Patterico's Pontifications

6/5/2006

Bush to Support Gay Marriage Ban

Filed under: Civil Liberties,Constitutional Law,Current Events — Patterico @ 7:12 am



As I have said before, I don’t see the huge threat that gay marriage allegedly poses to the fabric of our society. And I oppose Bush’s support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong.

105 Responses to “Bush to Support Gay Marriage Ban”

  1. Patterico,

    I don’t particularly see any earth-shattering problems affecting society if gay marriage is allowed, but I question to what semi-earth-shattering destinations such legislation will lead us.

    For example, once legally married, gay couples technically become equivalent to heterosexual couples in the area of child adoption. I’m not certain that a same-sex household is the best environment for children to grow up in. (I’m sure the “It’s better than a divorced household!” argument is about to be thrown at me, but I’m not certain that is accurate.)

    Furthermore, where does the line get drawn? If marriage between a same-sex couple is made perfectly legal, despite it being contrary to timeless accepted norms regarding the institution of marriage (including biblical ones), what’s to stop someone from succeeding in getting bigamy made perfectly legal? It’s merely one more non-traditional expression of love between consenting adults. What about marriage (and then consumation) between consenting siblings? Again, just an extension of the institution of marriage between consenting adults. If same-sex marriage is allowed, what’s to stop this slippery slope?

    Elliott (f0adef)

  2. I don’t care if they want to “play house”, just leave the kids out of it.In Mass they recently shut down the Catholic adoption agency for refusing to supply fashon accessories to the “proper people”. You can tell a “real marriage”, there’s a woman in your house who can take the house,the kids and the car and leave you destitute.

    curtis kreutzberg (1be2b8)

  3. […] Update: Patterico also opposes the FMA. I don’t have numbers to back this up, but my sense has always been that the righty blogosphere is more moderate than the conservative base whereas the lefty blogosphere is more extreme than the liberal base. Consider this an invitation to chime in on that point as well. Is it true? And if so, why? […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Federal Marriage Amendment open thread (d4224a)

  4. I can only echo Elliot’s concern about drawing a line. If two men can marry, why can’t they be brothers? And then why can’t a sister (or two) join in the mix? I really want to be libertarian about this, but the slope seems much too steep and slippery.

    Old Coot (caf903)

  5. If someone wants to marry any person, place, or thing, it’s his or her business. I would support an amendment that would ban the judiciary from redefining marraige.

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  6. I used to agree with you, but I have come to think that gay marriage is only the spearhead of an all-out war against the nuclear family by people who want to elevate every hormonal urge to a human right. This argument by Dafydd ab Hugh is also very persuasive.

    nk (d7a872)

  7. Because God hates homos and God is letting our soldiers get killed because we accept homosexuality. http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2908571.html

    Actually, I suppose these people have never read Voltaire, have they? (Excuse my Frrench.)

    Here is a good quote from ol’ Voltaire:

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  8. Yes, NK, it is a vast left-wing conspiracy to rid humankind of that scourge we call marriage. Or wait, we don’t even have to get married if we don’t want to in the first place. Never mind.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  9. I’m still conflicted as far as my personal feelings about gay marriage. My wife and I happen to have quite a few friends who are gay, and I don’t want to see them discriminated against. On the other hand, I’m not convinced this is a public policy matter, and there are reasonable arguments against watering down the traditional view of marriage.

    It is certainly not something that warrants a constitutional amendment. We can’t go around amending the constitution for every issue, and this is almost certainly a cynical ploy on the part of the Bush Administration to fire up the base about something that has no chance of being passed.

    CraigC (9cd021)

  10. I’m a libertarian on this, as well. That being said, I’m fairly comfortable with the notion that the natural and preferred state of marriage is one man and one woman, and that a change in several thousand years of social norms and several hundred years of law be approived by the people rather than a group of unelected judges on an appeals court somewhere. Is there any other way to prevent that from happening?

    Diffus (ead439)

  11. Diffus – what about places like California, where the legislature has enacted both a domestic partnership program which is almost identical to marriage (the current state) and outright gay marriage (vetoed by the governor)?

    aphrael (6b0647)

  12. my libertarian outlook informs me that liberty is for everybody, not just heterosexuals. i detest the smarmy christians who filled my mailbox when this was on the ballot in 2004 here in oregon, and i voted against them. how could a gay marriage possibly threaten a heterosexual marriage?
    my only reservation would be that if they can file joint tax returns, my taxes would have to go up to make up for the money they’re saving, or else public services would have to go down. i would prefer to see gay marriage as a revenue-neutral proposition, but i’ll get over it.

    assistant devil's advocate (3747e3)

  13. I oppose the amendment, but not Bush’s support of it.

    If we do not as a society work this out for ourselves, we will be left with what the courts decide. If Bush’s support for the amendment gets us to that point then it’s a good thing.

    Stephen Macklin (fc20a6)

  14. I’m in favor of gay marriage also, provided that it is accomplished through legislative action, and not through the courts. The reason for the efforts to enact constitutional prohibitions of gay marriage, at both the national and state level, is twofold, one defensive and legitimate, and the other illegitimate. The legitimate reason is to prevent a fundamental change like this being accomplished by judicial action. The illegitimate reason, from my perspective, is to prevent future legislatures from enacting gay marriage. Right now, there are clear majorities in most states against gay marriage. The reverse will be true in most states within the next 10-15 years. In the long-term, the only chance that those who are opposed to gay marriage of keeping it from being legalized is to establish a constitutional ban. Even this will ultimately be ineffective, but it could considerably delay legalization.

    Tim K (7e41e8)

  15. […] Patterico’s Pontifications » Bush to Support Gay Marriage Ban As I have said before, I don’t see the huge threat that gay marriage allegedly poses to the fabric of our society. And I oppose Bush’s support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong.   [Permalink] [Trackback URL] Trackback URL for this entry: http://acepilots.com/mt/2006/06/05/throwing-some-red-meat-to-the-port-deck-chairs/trackback/ […]

    The Politburo Diktat » Blog Archive » Throwing some red meat to the port deck chairs (4aa448)

  16. From what I can tell, there is no reason not to allow same-sex marriage other than religious reasons. And while I am not the slightest bit naive, we’re supposed to have separation of church and state. The nuclear family has long since diversified, anyway. Economic reasons against same-sex marriage (taxes) are rather selfish. Besides, wouldn’t it be most fair if no marriages had tax benefits?

    I know a few gays myself, and what’s most upsetting about this issue is that Bush is using it to rally the conservative vote. You can’t just toy with someone’s life/love like that. Whatever happened to respect?

    James (7f109b)

  17. I certainly don’t want gays to be persecuted. But neither do I want to grant them acceptance, much less the societal endorsement that marriage provides. Mr. P. might see the matter differently if he had an only son who had just come out as gay (I’m not in that situation.)

    dchamil (ae28ef)

  18. We do not ban living arrangements of any sort: couples or threesomes or moresomes of any particular sexual mix desired are legally allowed to shack up.

    But heterosexual monogamous marriage is society’s preferred arrangement; our society has long accepted this as the best possible living arrangement and the proper setting for procreation and child rearing. We as a society have the right to say that some particular arrangement is societally preferred.

    Dana (3e4784)

  19. Radically redefining marriage cheapens the institution. However, if the good people of any given state disagree and want to try it on their own, there’s no good reason for the federal government to step in and say they can’t. As far as I’m concerned, until and unless a court throws out DOMA, there’s nothing for the federal government to do.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  20. James said, “…what’s most upsetting about this issue is that Bush is using it to rally the conservative vote.”

    Does the idea of energized conservatives heading to the polls really scare you all that much?

    If all GWB wanted to do was rally the conservative vote, he’d start construction on a fence along the border with Mexico. That would rally voters, and not just conservatives, most independents, and more democrats than you might think would stand up and cheer.

    Now, as for your larger point, the one that’s “most upsetting” to you: politicians using hot button issues to press for advantage. What do you make of AlGore’s shameless constant and despicable efforts to demagogue environmental issues to rally the tree hugger vote?

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  21. Bush doesn’t need to oppose gay (sic) marriage as president, but he has to oppose gay marriage as a christian and a believer of the bible. Anyone that thinks different cannot believe in the bible nor claim to be a christian. Well i guess you can claim to be, but you’re not. I’m not a bible toting fanitic but i have read the bible several times though the years. As a fact i’m a poor christian, but a christian non the less. You don’t get to act like the left wing and pick and chose the parts you believe and the parts you use to slander others. Hey, the congress members are the only ones allowed to pick the laws (civil and christian) that they want to follow and disregard the others.

    Scrapiron (a90377)

  22. I did miss one thing. Gays (sic) adopting children is not adopting children to give them a better life, it’s can be better described as adopting future victims of homosexual rape. Don’t the Catholic priest ring a bell? That’s true and everyone knows it, but most won’t admit it in public. Now you can scream and call me a homophobe, but you’re wrong. I could care less what they do behind closed doors as long as they leave the children out of it, which they won’t and don’t.

    Scrapiron (a90377)

  23. This amendment is stupid because it detracts from the real work these guys should be doing – passing the flag burning amendment.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  24. Scrapiron — no, it isn’t true. Why would you assume it to be true?

    I can think of two ways to read your statement: either you’re suggesting that all homosexual couples would rape children that they adopted; or you are saying that all homosexual children would raise their children to be homosexual.

    The former is absurd and offensive: sexual attraction to members of the same sex does not imply sexual attraction to children. It doesn’t preclude it, any more than sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex does; but neither does it imply it.

    The second is possibly more reasonable, but IMO unlikely. But that’s a result of my core beliefs on the subject: in my experience, homosexual attraction (or heterosexual attraction) is innate, and cannot be taught; and a gay parent who wanted their children to be gay would fail to achieve it if the innate gayness were not there.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  25. Aphrael wrote:

    The second is possibly more reasonable, but IMO unlikely. But that’s a result of my core beliefs on the subject: in my experience, homosexual attraction (or heterosexual attraction) is innate, and cannot be taught; and a gay parent who wanted their children to be gay would fail to achieve it if the innate gayness were not there.

    And thus the nature v nurture argument is settled, no scientific proof needed.

    The fact is that you don’t know that such would fail, or that there are not people who have some sort of “tipping point,” or anything of the sort. Had you used a phrase like “would probably,” which allows for the possibility of “would not,” I wouldn’t have argued, but you used an absolute.

    Dana (3e4784)

  26. Dana: that’s a fair point. I thought I was hedging with ‘In my experience’, but apparently that wasn’t strong enough.

    My experience is that attraction is innate and unteachable. You are correct, however, that it is scientifically unproven either way, and that I should not speak in absolutes about things which are unproven.

    That said, even if a gay parent were to raise their children to be gay, which I believe is unlikely, that hardly justifies the use of the word ‘rape’ to describe it; and my objection to comment #22 stands.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  27. Too much of the discussion of gay marriage makes the assumption that gay marriage has no direct impact on the liberty of others, but this is false. Gay marriage combined with activists courts will directly infringe the religious liberty of conservative religious people, and bring the force of the law to make people go against their conscience.

    Churches that perform marriages will be forced to perform gay marriages. Employers that give benefits to married couples will be forced to give the same benefits to gay couples. Organizations that support traditional families will be required to equally support gay families. Somone who rents out a room in their house to a married couple will not be allowed to refuse to rent the room to a gay couple.

    Everyone knows that this is all going to happen, but no one ever talks about it when they decide on supposedly libertarian grounds to support gay marriage. Gay marriage will create a legal big stick for gay activists who want to impose their morals on other people. How can any libertarian support that?

    Doc Rampage (f06a6e)

  28. Psyberian, Comment #8:

    I’m sorry, but I did not make it up and it’s not just my conservative bias. This law professor will only be satisfied with both a wife and a husband or maybe several wives and husbands. She derides gay marriage as “aping the model of the nuclear family”. In the comments of her post, she calls the nuclear family “hurtful to women”. Not all lefties are like you. Some of them make us want to adopt positions as far away from theirs as possible.

    Scrapiron, #22,

    You’re full of s__t.

    nk (77d95e)

  29. I’m not a Christian so that arguement doesn’t work for me. But if I recall the biological reality is that it takes a male and a female to procreate. That is not to say that all unions that consist of a male and a female result in procreation, however a male/male union or a female/female union cannot result in procreation. A society that cannot procreate (Shakers) is doomed to extinction.

    That the vast majority of Americans want to preserve marriage in its present state (male/female) is evident. If gay/lesbian marriage is enacted how does one legally keep brothers from marrying or sisters from marrying or fathers from marrying sons, etc.? The prohibition now from incestuous marriages is because of the possibility of procreation. Once that possibility is removed, what would the legal basis for banning such marriages be?

    Lots of questions and very few answers.

    RLS (0516f0)

  30. Aphrael:

    That said, even if a gay parent were to raise their children to be gay, which I believe is unlikely, that hardly justifies the use of the word ‘rape’ to describe it; and my objection to comment #22 stands.

    Agreed. I do think there’s a third objection to gay adoption that Scrapiron missed, however: sexual orientation aside, mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. If there were some way to arrange for a child to be raised by a gay man and a lesbian, with each generally performing the functions typical of fathers and mothers, respectively, I probably wouldn’t have a big problem with that. But I don’t think a second father is a very good substitute for a mother, nor that a second mother is a good substitute for a father.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  31. Every country who has allowed gay marriage has seen a reduction in traditional marriage. Since most of these countries are European, the cost of child care has been transferred to the state.

    In America, we do not have those economics.

    Either we institute socialism and nannystate-ism to cover the child care costs, or we allow children to raise themselves. Lord of the Flies, anyone?

    The best example I can give, and yes it contains a certain ludicrousness is a couple, both working, both contributing money to the family pot arguing over an electric wheel chair:

    “Well, Honey I paid for 1/2 that wheelchair, so I should get to use it half the time.”

    “Well, Honey, you don’t have 2 broken legs so you don’t need to use the wheelchair…”

    When we approach marriage as a civil rights issue between 2 consenting, and equal adults, we are ignoring the fact, that as soon as children are involved, non-equal, non-consenting individuals have been introduced into the equation. And yes, in the raising of children brutal sacrifice can be required.

    Partnerships which are based on the right of 2 consenting individuals to enjoy each other, do not survive. Or the partnership survives and childhood do not.

    It is in the best interest of society that childhood survive. Societies that have a sense of protection regarding children are better educated and technologically comfortable. They are better able to be morally comfortable as well, as children raised with love and not scrambling for survival become adults that extend a sense of love and community to others.

    Children who raise themselves, have an unfortunate tendency to view all other members of society as in a very hierarchical manner, viewing persons who are stupid enough to be kind as rubes, suckers, and victims. And respecting only those whose guns, physical strength, and the proclivity to use them, command ‘respect’.

    Not something, I would like to see happen in America. Yes, I do know that in gang-infested areas, it already is; and given human evolution, Dominant-Submissive behaviors are not going to go away any time soon. But, I would like to put off the return to the Dark Ages as long as possible.

    Stanley Kurtz of Gay Marriage
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU4NDEzNTY5ODNmOWU4M2Y1MGIwMTcyODdjZGQxOTk=

    Polygamy vs. Democray, via the Weekly Standard
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU4NDEzNTY5ODNmOWU4M2Y1MGIwMTcyODdjZGQxOTk=

    How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden
    http://www.mises.org/story/2190

    Adriane (df8f8c)

  32. XRLQ – I agree that a second father or second mother is not a good substitute for mother or a father, respectively, but (as a child of a single parent with many short-term serially monogamous relationships), I think either of them are preferable to single parenthood.

    That said, the argument you put forward is at least reasonable, which I submit that #22 was not. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  33. My thoughts are simply that the definition of marriage is one man and one woman both in the ideas of the church or governmental authority. Change as such to me that same sex can be a marriage is unacceptable, civil union, partnership, joint venture ………. whatever can be used to identify same sex bondings. This should be established by the law and not as the laws are what we live by and accept. To me marriage can not be changed by at the will of the Judiciary of individual religious groups.

    art zimmerman (33c662)

  34. I honestly have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that doesn’t boil down to some combination of atavism, short-term political cynicism (enter President Bush), and full-on bigotry. Some of the expressions of this, like those of Mr. Scrapiron, at least have the merit of candor in this regard.

    Even if I disagree, I do at least respect the opinion of a Maggie Gallagher, say, whose thoughts are informed by a more holistic approach that looks at all of the factors that affect how families function in society. And I guess the adoption issue is kind of thorny, given that there does seem to be something to having the male and female roles present in a child-rearing household. But does anyone opposed to gay marriage on the basis that a homosexual couple can’t reproduce support extending the marriage ban to heterosexual couples who cannot or intend not to have children?

    I guess my answer to posts like #4 and #30, meanwhile, is that acknowledging the right of homosexuals to form monogamous relationships does not per se invalidate the incest taboo, which is AFAIK both more ancient and more universally widespread. I’m not aware of any serious constituency in favor of incestuous marriage, and I don’t agree that the “slope” is all that slippery.

    Bobby (6d95ca)

  35. Isn’t this EXACTLY the kind of social issue that should be left up to the individual states? After all, one of the purposes of the federal system is to have a forum in which these social experiments can be tried, and the states have typically been where this has taken place. What ever happened to the idea of states as “laboratories of democracy.”

    Ironically, this is the same argument many conservatives make when arguing against judicial decisions like Roe v. Wade. But now when it comes to gay marriage conservatives feel compelled to amend the US Constitution?

    I don’t see why this should be a federal constitutional issue. State law has traditionally been the basis for marriage rights and if individual states want to approve gay marriage let them.

    CStudent (59bfb8)

  36. Bobby, I object to gay marriage because in my mind marriage is the union of a husband (who is male) and a wife (who is female) and two men can no more get married than a man can be a mother.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  37. James B Shearer – do you object to, for example, a long-term exclusively committed gay couple obtaining some of the rights and responsibilities encapsulated within marriage?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  38. Mr. Shearer, I can’t argue with that, because I don’t think there is an argument there; and I’m guessing many/most people, like you, find the notion itself preposterous. I think my own opinion is based on the idea that two consenting adult citizens enjoying less-than-equal rights, for reasons that largely can’t be articulated except through tautology, is unjust.

    If, pursuant to aphrael’s comment, the deal-breaker is the redefinition of the word ‘marriage’ itself, then that’s not a compromise I like, but I’m guessing it’s the one we’ll likely end up with.

    Bobby (6d95ca)

  39. I think at the Fed level this is unwise. An amendment need to be passed, but it needs to strictly say that the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause of the Constitution does not apply to marriage. Then each and every state can make its own judgement. Mass can have gay marriages and Utah can block them if it likes. Seems fair to me.

    dawnsblood (30da23)

  40. From a legal and political standpoint, I would prefer that this issue be addressed and decided by the citizens of each state. The problem with doing that is it won’t work. If Massachusetts has gay marriage, every state will effectively have to recognize gay marriage in the manner suggested by Doc Rampage in comment #27.

    I also agree with XRLQ’s comment #31. After years of no-fault divorce and falling marriage rates, more people have been raised in single-parent households and that has made it easier to believe that children don’t need mothers and fathers. But mothers and fathers “parent” in different ways and children benefit from having one of each.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  41. CStudent wrote:

    I don’t see why this should be a federal constitutional issue. State law has traditionally been the basis for marriage rights and if individual states want to approve gay marriage let them.

    The full faith and credit clause, CS, is why. The federal Defense of Marriage Act exists, and the Constitution provides for teh ability of the federal government to pass appropriate legislation to see to it that full faith and credit are given, but DoMA is, in effect, legislation to deny full faith and credit. We face the specter of four whacko judges in Massachusetts deciding for the entire country that same sex “marriage” must be recognized in every state; if DoMA is struck down (a reasonable possibility), then Pennsylvania or Nebraska would have to recognize legally performed homosexual “marriages” from Massachusetts.

    And you won’t have to wait long before some homosexual couple in Massachusetts sues the Roman Catholic Church because a Catholic priest, following the instructions of his bishop and following Canon Law, refuses to hold a nuptual mass for said couple. After all, the couple would be legally entitled to “marry” in Massachusetts, and by refusing, the priest would be making the Church guilty of discrimination.

    Dana (dd8e7e)

  42. Dana – I suspect that the church, claiming that marriage is a religious sacrament, would have a good free exercise defense against that, were it to happen.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  43. I am of mixed mind on this subject. On the one hand, I am generally in favor of recognizing Homosexual Partnerships in the hopes of encouraging stable ones. I cannot see what harm or humiliation Homosexual Marriage can do to the institution of marriage that hasn’t already been done by Liz Taylor, the Kennedy Clan, or hundreds of years’ worth of European Aristocracy.

    On the other hand, allowing the Courts to force a shift in the meaning of the language in which the Law is written strikes me as a really lousy precedent.

    I frankly think that, in time, either Homosexuals will achieve the level of acceptance they claim to want, in which case the Language will shift naturally in the way that the Mass. court anticipated, or they will annoy enough straights with their childish games of ‘spook the squares” to lose the positions they have gained since the 1970’s. If the former is the case, then an amendment will only temporarily slow the inevitable. If the latter, then such an amendment is no more than what the Gays deserve for their political idiocy.

    BTW: I don’t buy into the ‘if the meaning of marriage is changed employers and landlords who disagree will be forced to hire/cover/rent to Gay Couples, and this is awful” argument. As matters stand, if you don’t believe that a Buddhist marriage is legit, tough. If you don’t believe that a marriage between the daughter of Orthodox Jews and the son of Irish Catholics is legit (and believe me, there are people who don’t), tough. Adding Gays to the list doesn’t raise the stress level that much. And, no, before you ask; I don’t see a difference.

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  44. Aphrael wrote:

    Dana – I suspect that the church, claiming that marriage is a religious sacrament, would have a good free exercise defense against that, were it to happen.

    I suspect that had I suggested that a white supremacist who was also a minister, legally empowered by the state to perform marriages, refused to perform a requested wedding ceremony by an interracial couple, you’d not have responded as you did.

    Dana (9f37aa)

  45. CSP Schofield — you object to courts forcing a shift, but I take it you have no problem with legislatures enacting the changes?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  46. Dana – it depends. Is he claiming that as a matter of church doctrine, he is forbidden to perform such weddings? If so, then I react the same way.

    I basically think this issue is a red herring. Churches *regularly* refuse to perform wedding ceremonies which they believe violate church policy (as a non-catholic, for example, I can’t get married in a catholic church unless i’m marrying someone who is catholic); I don’t see why gay marriages would be treated any differently than those marriages which churches already refuse to perform for religious reasons.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  47. It always amazes me that people can say so much about a law or a proposed law without bothering to mention what it actually says:

    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

    There are two sentences here. The first sentence seems to define the word “marriage” not just for the purposes of the amendment, but generally. It says that you might get in legal hot water if you call some relationship a “marriage” unless it’s a relationship between one man and one woman. It seems to at least connote an exception to the First Amendment. So, I’m kind of leery of that first sentence, and I don’t see any good reason for it. The Amendment would still be logically complete if that first sentence were omitted. And what would that leave? Yup, it would leave the second sentence:

    Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

    This shortened one-sentence amendment I could support. It doesn’t ban anything. Instead, it merely leaves these questions to the people and their legislators, and tells the judges to butt out. Indeed, state judges throughout the country have been perusing their state constitutions to find between the lines some imaginary statement about gay marriage. And many federal judges are busily planning on the same sort of thing with the federal Constitution. I see nothing wrong with dealing with all of that by approving the second sentence of the proposed amendment. That says nothing about whether gay marriage should be illegal or legal, but merely emphasizes that we’re a democracy rather than a judicial dictatorship. Why the dummies on Capitol Hill had to include the first sentence boggles my mind. Perhaps they wanted the amendment to fail?

    Andrew (08ba2c)

  48. I can’t tell if Bush is trying to hype everyone up about gay marriage or activist judges — or is he just pushing both hot buttons to supposedly get us to afraid of the Lefties, again.

    I’m tired of being used! The Republicans have had both the Congress and the WH for years, now, and they only seem to get around to being concerned about conservative values when they want me to go to the polls. The rest of the time, they give tax breaks to oil companies and the rich, go on trips with corp. executives who are sending our jobs to other countries or hire illegals to take our jobs here … not to mention that I frankly don’t trust a word Bush says anymore!

    So, with the debt soaring into the trillons, the stock market tanking, gas prices rising, illegals pouring over our borders, hurricane season approaching with a group who still thinks global warming is a myth … and the mess they got us into in Iraq (oh, and where is Osama?) … can someone tell me why I supposed to still be so afraid of the Democrats?

    Disgusted with the whole group!

    bill (097046)

  49. I have been married for nearly 40 years and I dont see where gays getting married threatens my marriage..and Bush probably doesnt see it either. This is just another disgusting attempt by this President to win by dividing us.

    Funny how he trots this thing out just before the elections. Could it be an attempt to get our minds off Iraq, Katrina, the national debt, the insecure Southern boarder, the cronyism, the corruption, the lies and duplicity of this rotten-to-the-core administration?

    It pleases me to see so many are finally waking up to what this anti-American administration is doing and the cheap tactics they use to get their way!

    Wake up America. This moron is a threat to America and deserves to be impeached!!

    Charlie (e16458)

  50. I have been married for nearly 40 years and I dont see where gays getting married threatens my marriage..

    Similar was said in a previous comment, so it’s time to say: It’s silly to think a homosexual marriage threatens your marriage, or Patterico’s marriage, or my mother’s marriage, or Bush’s marriage. The question was, Is gay marriage damaging to the fabric of society?

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  51. Anwyn, and if the answer is ‘yes’, then the next question is is gay marriage more damaging to the fabric of society than the absence of gay marriage?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  52. Charlie, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that gays getting married threatens your marriage. Congratulations, by the way, on your 40th anniversary. 🙂

    What’s being suggested is that gays getting married threatens to deprive children of their right to preferably grow up with one mother and one father, in a traditional and stable household. Of course, many children don’t get such an upbringing regardless of whether gay marriage is legal, but the question is whether the numbers would go up dramatically. And would this be right for the children? I really don’t think anyone cares about threatening your marriage.

    Andrew (08ba2c)

  53. Aphrael, from a strictly semantic viewpoint, I think the question “is it damaging” automatically assumes that it’s less damaged without the subject of the question.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  54. I said that wrong. That was dumb.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  55. Dana:

    The full faith and credit clause, CS, is why. The federal Defense of Marriage Act exists, and the Constitution provides for the ability of the federal government to pass appropriate legislation to see to it that full faith and credit are given, but DoMA is, in effect, legislation to deny full faith and credit.

    True, but that doesn’t mean it will be invalidated. After all, the enforcement clause all but invites such laws; it doesn’t just authorize laws to “see too it that full faith and credit are given,” it generally allows laws to “prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” To me, that implies a power to restrict full faith and credit as well as to enhance it. Cf. the commerce clause, where state laws burdening interstate commerce are generally presumed unconstitutional, but magically become constitutional if authorized by federal legislation.

    All this assumes, of course, that marriages are public acts entitled to full faith and credit, an assumption which is not uncontroversial in its own right.

    We face the specter of four whacko judges in Massachusetts deciding for the entire country that same sex “marriage” must be recognized in every state; if DoMA is struck down (a reasonable possibility), then Pennsylvania or Nebraska would have to recognize legally performed homosexual “marriages” from Massachusetts.

    Maybe, but not necessarily. DOMA could be struck down on a technical basis, but courts may nevertheless rule that marriages aren’t “public acts,” or that if they are, the public policy exception allows a state that prohibits gay marriage to deny recognition to gay marriages performed in other states. That said, you’re probably right; if DOMA is struck down, it’s likely that states will be required to honor each other’s gay marriages. If that ever happens, FMA will pass overwhelmingly in a matter of days, if not hours.

    Xrlq (51d90f)

  56. Let’s see if I can get that right. Aphrael said, “if the answer is ‘yes’.” THAT is what assumes that society is less damaged without gay marriage. Obviously the question itself does not assume that. Long day. So, Aphrael, I think your second question is really just asking for a restatement of the answer to the first. If the answer to the question “is it damaging to society?” is “yes,” then obviously the person saying “yes” thinks it is more damaging than the lack of.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  57. As someone with 14 years of experience in public education, I’ve worked with a lot of kids from a lot of different family configurations. Kids from single parent families, two-parent families, no-parent families (grandparents, wards of the state, etc.). In my experience, the bottom line is that children need loving adults who are committed to supporting them in their growth and development. A single parent of that description is better than a mother/father combo without those qualities. A gay couple of that description is better than a mother/father combo without those qualities. Is there any empirical evidence anywhere that suggests that children raised by gay couples lose out (emotionally, academically, etc.) in comparison to children raised in straight households?

    unceph (69caaa)

  58. Unceph, I’m not aware of studies on either side. But what does it matter? The point is who should evaluate whatever studies may exist, and who should then use their good sense to decide the issue. Should it be judges who pretend that their state constitutions give them unlimited authority? Or should it be the people and their legislators?

    But getting back to your question, I can’t help but think that most young children enjoy and appreciate not being separated from their mothers.

    Andrew (08ba2c)

  59. And you won’t have to wait long before some homosexual couple in Massachusetts sues the Roman Catholic Church because a Catholic priest, following the instructions of his bishop and following Canon Law, refuses to hold a nuptual mass for said couple.

    Has this ever happened, even post Loving?

    actus (6234ee)

  60. Andrew,

    I understand and find reasonable the state legislature vs. courts discussion (at least, as well as might be expected for someone with no formal legal expertise). I see important points on either side — it should be a state decision vs. the issue of equal protections — and it strikes me as a reasonable debate that raises reasonable issues.

    What I see as less reasonable, and the point to which I responded, is the line of reasoning that goes, “Gay marriage is bad because gay couples will adopt children and that’s bad for children.” Yes, all things being equal, most young children would enjoy and appreciate not being separated from their mothers. But I happen to work with a young girl who, at her own request, was removed from her mother’s house because her mother’s live-in boyfriend was doing things he shouldn’t have been doing. That is an isolated, anecdotal example and in no way means that most children don’t benefit from living with their mothers, all things being equal. My point is, all things are almost never equal, especially when it comes to families. Which is why I simply cannot see the reason in the “gay couples are bad for children” argument. Loving parents are good for children. If gay couples can be just as loving as straight couples, where’s the evidence that children raised by gay couples somehow lose out?

    unceph (69caaa)

  61. Unceph, as I said, I don’t know about compelling statistical evidence on either side, and I’m sure you’d agree that statistical studies should be taken with a grain of salt, due to the possibility of bias among the people who conduct such studies, not to mention the reluctance of children to badmouth the hand that feeds them. Children are awfully resilient people, and even if they have a miserable lousy childhood they can often flourish in adulthood. The question shouldn’t be whether they fluorish in school and in later life, but how much fulfillment and joy they get out of their childhoods. That’s an awfully difficult thing to measure. So, scientific studies may be of very limited value, and common sense should really be a primary factor. As you said, all things being equal, most young children would enjoy and appreciate not being separated from their mothers. So, laws that discourage such separation might not be so unwise. In any event, the issue should be decided by those with proper authority, rather than by those who usurp proper authority.

    Andrew (08ba2c)

  62. And you won’t have to wait long before some homosexual couple in Massachusetts sues the Roman Catholic Church because a Catholic priest, following the instructions of his bishop and following Canon Law, refuses to hold a nuptual mass for said couple.

    Has this ever happened, even post Loving?

    I don’t think the Church has much to fear in a case like this (though I am not a lawyer, and the crazy cases that make it to the courts never cease to amaze me). My real fear is that the next time a politician like Gavin Newsome wants to pander to the gay community, he will make an announcement along the lines of, “Since the Catholic Church, Orthodox Judiasm, Islam, and others won’t recognize gay marriages, the City of San Francisco will no longer grant marriage licenses to couples who marry in those churches, temples, and mosques, nor will we recognize these marriages as valid.” I am willing to support a civil contract for gays — I am even willing to call it marriage if I must — but I think there needs to be a clause affirming the right of religious institutions to refuse to accept these arrangements.

    JVW (f8154a)

  63. “Since the Catholic Church, Orthodox Judiasm, Islam, and others won’t recognize gay marriages, the City of San Francisco will no longer grant marriage licenses to couples who marry in those churches, temples, and mosques, nor will we recognize these marriages as valid.”

    Has this even happened, post loving?

    actus (6234ee)

  64. Sure actus, just because it hasn’t happened yet means that there is no chance of it ever happening. Logic works in weird ways on your planet.

    JVW (f8154a)

  65. aphrael,

    I have no problem with legislative change, save that the ‘full faith and credit’ clause will make for a fine free fight over how far California’s mores should be allowed to bully (say) Montana. That is a fight we probably should have anyway.

    I’m also massively unconcerned over polygamy. If the same legal protections apply to both sexes, then polygamous marriages will be rare. Certainly the traditional Islamic ones won’t last beyond the junior wife getting fed up with the whole thing.

    If I could remake the marriage laws there is one change I would impose, if I could. Do away with ‘no fault’ divorce – or at least make it harder. Marriage should be a lifetime commitment, regardless of the gender, habits, and number of the participants. It is harder to get out of a ‘book of the month club’ contract than it is to dissolve a marriage these days, and that’s wrong.

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  66. One gets married to stay happy with the person he likes and if he is not happy then there is no question of getting married. Its every person right to marry a person he is interested in. So no space for any kind of law.

    Maysa (3ededb)

  67. But does anyone opposed to gay marriage on the basis that a homosexual couple can’t reproduce support extending the marriage ban to heterosexual couples who cannot or intend not to have children?

    In logical terms, that’s argument by exception, and/or a non-sequitur, therefore not a valid argument. Colloquially, that’s dumber than a box of rocks.

    CraigC (9cd021)

  68. CraigC – I don’t see why that’s a non sequitur, or particularly dumb. A group of people are arguing “we can’t let [x] marry because [x] can’t reproduce”; the fact that none of them care about the fact that [y] is allowed to marry despite the fact that [y] can’t reproduce goes a long way to undermine the credibility of their claims.

    If it’s about reproduction, then [x] and [y] should be treated equally. Conversely, if they aren’t treated equally, then there has to be *something* other than reproduction at issue.

    aphrael (6b0647)

  69. I’m not for the gay marriage ban, but I’m all for the discussion about it.
    When I had the chance to vote on an ban amendment in my home state, I very happily voted against it. But it passed, as it did in virtually every state in which it was put to a vote. That tells me many citizens want a ban, although state courts have knocked down some of those amendments.

    One problem with the abortion situation in this country is that the change came by a judicial decision, and people don’t (or didn’t) feel their voices were heard. That goes against the grain in a representative democracy. I think we’ll end up with the same ever-contentious result if that’s how this issue is decided.

    So yeah, let’s let our voted representatives hash this one out in public.

    MayBee (c5700f)

  70. MayBee, I agree with you that citizens and their representatives should hash this out state-by-state, and that’s why I only support the second sentence of the proposed constitutional amendment. See comment #48 above.

    Andrew (08ba2c)

  71. Andrew…thanks for your “congratulations” Yup guess I am one of the lucky ones..nearly 40 years and to the same woman!!!

    Re this proposal.. I dont like tampering with the Constitution especially for religious reasons.

    As for the fabric of society arguement, what really tears society apart is endless war..it brings out the worst in people, threatens to bankrupt the nation not to mention the deaths and injuries. Being overrun by open boarders is another. Lack of decent jobs a third. Presidential disregard for laws is another.. the list goes on.

    If this President cared about anything other than his own image, he would have been a lot more careful about entering this war, would have kept the boarders secure.

    This is just more spin for his “base” which, once they elect the Bushheads once again, will soon be forgotten, along with and all the promises they made to them, just like last time.

    This man is the worst President ever!!

    Charlie (e16458)

  72. Well, Charlie, talking like that, you shouldn’t expect to be nominated by President Bush for anything any time soon. 🙂

    Andrew (29fe3d)

  73. Sure actus, just because it hasn’t happened yet means that there is no chance of it ever happening

    There’s a non-zero chance of a lot of things. I’m trying to find some perspective. If we didn’t treat interracial marriage in a certain way — which, was imposed by judges, something Dubya disagrees with — then we’re likely not to treat gay marriage that way either.

    In logical terms, that’s argument by exception, and/or a non-sequitur, therefore not a valid argument. Colloquially, that’s dumber than a box of rocks.

    Why is argument by exception not valid? One way to learn about a rule is to look for its exceptions.

    actus (6234ee)

  74. If we didn’t treat interracial marriage in a certain way — which, was imposed by judges, something Dubya disagrees with — then we’re likely not to treat gay marriage that way either.

    The Constitution specifically bans racial discrimination (Amendment XV). It says nothing about same sex marriage.

    Stu707 (18fdc8)

  75. The Constitution specifically bans racial discrimination (Amendment XV). It says nothing about same sex marriage.

    Even better argument for if we didn’t do it to racial discrimination, then we wont do it for gays.

    actus (ebc508)

  76. “If we didn’t treat interracial marriage in a certain way — which, was imposed by judges, something Dubya disagrees with — then we’re likely not to treat gay marriage that way either.”

    Someone doesn’t understand the shift in jurisprudential theory between Loving and Lawrence very well, does he?

    Of course, that isn’t a surprise, given the source.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  77. Please tell me all about the shift.

    actus (ebc508)

  78. Private rights vs. Public Rights model of jurisprudence.

    You can read all about in it the first forty or so pages of Hart & Wechsler.

    Angry Clam (fa7fff)

  79. Here’s a question. If Bush is so interested in protecting marriage, why doesnt he make divorce illegal?

    PS does anyone know how many Bush supporters are divorced?

    PPSS Ya Andrew I just blew my chance at Secretary of ..something or another!! 🙂

    Charlie (e16458)

  80. Private rights vs. Public Rights model of jurisprudence.

    I’m counting all the time since Loving. Which would include Lawrence time.

    But if you want to think that the Roberts court is going to tell churches who to marry, go ahead.

    actus (ebc508)

  81. CraigC – I don’t see why that’s a non sequitur, or particularly dumb. A group of people are arguing “we can’t let [x] marry because [x] can’t reproduce”; the fact that none of them care about the fact that [y] is allowed to marry despite the fact that [y] can’t reproduce goes a long way to undermine the credibility of their claims.

    If it’s about reproduction, then [x] and [y] should be treated equally. Conversely, if they aren’t treated equally, then there has to be *something* other than reproduction at issue.

    It most certainly is all of those things. You have to look at the larger cultural imperatives. Same-sex couples cannot reproduce. Mixed couples can reproduce. The fact that lesbian couples can use modern science to do so, or that some hetero couples can’t or won’t reproduce is irrelevant to the larger point that traditional marriage has been shown for thousands of years, and for very good and obvious reasons, to be the best environment for raising children.

    To claim that because some couples can’t or choose not to reproduce somehow invalidates that position is childish and absurd.

    Furthermore, the reproduction issue is a red herring. As I noted, barring the statistically tiny exception of lesbians using artificial insemination or surrogate mothers, same-sex couples can’t reproduce anyway. The issue is what is the best environment in which to raise children, and study after study has shown that it’s a nuclear family with a mother and a father.

    CraigC (9cd021)

  82. Uh, Charlie? Wasn’t the 13th amendment essentially passed ‘for religious reasons’. Are you against THAT?

    Realistically, what is needed is not a “defense of marriage’ amendment, it is a Defense of Language amendment, which would prevent Judges from, say, implying that a 200 year old law on marriage does not exclude homosexual pairs, ignoring that the men who wrote the thing never imagined that ‘married’ implied anything other than heterosexual union. but that would be hell to write, and wouldn’t scratch the itch that bothers the voters NOW. Hopefully the nits who take such delight in twisting the meaning of the Law will take note.

    Anyway…”Worst President ever”??? Really? Worse than Andrew Johnson, who came perilously close to restarting the Civil War? Worse than Woodrow Wilson, the elitist bigot who got us into WWI for no very good reason, and then bungled the peace so badly as to virtually ensure WWII? Worse than Herbert Hoover? Worse than Jimmy “two digit unemployment, two digit inflation, and no gas” Carter?

    Take two tylenol, put a cool cloth on your forehead, and go lie down in a dark room. You’ll feel better in an hour or two,

    *Sheesh*

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  83. Wasn’t the 13th amendment essentially passed ‘for religious reasons’.

    No.

    Xrlq (ec68d8)

  84. Xriq,

    No? OK, explain. If it isn’t based on a religious belief that slavery is wrong, where does it come from? Why did we spill the blood of hundreds of thousands of our countrymen over it?

    I’m not a huge fan of religion. I’m an agnostic. But let’s not pretend that religion has no good points. That is a game played by assorted religious cranks who make believe that they are not religious – which frees them to try to force their religion on others. Foo.

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  85. No? OK, explain. If it isn’t based on a religious belief that slavery is wrong, where does it come from?

    The secular humanist belief that slavery is wrong.

    actus (6234ee)

  86. Anyone who cannot see an innate biological difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage needs a crash course in anatomy. It is a huge distance away from being strictly a religious matter.

    I’m boggling over the idea that slavery is wrong because religion says so. Slavery in this country was one of the biggest hypocrisies ever perpetrated: Freedom for me, but not for thee. It was based on the fallacy that black people were not human beings of the same basic makeup as white people. That is a clear biological fallacy, which can stand on its own without religion. The 13th Amendment made it illegal for people to indulge a base instinct for dominance over others and justify it with a worthless argument.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  87. CraigC,

    Aphrael did a superior job responding to your #68, I think, so I shall proceed:

    Furthermore, the reproduction issue is a red herring.

    I don’t think it is; it’s certainly one of the expressed objections to gay marriage that I’ve seen, and that’s why my original post brought it up.

    In the meantime, I think banning gay marriages because they might represent a suboptimal child-rearing environment to be unduly restrictive. Aren’t adoptions handled case by case anyhow, if that’s the concern?

    To the extent that marriage in our society serves purposes other than reproduction and child-rearing, and it certainly does, you’re right that that particular argument isn’t germane. But then you need a new set of objections.

    Bobby (6d95ca)

  88. #85 and #86.

    The 13th Amendment was passed because there were finally enough people who believed in the words “freedom” and “liberty” written in the founding documents to get it to pass. Actus, why “secular humanist belief” and not “American belief”?

    nk (bfc26a)

  89. Has anyone wondered why most religions, and most societies, that have existed in the world have taboos against things like homosexuality? These taboos are older than most of our recorded history, so it is difficult to say with any certainly as to why such taboos exist.

    Perhaps those religions and societies recognized that homosexuality is damaging to society as a whole? Perhaps the societies that allowed homosexuality became decedent and eventually failed, like the Romans? Perhaps the societies observed the increase in sickness among homosexuals?

    Since we have no evidence as to why such taboos were in place, we shall never really know why they’re considered taboo. (I’d love to see a study of this topic.) But they were, and still are, taboo for most of the world’s societies. There must be a good reason for these taboos, why else would such taboos last for so long if they didn’t serve a purpose? And if we ignore those taboos, will we suffer the same fate as the Romans?

    Ray (be81f9)

  90. Hey Schofield why dont you look at the facts about this liar in chief before you attack me.

    War for trumped up reasons..?? What President ever did that?
    Bush is an ignorant moron who takes advantage of every photo op to make himself look like a man of substance when in fact he is an empty windbag taking advantage of fear and bigotry to ride to power. Pretending to be a Conservative while in fact he is a fascist who lies to the people and grabs powers never before claimed by an American President.

    Do you deny that??

    Charlie (e16458)

  91. No? OK, explain. If it isn’t based on a religious belief that slavery is wrong, where does it come from?

    A non-religious belief that slavery is wrong.

    Xrlq (ec68d8)

  92. “Pretending to be a Conservative while in fact he is a fascist who lies to the people and grabs powers never before claimed by an American President

    Do you deny that??”

    Charlie,
    I’ll deny it.

    “he is a fascist”
    Just how is President Bush a fascist? Only because you say he is? Did he suspend the Constitution? Has he banned Congress from making laws? Has he appointed himself President for Life? Has he ordered the closure of newspapers, or magazines, or blogs that disagree with his policy? Has he federalized the police? Has he ordered any national re-education camps? Has he confiscated people’s guns, or houses, or cars, or any property? Has he ordered the assignation of his political rivals? Has he actually done anything that could be considered fascist? No, he hasn’t.

    “who lies to the people”
    What has he lied about? That Saddam was trying to buy “yellowcake?” He was. That everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s? They did. That Islamic fanatics are a threat? They are. Just what has he lied about? Not a damn thing!

    “grabs powers never before claimed by an American President”

    What power has he gained the no other president had? National security? Every President has that power. Appointing Judges? That’s another job of a President. Commander and Chief of the Military? The President is the only civilian authority of the military allowed by the Constitution. Just what powers did he grab? Only those allowed to him by the Constitution and Congress.

    Charlie, if you don’t like the President, then don’t worry as this is his last term and in 2008 you’ll be able to vote for his replacement. Until then, he IS the President and you need to get use to it. You don’t have to like it, but hay, life’s a bitch sometimes.

    Ray (be81f9)

  93. I’m boggling over the idea that slavery is wrong because religion says so. Slavery in this country was one of the biggest hypocrisies ever perpetrated: Freedom for me, but not for thee

    True, although many of the anti-slavery activists were religious and used religion as an argument.
    However, we end up with the same tangle of fish hooks in making *that* a religious argument as we do saying that being against gay marriage is a religious argument. Certainly, there are religious groups opposed to it, but not only religious groups. Gay marriage hasn’t been embraced by any culture that I’m aware of, so opposition to it actually transcends religion.

    The truth is we have a lot of laws and societal beliefs that are based on nothing more than what society agrees is “proper”. Actus says it’s humanist, and that may be, but there is still the question of why the US has decided on those particular values.

    If there is no Higher Authority that makes gay marriage wrong, there is no higher authority that makes it right, either.

    Which is why the discussion needs to be had, and we in the society get to make the decision.

    For me, as I said, I don’t want the amendment and I embrace the idea of gay marriage. But I won’t invoke moral or religious authority to make my argument.

    MayBee (c5700f)

  94. OK, two debates at once:

    1) “A Secular belief that slavery is wrong”?! OK, show me the math. If it isn’t based on science, it a religious belief. Maybe not exclusively a Christian belief, but religious none the less. “All men deserve to be free”. OK, fine. On what do we base this? I know any number of men (and women) who deserve to be kept in close confinement. Yet in principal the belief persists. Religion.

    2) “War for trumped up reasons ?? What President ever did that ??” Woodrow Wilson. Look him up. Read about him in depth. He was far closer to being a fascist than Bush has ever been. Look up Mitchell Palmer (Wilson’s pet goon) while you’re at it.

    OK, you don’t like the Iraq campaign of the War on Terror. I get that. Do you believe that 9/11 was set up? Are you as sad and delusional as the demented old Conservatives who maintain that FDR set up Pearl Harbor?

    People like you make me tired. Multiculturalism is swill. Islamic Radicals are violent, dangerous, bigots, and making war on them is apparently the only way to keep them in check. Certainly diplomacy has been an ostentatious failure.

    If Bush were a fascist you, and the hysterics like you who clog up the campuses and badger us at every turn, would be in Gulags. Or dead.

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  95. CSP, I’m not interested in debating semantics. If you think all moral and philosophical pronouncements are “religion,” that’s fine, but you’re using the word in a way that does not comport with its common meaning. In both the North and the South, the dominant religion – as we normal folk use that word – was Christianity, which does not condemn slavery. Fighting a war over slavery was not a holy war.

    Xrlq (8b6bc2)

  96. Er. I agree it wasn’t a holy war, and I suspect that the 13th Amendment wasn’t passed due to overwhelming pressure from Christians, but when you say Christianity does not condemn slavery, do you mean official Catholic doctrine? Or general Christian belief? Or a bunch of Christians? I don’t know any Christian or any human being who *wouldn’t* condemn slavery.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  97. I would support that amendment that would ban the judicary from making such laws.And its the life of a person and no law is made that allows one to enter into others life.

    emmy (d7f710)

  98. Anwyn:

    Er. I agree it wasn’t a holy war, and I suspect that the 13th Amendment wasn’t passed due to overwhelming pressure from Christians, but when you say Christianity does not condemn slavery, do you mean official Catholic doctrine? Or general Christian belief? Or a bunch of Christians?

    I mean the Bible, which not only fails to condemn slavery, but implicitly endorses it by commanding slaves to submit to their masters, and not commanding slaveowners to free their slaves.

    I don’t know any Christian or any human being who *wouldn’t* condemn slavery.

    My point exactly. Everyone condemns slavery now, not everyone did then. The religion hasn’t changed; society has in other ways.

    Xrlq (8b6bc2)

  99. When I asked the question on my own site of those who support same sex marriage if they would also support legislation protecting churches which do not recognize same sex marriage as legitimate from lawsuits if such churches refused to perform same sex marriages, the (admittedly few) responses I got were that churches were already protected from that — but no one seemed interested in explicit legislation specifying that.

    Dana (3e4784)

  100. All Y’all secularists,

    So, we know that in the 1860’s the United States was a deeply religious country, much given to the maudlin pious sentiment of the Victorian Age. We know that, while it boasted a few high profile Atheists and Free Thinkers, the Abolitionist movement had its deepest roots in the Protestant sects of the North. We know that the nation that ratified the 13th amendment was the same nation that made Ben Hur a bestseller – and the book is so religious it frankly makes the Heston version of the movies look like the work of an atheist.

    But the 13th Amendment was put in place because of SECULAR anti-slavery sentiment.

    Right.

    Pull the other one; it has bells on.

    As I said before; I’m an agnostic. I don’t deny that religion has provided an excuse for some of the most barbarous behavior in human history. Most of it, in fact. Where Secularists lose me is when they try to separate the good impulses of the religious throughout history from religion. It’s like judging the Shriners purely on how they behave at their conventions, while denying that the Shriners’ Hospitals have anything to do with the organization.

    Stop. Please. You make me tired.

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  101. I disagree, slightly, with C.S.P.Schofield, #101. The 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 and Governor Wallace wrote Ben Hur around 1881 (instead of trying to contain the Lincoln County War). I am inclined to beleive that the abolition of slavery, as well as of apprenticeship and indentureship, was the result of American ideals and not Christian ideals. Britain did a phony abolition — it abolished chattel slavery and substituted “bondservice”. Imperial Russia, practically a theocracy, practiced serfdom until the Bolshevik revolution. I have come to believe that the founding fathers realized that they could not, in 1787, abolish slavery without tearing their infant nation apart and bided their time trusting in future generations. Their trust was justified.

    Supposedly, Abraham Lincoln upon meeting Harriett Beecher Stowe said, “So you’re the little lady that started the Civil War”. Christianity is in fact an unbroken thread in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. The Underground Railroad was operated by devout Christians and John Brown was a fanatically devout Christian. I have read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I cannot say whether Lincoln was speaking as a Christian or as a humanist. History is like water running dowhill. It can be allowed to follow the path of least resistance or it can be dammed and diverted by men like Abraham Lincoln and all the others who fought on the side of the Union in the Civil War.

    nk (8214ee)

  102. In the end, I suppose, I am simply inclined to believe that if asked the men who fought in the Civil War who did so to end slavery (not all of them, by any means) and those who fought the political battles to see the passage of the 13th amendment would have said that they did so from a Christian faith that all men should be free. That was how the men of the time thought, with rare exceptions.

    Yes, the interpretation of Christian Duty by Americans of that period differed from that of Europeans. No, there isn’t a single set of Christian Values, no matter what Jerry Falwell (or the ACLU) says. I still think that if we are going to blame Christianity for the barbarism of the Inquisitions, we must also give it credit for the end of slavery in America.

    The men who want to bar Homosexual marriages on the basis of their religion are wrong – or so I believe. The men and women who fought to pass the Prohibition Amendment (18th, I believe?) were also wrong. None of that excuses taking from devout Christians who spent their power, time and (in some cases) blood to see Slavery ended the value of what their faith did for our country.

    In another argument (not here) I have pointed out that if Gays want to claim Michelangelo was Gay (because his artistic genius reflects well on them) they must be prepared to admit that Edward VI was also Gay, and a complete swine. If you want to claim the good, you must accept the bad.

    Conversely, if you want to lay blame for the bad, you must admit the good too.

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  103. When you lay the foundation for a society you start with a family unit. This unit provides for individuals who, from a secure place, can improve and support society. Fundamentally, this is tied to procreation. The production and succor of the next generation is vital to a thriving society. To condone anything but this unit is to weaken the foundation. The reason being is that once this inclusion starts, where does it stop? religon vs secular thought is an invaild concern. We need to think along the lines of perserving our society and its values.
    We value Law. When we move away from it or twist it to meet todays ‘new thing’ we endager ourselves and our values. Why is it that the majority condition must adapt to the minority desire? Enough, before you know it we’ll be arguing the rights of pedophiles.
    As for a federal amendment, thats outright incorrect. This falls to states rights. The State legislature truly has a better finger on the pulse of its constituency and it’s moral basis.
    If Florida chooses to permit gay marriages, I still retain the right not to live here. Is this one issue enough to cause me to leave? I’m not sure, another Hurricane seems to impact that decision more.

    paul from FL (464e99)

  104. Ray and others.. Understand that fascism does not suddenly spring on us out of the blue. Its something that gradually grows. True Bush did not formally suspend the Constutution but he has quietly announced that he will simply disregard any law that he does not see fit to enforce..thus nullifying the laws Congress passes. He has taken on himself to claim the right to arrest and jail anyone he deems an enemy combattent without answering to the court system or even letting them know what the charges are or give them access to the legal system. That alone ought to show you he is a fascist. He has engaged in torture and even when a law was passed against it he says he will not follow it if he doesnt see fit. He has started an indefinitely long war based on false reasons and says that he can govern this way as long as the war continues. What does that say to you?
    So he really has suspended the Constitution, in effect.

    Oh and the yellowcake and other evidence about WMDs, other countries knew the evidence was weak and when they said so they were attacked as surrender monkeys and so on. Remember that??
    Bush used the evidence he needed to justify the war and disregarded that which did not suit his purpose. remember Downing street memos? and the testimony of many officials regarding Bushs desire for war incluing the discussions about painting planes with false insignia to create an incident justifying war? His lies about the inspectors not being able to enter Iraq? and on and on. This man does not believe in democracy. He believes that people are to be used as pawns and lied to and manipulated and that essentially you cant level with them because they are not fit to govern themselves. A perfect example is when he assured us that ‘whenever are talking wiretaps you are talking court orders because we value the protections of the Constitution’ or words to thate effect….all the while secretly wiretapping!. IMO all this makes him a fascist at heart.

    Bush wanted war and got it..just not the one he wanted.

    Charlie (e16458)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1087 secs.