societies with atheistic political orders (the Soviet Union, for instance).
David – all I credited the Greeks with was development of logic. The Hebrew (and presumably contemporary Middle-Eastern cultures) certainly practiced polygamy well before the rise of the Greek city-states — note, I cited the Patriarch Jacob, father of Joseph and his eleven brothers, the root of the twelve tribes. It’s been about thirty years since I last did any serious study in Anthropology, so I will gladly welcome any correction here, but my recollection is that multiple-partner marriages (usually polygamy, but not always) are a common feature in early tribal cultures. Given the high mortality rates and low life expectancies characteristic of such cultures poly-marriages would be a way of enhancing survival.
I suspect that the Greek and Roman adherence to monogamy was the source of certain snide jokes circulating among neighboring cultures.
Well, I haven’t done all that much research myself into the area, though I suspect (and might be willing to bet money) that monogamy and polygamy were practiced side-by-side. But again, I have no certainties. I would need to do more research myself. In the main, I don’t disagree with what you said. I was just producing a bit of errata.
That was how I understood your comment. Given how corrupt a field of study Anthropology has become since I was taking graduate level courses in it, I wouldn’t give a great deal of credence to any of its conclusions and wouldn’t advise you to spend much time on research. Certainly there does seem a correlation between monogamous heterosexual marriage and cultural advance, but the reed is a) too tenuous to support any kind of weighty argument and b) irrelevant to Barry’s original claim which I had challenged.
I think you’re right David. It was also a sign of wealth because one could support a large family and it was seen as good for defense and sustenance… shepherds, farmers, soldiers, etc.
Scripture is clear though not explicit that polygamy is bad. No one in the OT that has multiple wives thrives… there is always conflict — and deadly conflict whether it’s Sarah/Hagar, Rachel/Leah, David and Solomn’s multiples, etc. always trouble always destructive of the family… always bad for women as we know now from the modern examples.
This is a rather gross generalization, but isn’t monogamy the default in societies unless external circumstances make polygamy beneficial. Polygamy is practiced by nomadic cultures. Polygamy was practiced by the Latter Day Saints who arrived in Utah, who, coincidentally needed A LOT of offspring FAST! Polygamy was typically practiced by rulers (generals, emperors, kings) who could afford the upkeep of a large family. When those factors aren’t present monogamy is the norm.
Take the last part of your comment… polygamy favors the rich and disadvantages all other men of marriage age. Polygamy always goes down to younger women — it always has. There are no statistical studies, but any reading of history of Muslim, Mormon, ancient cultures show marriage at very young ages. Polygamy has always been very bad for women.
Monogamy isn’t just “the norm” it’s the natural law.
And in any case… the burden of proof is not on the man-woman marriage crowd — it’s on the gay marriage crowd. Or at least it was until the judge issued his fiat.
But Floyd, isn’t a wealthy, married philanderer a polygamist? It happens all the time. Joe Kennedy had a very public affair with Gloria Swanson and likely quite a few other gals, and he was probably paying for apartments, food, clothing, etc. for many adult women aside from Rose. Wasn’t he a polygamist? Frankly, I think that was between him, the consenting, adult women he was sleeping with and his wife. Personally, I think he was a lousy son-of-a-bitch, but it’s Rose’s call. Joe Kennedy never made any promises to me.
“And in any case… the burden of proof is not on the man-woman marriage crowd — it’s on the gay marriage crowd.”
Why are we talking about “burden of proof” in regards to sexual relations between consenting adults? Why do you want the state in people’s bedrooms?
I don’t think it’s silliness. I would never practice it, and I think it’s a losing path, but I do not think the government should prevent polygamy. More after I read the rest of the comments…
BarryO, I don’t think we are in disagreement, but, to clarify, I’m not saying it’s just a religious ceremony. People make personal agreements and form bonds on whatever criteria are important to them. In my wife and my case there were two areas we cared about; the Catholic church and the “state.” So, we registered with our local, county clerk and had a church wedding presided by someone licensed to legally “bind” us in the eyes of our state. If someone else doesn’t want to go to church but wants to designate someone as an heir, or give someone power of attorney I could care less. I don’t even care if that person wants to live with 12 other adults (regardless of gender) and grant them equal share of their property.
I believe you are right, though. As long as we continue this nonsense that it is the government’s purview to concern themselves with whom we shack up with, and for how long (common law marriages) the courts will soon be ruling that churches are practicing discrimination if they restrict ceremonies based on gender.
Daughter’s music lessons are over, and the Sox just put away the Tigers, so I can return to this ordeal.
Rufus, thanks for the time machine to the earlier incarnation of this debate. I probably didn’t read all of it closely enough to avoid some earlier repetitions, but I’ll try to add to the sum total of this controversey, which seems to have morphed into a larger issue, which is who says what a marriage is.
Actualy, according to my understanding of Catholic doctrine, the husband and wife (in an vow in the presence of God) marry each other, and the priest largely officiates. So we actually have *three* levels at which the commitment of marriage is legitimized: that involving the couple themselves, that involving the church in question (which is not necessary for a common law union), and that involving the state (which in the Rufus universe is also superfluous).
Now I don’t want to trivialize your arguments, which in many ways are quite powerful, and it may be unfair to characterize them as simply libertarian, but it appears to me they have one of the deficiencies I commonly find with libertarian positions – the clarity they bring in their simplicity ultimately can lead to a breakdown (here, I would expect a breakdown in social cohesion) because they try to avoid balancing opposing factors which are exceedingly difficult to keep in an appropriate equilibrium.
And the balance here is the state’s interest in maintaining a strong societal structure without stepping all over an individual’s personal (here religious) beliefs, and the individual’s right to pursue their cultural or religious beliefs without throwing society into chaos.
Some cultures believe in blood vendettas – murder is wrong, but if someone has killed one of yours, you are expected to extract vengeance in kind. I don’t know if you’d call that a religious belief, but it’s damn close. Here, if you seek out and kill the serial killer who butchered your spouse, your kids, and your dog, you’ll be charged with murder by the state, no matter what your position on blood vendettas (hopefully you’ll draw a decent jury pool). If your personal, philosophical and/or religious beliefs conflict with the strictures of the law in this matter, it’s tough toenails for you – the government (in our tradition) just can’t let folks decide on their own who they can off. And largely, that legal standpoint is a consequence of our Judeo-Christian heritage – had our legal system been developed in a different religious/cultural environment, it might be quite different in such a matter.
So, then, marriage. As Father Ron pointed out, the legitimization of marriage was originally the venue of the state, an indication of the societal importance of stable and enforceable limitations on the institution. But in our culture, and in our legal heritage, the statuatory ground rules in that venue were strongly influenced by the moral philosophy that theologians developed in the Christian churches and that carried over from the rabbinical law of their Jewish cousins.
But let’s say we get the state out of the business of marriage, and make it a purely religious construct – and lets say we do that in the context of a society that includes a growing Muslim population – and let’s say a significant fraction of that Muslim population subscribes to the believe that any man can have as many as four wives, and that any man can divorce any (or all) of those wives simply by repeating “I divorce you” three times. Of course Old-Church Mormons who wanted to revive their communes with elders married to numerous teen-age brides would be equally legit. And who knows where we go from there.
Sorry, but I can’t believe any of that can lead to anything other than a disintegration of society. There’s a personal aspect to marriage, there’s a religious aspect to marriage, and there’s a civic aspect to marriage, and the challenge to a thoughtful society is to figure out how in the hell you balance them all. Throwing up one’s hands and saying “Let’s leave it in the church” just isn’t going to work, IMHO.
The most important laws in society are not those that put a number on the speed limit, or those that determine the fiduciary responsiblities of board members, but those that have a moral dimension. And once you put a moral dimension into play, church/state interplay is unavoidable. We tend to take for granted the influence of the Judeo-Christian foundation to many of our laws, just as we tend to take for granted the air that we breathe, because we are so immersed in it – it’s second nature to us because those principals were so universally accepted when people like Locke and Jeffereson were formulating their ideas of political systems.
But now with the combined (and conflicting) influences of the heavy hand of secularization along with the increasing influence of non-Christian immigrant cultures, the moral foundations of our civic system come more and more under heavy assault – the gay “marriage” debate is just one of the most prominent aspects of that dynamic.
I don’t know how that conflict is best handled, but I am convinced we need a working interplay between the secular legal system and the religious moral belief system. But I do know what I don’t want. I don’t want a theocracy (and if we get one, it’s mostly likely to be Sharia, not a revival of the Inquisition). And I don’t want a secular governmental structure which goes out of its way to make sure it has no grounding in moral principals which happen to have a religious foundation. In my mind, both of those paths are ultimately a disaster.
Really, really good stuff, Stosh.
Ditto to what Mike says.
It has been my experience that any structure has what are called “load-bearing” walls. These walls are typically not readily distinguishable from their non-load-bearing kin until you remove one. In any culture there are a certain number of load-bearing walls (customs, social norms, traditions) and I (silly me) kinda sorta suspect monogamous heterosexual marriage is one of them, and it seems to me we ought be very very careful, given the current state of the state, before taking the sledgehammer to this particular wall.
Floyd,
Are you sure you’re “desirous of preserving our legacy of religious freedom for all“? (the last sentence of your About Floyd page) – ‘cuz it’s pretty obvious that when you use the word “religious,” you really mean “Christian.” Ditto with your commenters. Nothing personal. Sometimes that kinda thing happens in an echo chamber.
Bmtt, don’t hide an asshole comment behind cutesy language. If you’re going to say something, say what you mean and say it clearly. Better yet, instead of looking at a snapshot in an ongoing debate and taking ignorant potshots, ask a damn question.
Other than this intellectually dishonest statement-as-a-loaded–question bullshit you’re pulling.
No… I as a Baptist mean religious freedom for ALL. Of course that doesn’t mean unlimited… no freedom is absolute in a religious society. I wouldn’t allow people to sacrifice humans or marry children for example. I would block jihadists who advocate death to America and Evangelicals — the one in a million who actually try to kill abortionists.
So while your argument is cute… you get 0 points and a 10 point deduction for sophistry and 30 points off for not reading the entire speech which would render your question moot.
So I hear your Echo… ball is in your court Narcissus.
Re: BarryO at 8:37 pm
Not sure about the “shouting back and forth” charge – this thread seems to me to have been pretty calm for such a hot topic.
But the “please don’t argue silliness” charge is, well, frankly silly.
Marriage has been around for thousands of years, and over that time period it has been defined by a number of characteristics. You’re comfortable with throwing away those you don’t like, but call those who allude to the possibility of losing others as “silly”. Sorry – doesn’t wash.
In my experience, when one has to stick a qualifying adjective in front of the word “marriage”, they’re usually talking about something other than marriage – maybe something closely related, but not marriage – because in coming up with marriage with the modifier, one of the distinctive features of marriage has to be ignored or trivialized.
For thousands of years, literally, marriage was defined by the following characteristics:
It was consensual (if the partners didn’t consent, it was a “forced” marriage – not a real marriage)
It was mature in the nature of its participants (if not, it was a “child” marriage – not a real marriage)
It was a pair-wise relationship (if not, it was a “group” marriage, or polygamy – not a real marriage)
It was permanent -perhaps not in actual duration, at least in initial intent (if not, it was a “trial” marriage – not a real marriage)
It was exclusive (if not, it was an “open” marriage – not a real marriage)
It was of a complementary nature (if not, it was a “gay” marriage – not a real marriage)
Those aren’t features I’ve pulled out of my ass – those are what marriage has been from time immemorial.
Now clearly anyone can take any of those characteristics and decide one or more is superfluous – that’s your opinion as regards the last of those, and that’s fine. But to say that someone who postulates tossing away another (the pair-wise requirement) is silly, is unfair – in principle, he’s no sillier than you speculating the requirement of complementarity as unnecessary.
The Supreme Court can decide, as you have, that the principal of complementarity is irrelevant. And the Supreme Court could decide that legally a Shetland pony is actually a large dog. But the Shetland pony would still have hooves, not paws. And gay marriage is a thing with hooves.
This is lengthy but I’m really conflicted here.
First I think this gay marriage issue is silly. The government granting gays the right to marry does not damage the sanctity of marriage because the government does not grant something sanctity, only God can do that. All gay marriage does is allow two consenting adults of the same sex to enter into a legally binding contract previously reserved only for two consenting adults of the opposite sex. You can’t view this as a religious or moral issue because by doing so you are elevating the government to a God-like position. The government allowing gays to enter into a marriage contract does not mean churches will be forced to perform the ceremony. So emotionally allowing them to enter into a marriage contract feels right to me as it is a logical course of action and I’ve never been able to generate the fervor to oppose it.
Now on the other side of the coin the way in which this has happened feels entirely wrong. The gay community wanted this to come to a vote because they were sure they would win so Proposition 8 came into being. It was an entirely Constitutional process that recorded over 7 million votes and the gay community lost. To me this is the ultimate law and should not be able to be overturned by anyone under any circumstance outside of another popular vote overturning it.
I’ve had people use the argument “had it been up to a popular vote blacks and women would have never been able to vote” and that may be true but in a case like that a judge was obligated to overturn it because all American citizens had the right to vote and under section 1 of the 14th ammendment both blacks and women were citizens so the judge merely enacted the law of the Constitution above the people. It was the right call. In this case though there is no Constitutional law assuring marriage and no law viewing the inability to marry as an inequality. If the inability to marry were an inequality than all people below the age of 18 would by default be unequal to someone above the age of 18 as minors do not have the right to marry. Therefore I think a judge overturning a lawfully decided vote and lawfully written piece of legislation is nothing short of judicial activism and frankly scary. If a judge can overturn the will of the people with no Constitutional grounds than where is the limit? Can they overturn votes in elections? Can they void treaties? Can they create taxation? It’s too much power for an individual.
No one says the government grants “sanctity”.
Wrong wrong wrong. It says that states cannot set reasonable limits on consenting adults. “Adult” is a legal term. States can now lower that age. The federal courts could now come in and say what is your lawful basis for not allowing a rational 14 year old from marrying? “Because they’re children!” is not a valid argument. “14 year olds have never been able to marry!” Also not a valid argument. This decision, if it stands, would not allow society to set standards by which its institutions continue and pass on it’s traditions and culture.
Abortion, slavery, gun rights? Are these not moral and political issues? Why anyone would think the government should have some say on guns and how fast we drive but has no say at all in society’s foundational institution is odd.
Feels and logic are not the same thing. “Feels”? When does the Air Supply concert start?
I’m all right with civil unions…. anyone who thinks this won’t lead to other things should really read Scalia’s dissent in Texas v. Lawrence… brilliant and prescient.
First, in my scenario no state would ever authorize marriages to minors because no state would have the authority to marry anyone. States would solely have purview over contracts; legal distribution of personal property, co-ownership of property and powers of attorney.
Second, if we take your warped scenario, and allow states to decide who is “married” and who is not, and some state is crazy enough to legalize marriage between a 40 year old and a 12 year old that still wouldn’t mean the 40 year old could consumate anything. It would be a violation of age of consent laws. With all due respect, that one is a dumb argument. Polygamy and beastiality, not dumb.
Any legal discussion on this argument leads to a slippery slope.
O.K., gays can’t marry. Fine. Can two adult men live together in the same domicile? Yes. Can a bank refuse to loan them money to purchase that building based on their gender? No. Can the state prosecute them for having sexual relations in that house? Sometimes, but those laws will ultimately all go away. Can an adoption agency refuse them service based on their gender? No. Can a school district refuse to educate their children? No. Can an insurance company refuse to extend benefits to a stay at home dad if his partner works and pays the premium? No. And on, and on.
The battle is over, Kids. You lost. It’s all here today. All that’s left is this word. Mrs. Firefly and I define that word through our church. Others define it differently. More power to ‘em. I don’t want the government defining it for me. It is none of their business who any of us shack up with.
That is a very deconstructionist argument Rufus. I suppose words then can mean whatever we want at a whim?
No, no, no. It has to do with what areas of our lives we give Caesar authority over. We’ve got the enumerated powers. In my mind, that’s plenty. They’ve done enough harm with that short list. Why do you want to extend their jurisdiction to personal relationships?
I guess, ultimately, that’s what I’m asking: Why? Don’t say, “Because that’s how it’s always been.” Or, “Because my God tells me it’s so.” Tell me why you want Harry Reid and Barney Frank getting involved with who you share your life with, and to what extent? The authors of the Constitution obviously didn’t want this. They wanted to strictly limit the powers of Goverment and allow people to be individuals. I love that plan.
Rufus you are on fire and dare I say becoming quite the Libertarain! Kudos.
O.K., I’ve gotten through all the comments…
I agree with most (all?) of what’s been written about the history, and how we got to where we are. And, I agree heterosexual marriage is beneficial for society. I have been faithful to my wife throughout our marriage and will continue to honor her and my vow as long as there is life in my body.
However, I don’t want the government in my, or anyone else’s bedroom, and that’s ultimately what this all boils down to. Several of you have argued that heterosexual marriage is beneficial to the state. Why? Because, all things being equal, it’s the healthiest environment for raising kids, future participating members of the state. I agree. Well, what of couples who produce no offspring? I imagine there have even been married couples who have never consumated their marriage. Are they married?
Here’s something else important. My older sister has never married and likely never will. She is heterosexual. What if she has a female friend in her same situation and they agree to buy a house and live together. Two “spinsters.” Happens often. If they live together for 20 years and share a mortgage why can’t my sister get her housemate’s social security benefits if her housemate dies? Does the government require that two people have a sexual relationship before one can designate benefits to an heir?
Polygamy. We all seem to be against it, and I am, but I don’t see how it can be illegal. If Rich can find 8 consenting adult women to live in his house as borders, and in exchange for food and shelter they provide him with carnal pleasures, and nobody has anyone in shackles why is that the state of Illinois’ business?
At the end of the day having the state dictate what marriage is, or isn’t, grants the state access to our personal lives beyond what our founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Whatever your stance, take it down the slippery slope that is in front of us and you will have to come to the same conclusion as I have. Just as many of you have rightly pointed out, gay marriage was inconceivable 20 years ago, just as polygamist or animal marriage is now. As long as we give the government and courts access to define it we will eventually get there.
Stosh, in regards to your murder analogy, it’s not a good analogy, and I don’t think this is a Libertarian, head in the sand, ideological argument.
Statistics show a kid has the best shot of becoming a productive, tax paying member of society if he or she is raised in a home with a mom and dad where at least one parent works full time. That set up is in society’s best interest. Do we make it illegal for parents to be unemployed? If the mom has an affair and the dad decides to leave her do we prosecute him? Do we interview the couple once a month to see if they are feeding their kids a balanced diet? No.
The founding principles of our nation are INDIVIDUAL liberty and INDIVIDUAL responsibility. You all come here and argue these principles daily, yet you are all willing to swing open your bedroom doors and say, “Hey Uncle Sam! C’mon in and tell me who to sleep with and how often.” What is more fundamental to personal liberty than that?
At the end of the day we are arguing over a word, “marriage.” Members of the Church of Latter Day Saints are “sealed” to one another for eternity. If you aren’t sealed in a Mormon ceremony you are not married in the eyes of Mormons. That’s O.K. by me. I don’t see the Catholic church recognizing homosexual unions as Catholic marriages for a few millenia. The state of Massachusetts say same sex pairs can share all legal rights afforded by the state. I’m A-O-K with all of it. I chose Mrs. Firefly as my legal heir and representative should I become incapacitated and her and I were joined in a ceremony in our church.
Render unto Caesar. The government has an interest in our personal property and legal issues. Let’s leave that to them and get them out of the marriage game.
On the basis of the Catholic Church’s refusal to recognize homosexual unions it is being progressively defined as a hate group and stripped of legitimacy. Should the government grant tax exclusions to hate groups or should they be subject to property and other taxes? The power to tax is the power to destroy.
N.B., I am not arguing that the government should take an interest in marriage, nor that the government’s interest is legitimate. My position is that government IS taking an interest in marriage and that this interest must therefore be controlled by the citizenry lest we be reduced to subjects.
Just so, on the actual issue of homosexual marriage I am largely neutral but cautious of reworking basic societal institutions without endorsement of the citizenry at large. There be reasons Constitutional Amendments require such a broad mandate, and the redefinition of marriage is an alteration of society greater than entailed in any Constitutional Amendment since the Bill of Rights.
What I do object to are dishonest and illogical arguments for or against homosexual marriage.
Right. Exactly. Give this man a cigar!
Now that you understand this then you see California voters went about this backwards. What should they have done? Ammended their Constitution to say what the state can do. List the powers of attorney, beneficiaries, insurance stuff that is already law in the state, then say, AND THAT’s ALL the state can do. Marriage is not a term that falls under government jurisdiction, therefore the state cannot legislate regarding marriage.
Can the state of California tell Floyd or Eric how often they must conjugate with their wives? In what manner? Of course not. The state does not belong in people’s bedrooms.
Look, this is the perfect Tea Party, return to Founding Principles argument. Take off the blinders, peeps! Just as abortion ain’t in the Constitution, neither is marriage. Do you want a 2,000 page abomination like what the E.U. is trying to pass for a Constitution, or the 12 pages our founders gave us?
Floyd, aren’t you the one who was, just yesterday, arguing for a massive reduction in the penal code? Now, today, you’re arguing for legislation of morality?
Rufus, I very much doubt that any discussion of what California should done would be profitable, just as the debate over whether the state can legislate regarding marriage overlooks the fact that the state does legislate regarding marriage. Californians accepted the premise that government could but voted to limit that ability, and now a judge has superimposed his own enlightened judgment for the people’s benighted opinion and told them where they can draw their line.
But the judge is right! That’s the problem! Once you acquiesce to the government having jurisdiction over this matter than you are subjecting marriage to all the protections of government laws regarding discrimination, etc.? How can it not be illegal for states to deny a benefit, marriage, based on gender or sexual preference? Nothing else at the state level can be granted based on consideration to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
No, no, no. The power of the tax is exactly what power the government should have. If we take away the government’s jurisdiction over the word “marriage” then they can have no say in who Catholics, or Mormons or Muslims “join” as long as everyone mows their lawns and pays their taxes on time.
Ain’t denying the gummint’s power to tax. But so long as it taxes different relationships at different rates that camel is in the tent.
If the gummint declares Catholics or Mormons hate groups for denial of rights to gays and by that basis denies their churches tax exclusion status we’re back humpin’ that camel.
Yes. Another reason why I want them out of the marriage game. If not, I fear it will come to that. If the state has purview over marriage, how can churches refuse to marry whomever the state determines fit for marriage? Right now clergy have to obtain a license from the state to perform marriages. There is no question we are heading to a not too distant future where those licenses will not be granted if clergy do not agree to adminsiter the office “without prejudice.”
Game over.
So, do you want to keep fighting this battle, and postpone the number of days until we lose? Personally, I don’t want to lose. That’s why I vote for removing them from the pitch.
I believe a federal judge has negated your vote as government-phobic and rooted in anti-government prejudice.
marriage involves law and property. The government — of the people — WE — has a vested interest in how citizens (women and children especially in the case of marriage as it protects them more) live and devolve property, etc. Marriage isn’t just a religious ceremony and I don’t think God was creating just a spiritual union, but an organizational template… one man-one woman having children. That is not just the “right” way — it is the “better” way.
RES’s example of load bearing wall is spot on. I believe this issue (not merely from this decision) will speed our fall as a culture within a few generations… and I don’t mean that as hyperbole.
Why anyone would want to f&%k with something that’s worked best for thousands of years because it “feels” right is beyond me — leaves me speechless. Marriage has been part of government — it is obvious that it has an interest in it and yet you have no example from history that shows a society where marriage was so loose and was successful. So we change it why… because libertarians say so?
“Render unto Caesar”… I would say the survival of its society and protection of its women and children is Caesar’s business
If someone has made an argument that “marriage has been part of government… for thousands of years” then they argued incorrectly. Prior to the industrial revolution and the explosion of urban life marriage was hit or miss in this country. I’ll wager most of the pioneers never really got “married.” Even today common law arrangements are very, well, common.
Why is adultery different than polygamy? For millenia men have had multiple partners and paid to feed, shelter and clothe many of them, and their progeny. Hell, it’s still de rigueur in modern France. You can’t be elected President if you don’t have at least two families you are supporting.
Monogamy, polygamy, adultery, chastity, promiscuity… it’s all defined by the consenting adults involved. Do hundreds of thousands of heterosexual, monogamous unions end in divorce, destroying kids’ lives and property? Shouldn’t the state make divorce illegal? It was in Ireland until the late 20th century. Should Bill Clinton be in shackles for committing adultery? That’s not my business. It’s up to Hillary. I know Mrs. Firefly would have my cajones (to quote Sara Palin) in a mason jar. She wouldn’t kill me, to ensure I was able to keep the child support and alimony checks coming. But if Hillary Clinton doesn’t have enough self respect to throw a man out for making her look like a fool, who am I to tell her how to live her life?
“protection of its women and children”
So let’s go back to my argument with RES. This means you are in favor of the state incarcerating or castrating males who father more children than they can support. How will you legislate this? What number of partners can you knock up before the state steps in? Will it be based on income?
To take “preservation of institutions that protect women and children” and contort that into “incarcerating or castrating males who father more children than they can support” is quite a twist, Rufus.
No it’s not. Why is a polygamist any different than the type of low-life I describe? I would sincerely argue the polygamist is better, because he is attempting to legally bind himself to his partners and offspring. If you want to legislate against the polygamist than you must really want to legislate against the guy knocking up multiple women without marrying them.
Why isn’t Joe Kennedy a polygamist? I would argue he is. The only thing that stopped him from being defined as one was the state of Massachusett’s laws. But, in reality, he was. Look, through Vernon Jordan, Bill Clinton got Monica Lewinsky set up with a high paying job because she had relations with him. Is that any different than what he did for Hillary? You cannot legislate this stuff people.
On the government and marriage issue, Rufe, I am afraid that camel’s nose is well into the tent by now. We’re sliding down the slippery slope and opposition to government redefinition of marriage is simply an effort to slow the fall in hopes of controlling how we land.
As to polygamy being the state’s business, please review the instances of Muslims having multiple wives and living off their welfare receipts. Perhaps enabling marriage of the quintet would preclude payment of benefits to such cabals, but as long as government is providing such benefits as Welfare and Social Security it will have a vested interest in our living arrangements, and extracting its interest is an end devoutly to be desired.
RES,
Regarding your first paragraph; why don’t we kick the camel out of the tent, nose and all. You seem to be accepting the camel’s right to be in the tent and are merely arguing which body parts we’ll allow to cross over the border. An odd argument from a man as typically logical as you.
Regarding your second paragraph; please review the instances of men getting multiple women pregnant and not supporting any of his partners, or his offspring. Now, tell me which state makes that activity illegal? Now, tell me which state will not extend welfare benefits to his partners and their children? Is he better than the Muslims because he never “put a ring on it?”
See how much fun it is when we try to justify why the state has jurisdiction over personal decisions among consenting adults?
Rufus, I am all for camel ejection, and will heartily endorse your efforts. But in the meantime I cannot help but notice it is winning and the first step in ejecting it is limiting its intrusion.
Regarding your second paragraph, the difference is that Mr. Knocker-upper is not directly deriving financial benefit from exploitation of this loophole (and for the record, no, he is not better, he is merely a different variety of pimp.) I agree that the state has no legitimate purpose in underwriting such behaviour, but that’s only part of why the State is a bastard.
And again, I am not attempting to justify the state taking jurisdiction, I am simply recognizing that the state has taken such jurisdiction and no effort at denial of that fact seems likely to deny that jurisdiction.
So then, in the Kelo decision the state took jurisdiction over a man’s personal property because they felt they had a better, non-municipal use for the land. If you were that man you would have agreed to allow the state to force you out of your home? Well, the state’s taken jurisdiction. It must be right.
No, I would have denied the state’s legitimacy while recognizing that it possesses the power to ultimately win. And agreeing to allow the state to force you to do anything is incoherent; if the state can in fact force you then agreement is irrelevant, like agreeing to be raped (but harbor no illusions that the rape will occur.) At some point the sensible man limits his losses.
Veruckt, you make a good point on the falsity of the popular vote argument, since a Constitutional Amendment is in essence a popular vote, taken by state (anyone thinking otherwise needs to review the history of the Equal Rights Amendment, where support/opposition to the ERA became an issue in election of state legislators.)
The reason why homosexual marriage becomes an issue is that state is busy banning “hate groups”, amongst which it counts any who question (not even oppose) the gay agenda. While the Church (take your pick) is the sanctifying institution in our society, the government is the legitimizing institution, which also means it can de-legitimize any who refuse to dance to its tune. Thus the Catholic church is pressured to underwrite abortion through its insurance coverage and the hospitals it operates (think that the government is unwilling to define what procedures must be provided for a hospital to be eligible for reimbursement?) and acceptance of “gayness” becomes a requirement for professional certification of counselors (and even their matriculation in college programs.)
And yes, judges o’erstep their authority when they engage in such refashioning of society in disregar of political realities. From such behaviours are societies stripped of their legitimacy and divested of the consent of the governed. It is only a short step from there to investing ultimate governmental authority because of strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords.
RES, where is the Catholic church forced to underwrite abortion in her hospitals?
Such efforts are persistent and consistent although not yet effective. Google it, Bing it or say I’m wrong, I have no interest in debating that particular detail. If your point is that the government will not declare such organizations as the Catholic church hate groups, argue that.
RES, I agree they are trying, and, if Obamacare is not stopped they will succeed. And I’ve heard of attempts to force doctors and nurses to do procedures against their will. My question was sincere. I just hadn’t heard of it happening yet, but I agree “they” are trying.
Which might be why I used the word “pressured” rather than “forced” — although I think we share the view that, if things continue in this trend, the Church will be compelled to allow such procedures or get out of the hospital business entirely (although I would be unsurprised to find them enjoined from closing “desperately needed public health facilities.” Governments have, in the past and in other countries been entirely content to eschew de facto ownership of resources so long as they could command the de jure “owners.”
Just one more, in a long line of reasons, I am opposed to government health care. Religious hospitals have done tremendous good in this country, and throughout the world. Kiss that good-bye.
We are in complete agreement on the danger of the government exceeding it’s boundries through judicial activism.
The other issues you mentioned I recognize as an assualt on the church as well and attempting to strip the church of it’s right to object. I do think that is more PC than legislation though and a decent motivated lawyer could rip apart any of these universities kicking students out of counselling programs for not agreeing with gay marriage (I’ve heard of this happening recently). But it is a slippery slope I know.
Fact is regardless of our political differences, or idealogical differences on this particular subject, we all face a common enemy and that is activist politicians and judges determined to reshape our nation in direct violation of our written laws and the will of the people.
Rufus,
Enjoyed your thoughtful responses, as always.
Two quick things, the first regarding your older unmarried sister. Here’s a similar scenario – I had (past tense, two are now dead) two uncles and an aunt, the two males who never married, the aunt who was married briefly to a wino. They lived together all their adult life, and held a variety of possessions in common, including their house.
When one of the uncles died, I (and my siblings) suddenly found ourselves in possession (legally) of part of their house – by law, since he left no progency, his estate fell to not only his surviving sibling, but the children of those who predeceased him. We all agreed the remaining sibling should get the estate free and clear, so there was ultimately no problem – but we did have to work around the existing laws.
Now I would have no problem with laws that allowed those three relatives to have some sort of legal relationship that allowed all (or most of) the legal benefits allowed to spouses. But here’s the kicker – when I was on a university committee working on partnership benefits, “partnerships” involving folks related by blood were specifically prohibited. Which tells me the academics pushing these considerations were not so much nterested in facilitating practical aspects of non-traditional family-type relationships as they were in putting a stamp of approval on particular brands of sexual interactions. People whose relationship was not defined sexually were prohibited from special considerations; those whose were would get them.
And with all due respect, I’d say my murder analogy is even better than I thought at the time. Great Britain, and to a lesser extent Canada and the US have seen an ever-increasing number of so-called “honor killings” as their Muslim populations have increased. To us, those are still murder, but the Canucks and the Brits are start to get a bit wet in their approach to those crimes. The situation with “honor killings” is to me a clear case of cultural mores impinging on secular law with roots in a distinct religious tradition, and I contend those kinds of conflicts are inevitable in a pluralistic country *unless* immigrants with a different cultural foundation are willing to accept the legal system (and its historical basis) as is.
I don’t approve of the fact that Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow churches, chapels or synagogues in its territory, but I don’t go there expecting them to allow me to set one up just because I believe in pluralism.
Finally, a third point – the government sticking it’s nose in the bedroom. With apologies to Randall, I don’t give a flying flip what Kinky Kelly and his donkey are doing in the privacy of their bedroom, but when he asks the government to formalize their relationship, he’s dragging them (and me) into that boudoir, not the other way around.
PS How the hell did you find out about Rich and his 8 concubines?
Now he’s going to blame me.
Mrs. Firefly and I believe we were joined by God, and what He hath joined let no man tear asunder. But I also make a decent living and own some property. I have made arraangements for all my wealth and property to go to Mrs. Firefly should I die. The Federal government takes money from my income and says I can have some of it back when I reach a certain age. I have also made arrangements for Mrs. Firefly to receive that “benefit” from the government on my behalf, should I die. Should I become incapacitated, and unable to make decisions for myself, I have designated Mrs. Firefly my legal surrogate to act on my behalf on such occassions.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
I’ve got to go with Floyd as the most succinct analysis of this whole controversy. You’ve got a social system that’s worked tolerably well (given natural human frailties) for thousands of years, generally improving with time, maybe until recently in the modern age.
And with the deterioration of marriage in the US (the contemporary stats on births to unwed mothers are appalling) come a host of social pathologies, the most prominent of which have been documented by Anne Coulter in her own inimitable fashion. Why do want to mess with an institution with the track record of marriage? After all, that’s what God gave us the Swedes for.
Let the brie-eating, Perrier-drinking, soccer-playing Eurotrash elites dick around with this sH*t, and get back to me a coupla three generations down the road after we see how it shakes out.
I expect the answer is badly.
It’s already been a disaster in Ireland, but because people often fail when given personal responsibility is no reason to argue that they should not be given personal responsibility. I thought we were opposed to “institutions that cannot fail.” If 30% of heterosexuals fail at marriage can we then throw it out? 40%? 50%? What’s the magic number? If we’re going to decide which one of our personal liberties the government can infringe upon based on success rates, then tell me what percentage we’re shooting for.
Didn’t we all laugh when President Obama gave his discourse about the Constitution being a charter of negative liberties?
Marriage is not in the Constitution, Kids. It ain’t there. Why? Because the Founders wanted men to be free to determine their own paths and they wanted the most minimum government intrusion possible. Will many men and women fail at marriage? Yes. Will many gays fail at choosing life partners? Yes.
I see the state having a role in forcing parents to support their progeny. I see the state having a role in ages of consent. I see the state having a role in powers of attorney and ownership and distribution of property. As much as I am a fan of hetero-sexual marriage, I don’t see the state having a role there.
Look, statistics show that kids raised with a mom and a dad in a family who attend church regularly grow up to be self-supporting and reasonably happy, more often than not. And, that’s what families have done for millenia. So, let’s all get behind a Constitutional amendment to make church attendance mandatory. Come on! Who’s with me? Let’s go!
Actually, Rufus, I think that the Founders didn’t include marriage in the Constitution because they thought it in the purview of the States, covered under amendments nine and ten. Article Four, Section One of the Constitution dictates “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” If any individual state has marriage in its Constitution then it is effectively in the Constitutions of the other forty-nine who are required to accept those “public Acts.”
The issue isn’t whether the state has a legitimate interest marriage, the issue is how we, the People, will determine that question. Apparently the court of one federal kangaroo over-rules the votes of 7 million citizens (in which case those homphobic a88holes aren’t really citizens, are they?
Not for nothing — legal experts, could use some help here — but wouldn’t it have made more sense to determine the constitutionality of this measure/prop BEFORE it was voted on … twice???????
Disenfranchised.
I swear I don’t do it on purpose, but do I win a prize for consistently generating the most posts. And you will notice that some are in response to me, but many others go off into further exploration of the topic.
@ Eric – I think the rush to pass legislation to stop gay marriage superseded any worry about constitutionality. It was more important to put Prop 8 in place and then let the courts work it out later.
Even narcissists like us can tire of listening to the stentorian reverberations of our own, mellifluous voices echoing off the chamber’s walls.
The vote on this issue has put to ballot twice now in Cali, BarryO, so I don’t agree with ya. As we wait for the legal eagles to set either of us straight, any other suppositions posing as thinking?
Also, in my book, you don’t get any narcissistic points until you actually start replying to all the questions posed in reply to you. Anyone can yell “Hey! Hey! Hey!” and then run away from it. Man up like ya used to do.
Christian church marriages became a staple in the 1500s during Henry VIII’s reign, in the Church of England. The church recognized common law marriages but church marriages guaranteed that the legitimacy of the union and children born to the couple, would not be questioned. The state putting its foot into it was solely for revenue, but it embraced the tradition of what religion defined as marriage.
The whole claiming rights business to get married is ridiculous. No one has the right to get married, hetero or homo. There are a whole bunch of restrictions that can prohibit anyone from obtaining a marriage license.
Oh, and before -fritz- chimes in. My stance on this issue is in no way related to my owning a Fiat. And I did not wear an ascot!
Feeling guilty, Rufus? I wasn’t going to say a word! I swear!
You sleep with one goat and for the rest of your life…
Yeah. I know. I once helped a lost sheep over a fence and….:-)
This whole argument becomes very difficult to deal with because of one main problem. The government is not and should not be the final authority in this issue. Going back to the roots of our country, and I know this will tick off Barry, but so be it…America was founded by God fearing Christian men. It’s written all over the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those God fearing founders believed the God of Creation was the final authority, and as a result we have many of the laws we have today. The Bible, and this is where Barry creeps out and calls me a bigot (I can live with that if need be), calls in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, homosexuality an abomination before the Lord, and at least in the case of the Old Testament, states that it is to be dealt with by means of capital punishment for those infringing on that law of God. The New testament in no way declares that it is to be handled thusly, but does say that those who continue to practice such sin will be thrown into the lake of fire at the judgement. Christians are not called upon to be tolerant of such things, but are called to love the sinner while hating the sin. This means that Christians should attempt to win over the lost soul that practices such evil, but it does not tell us that we are to tolerate the practice of the sin. This is where I fear that those churches (small c) that condone practicing homosexuals in the pulpit are committing as gross, or nearly so, a sin as those directly involved. The Bible also says that if one caught in that sin is unrepentant and continues, fellowship is to be withdrawn from that person. Love is the key to handling the matter, not tolerance!
Rufus has been very busy since the last time I checked here. It’s impossible to sort out all his various arguments at this point, so I’ll just say a few things.
As Rufus himself said, this case has nothing to do with homosexual rights. Homosexuals had civil unions in California, and in Connecticut, which gave them every single right that married couples had, but that was not enough. They demanded their unions be called “marriages.” In Rufus’s view, once they had all the rights, the name itself was irrelevant. That raises the question, “Then why did they fight so hard for the name?”
It’s because this movement is simply ACT UP in disguise. They weren’t getting anywhere with befouling the altar at St. Patrick’s Cathedral with used condoms and AIDS-infected blood, so they’ve taken this route to work towards upending the Church, and the rest of society along with it.
Once this case is upheld by the Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be the law across the country, and that will not be the end of it. That is just the first step. Judge Walker, the finder of fact in this case, has determined that not only is there no legitimate reason for California to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, but that marriage itself has nothing to do with gender. Moreover, he has declared that it is a fact that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
Rufus declares that the solution to all of this is to get government out of the marriage business. Now, normally Rufus is a very realistic, level-headed, nuts-and-bolts kind of guy. But here he just waves his hand and imagines he’s living in a world where this will actually happen. Left unsaid is just who is going to accomplish this. The left? Yes, of course. On the verge of their triumph, they will cede the field. The right? Certainly. Right-wing politicians will be crawling over each other in the rush to spearhead the movement to repeal marriage. The people? Perhaps he means the people who have already made their opinion clear in state after state, both red and blue, only to be overruled by the courts.
But let’s say that does happen. We follow the Rufus plan and now we’re all finally equal, and we’ve stripped that institution completely out of the public square. Tax code: rewritten. Divorce courts, child custody disputes, and alimony: a thing of the past! The assets of any person who dies intestate are turned over to state coffers. Nothing could be simpler.
Where does he get the idea that this will settle anything? From the First Amendment? There are innumerable exceptions to the First Amendment.
I can imagine the case being argued in front of the Supreme Court to carve out an additional exception in the case of religions which refuse to preside over homosexual marriages:
We have already established that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” Of course, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, but the state does have a compelling interest in ensuring that churches do not cause harm to 10% of the population, for no good reason.
It perhaps would be one thing if the religion in question had clearly and from time immemorial preached against the concept of gay marriage, but in this case a thorough search of its documents reveals no mention of the matter before 1995!
It is true that in a very few, isolated passages in its sacred texts, the founders and so-called ‘prophets’ of this religious group condemn homosexual behavior, but it must be remembered that they were not speaking about ‘marriage’ between consenting homosexual adults, but rather wanton sexual behavior of any sort. Similar prohibitions against illicit heterosexual intercourse are far more numerous in these books, and yet the defendant does not use these passages as an argument against straight marriage.
Let us turn to the various creeds this group has affirmed since its beginning. As you can see, these statements of belief shared by all of its members make no mention—not a single word!—about homosexuality.
Clearly then, this is an ancillary issue. As such, although it will necessarily curtail to a small degree the defendant’s free exercise of religion, in the interest of fairness, equity, and the equal protection of our laws that our Constitution requires we must direct that the church in question immediately begin consecrating homosexual marriages.
And then what? I’m sure some members of that church will shrug their shoulders and say, “It’s not like their forcing me into a homosexual marriage.” Or, “the church has no business being in our bedrooms, anyway.” Or some other nonsense. And we’ll have lost the truth.
I hope Rufus won’t say this will never happen. He’s already said that homosexual marriage seemed an absurdity just a few years ago, and now he sees it as inevitable. This is the next logical step, whatever else happens in the meantime.
Mike,
You are correct. I don’t have the foggiest idea how to undo this. It seems extremely unlikely that it could be done. I get adamant on this topic though, because I think folks fail to recognize the true problem, and most of what I hear is doomed to fail.
Maybe this analogy will help make my point. We don’t let the state define “afterlife.” Some folks care about it. Some folks don’t. Some folks think it has to do with their religion. Some folks don’t. Some folks, Mormons for example, believe a special religious ceremony will bind them to a mate in the afterlife. Some folks don’t. The state does have an interest in our property when we die. The state also has an interest in who makes decisions on your behalf while you are dying, and dead. But the state doesn’t get involved in anything beyond financial and legal aspects. If it’s important to you to be buried with your favorite set of darts in a casket filled with Guinness stout, more power to ya’, and you want a Tibetan monk to chant the prayers for the dead over your grave? Fine. No problem.
I recognize the state’s role in my power of attorney, Mrs. Firefly, my heir, Mrs. Firefly and my social security designee, Mrs. Firefly. I don’t recognize the state’s role in what Mrs. Firefly and I do in our bedroom. I don’t recognize the state’s role in defining how we are spiritually bound to one another. For that we went to the scriptures and a Catholic Priest.
Unlike the after life, we’ve let the state have a role in marriage in this country, and consequently, we’ve been continually sliding down a slippery slope towards a nullification of all aspects of what a marriage is. How do you codify it? The Mormons do it differently than the Catholics, who do it differently than Jews, who do it differently than Muslims who do it differently than athiests, who do it differently than Episcapalians. As far as Mrs. Firefly and I are concerned, the state cannot bind us, only God can. Many, many people feel the same. And many do not. The state can bind two people in a contract. The state cannot bind people spiritually. The reason we are where we are is because we have the state involved in a role it cannot perform. That’s why it is falling apart, and will continue to do so. How can the courts uphold denying consenting adults benefits and privileges granted by the states? It cannot. The state is granting something it should never have been in the business of granting. Just because it may be hard, nearly impossible to undo, doesn’t make it any less wrong. If the state had a history of involvement with the afterlife it would be just as absurd.
If a church claims only married heterosexuals will go to heaven the courts would stay out of that. The state has no role in the afterlife. If a church claims homosexuals cannot be married, and married couples are granted benefits by the state, the courts will get involved because we’ve allowed the state into our bedrooms.
Just as, if a Dr. says abortion is against his faith and he will not perform them the courts will uphold that right. But, once we have socialized medicine and allow the state to regulate medical care, Doctors will no longer have that option. It will no longer be a religious argument in the eyes of the state. Why do we allow the state an opinion on marriage?
Awwww, geeze, Rufus!!!! You HAD to bring up that whole afterlife thing, didn’t you?? What happens if I want to leave my estate to my reincarnated self, eh? Try telling Shirley MacClaine it ain’t an option, or tell the Dalai Lama there’s no way to properly identify!
I share your view, in spite of our argument on this thread – we’re fightin’ over means, not ends, and I hope this comment isn’t buried too deep for you to spot it and catch this video of two gay tea-partiers who agree as well: http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/08/06/gay-tea-partiers-discuss-marriage-and-bigotry/
I have seen it at The Other McCain as well as Big Gov’t, and a few other places as well.
Thanks, RES. I can’t think of any area of my life where I’m in favor of more government intervention, and that includes marriage. I just fear that if we don’t get them out they will eventually start forcing my church to perform marriages based on their criteria.
Something else to think about. If there were a state that had a law that read, “Catholicism is bad for such and such a reason, so, therefore, this state does not recognize the actions of Catholic Priests as legal” and Mrs. Firefly and I traveled to that state we’d still consider ourselves married, no matter what the officials in that state believe. And, if two gay people commit themselves to each other for life they ought to feel the same. The state cannot stop committed people’s feelings, any more than they can force couples to stay together. The state has jurisdiction over some aspects of our lives, but our hearts and souls are not on that list. Yet.
I dispute Barry’s claim about generating comments: remember the great schmuck debate of last week? Any post with a hot issue like this or involving religion is going to get posts so don’t be too proud of yourself, Barry.
Seriously, there are many great points raised in this thread. The sheer volume of good comments has left me with much to consider.
Without even getting into the heart of the issue of same-sex marriage vs. traditional marriage one thing is plain to me: the citizens of California have seen the rule of law tossed away like so much garbage. They voted and this is what the majority of the citizens want. From what little I’ve read about the judge’s arguments they seem pretty weak to me.
I agree, TCW, not to mention the blatant conflict of interest to which he should have recused himself!
Cutting the cheese in an elevator will stimulate comments, too, TCW – but it is hardly something to boast of doing.
A Godzilla thread like this one is not truly complete until the Hawk has had his say:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/08/wedgeapalooza.html
I’m willing to forget about all my commentary and just put Dave Burge in charge of the country for a couple of years (at least we’ll all be driving cooler cars).