Patterico's Pontifications

6/16/2008

Same-Sex Marriage: Legal in California

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:20 pm

As of 5 p.m. today. And some licenses have already been issued.

I think this is a good time to echo Eugene Volokh’s sentiments from May 15:

Whatever one might think of the social or legal consequences of this sort of decision, it pretty clearly makes them [same-sex couples] happy, and happy for the right reason — the common human desire to have them, their families, their love, and their mutual commitment recognized. So congratulations to all these couples, those whom I know well personally and the many more whom I don’t.

Those couples, by the way, include David Ehrenstein and his partner of 37 years. A special congratulations to them.

75 Responses to “Same-Sex Marriage: Legal in California”

  1. yeah, at least some decent happiness can come out of the silly way this policy was arrived at. Congrats to the newlyweds.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  2. Allright, Ehrenstein, you finally got what was coming to you. You better paint that house and it better be the right shade of paint.

    Just kidding.

    My best wishes, David, for all the happiness this world allows.

    nk (4bb2be)

  3. congratulations and good luck to all.

    assistant devil's advocate (bcca66)

  4. Gays should be allowed to be as unhappy as the rest of us…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  5. What’s the over/under on the first gay divorce?

    Gerald A (1d77ed)

  6. Gerald – you need to set-up a green card and non-green card division for your contest.

    Ed (a9dfde)

  7. this is the most ridiculous idea in America’s history!!

    stipdog (1de607)

  8. I’ve got news for all you faggots and dykes out there. Fine, you can now get married, but don’t come bitching to me when divorce lawyers get involved. You want the bennies, you can put up with the crap. :Nyah:

    Alan Kellogg (b2e4d7)

  9. Patterico, I respectfully dissent.

    This “happiness” Volokh speaks of is the by-product of judicial activism that thwarted the right of the citizens of California to preserve a millenniums-old institution.

    I am making a conscious choice not to fall victim to Justice Ronald George’s strategy of refusing a stay until the November election, thus creating an interim period during which the gay-friendly MSM will flood screens and newspapers full of touching personal accounts and endless images of loving embraces and kisses. George is on the record as wanting to start a chain reaction of same-sex marriage acceptance across the country. It’s in his ego’s best interest to manipulate events so those who wish to Constitutionally restore marriage to its traditional definition are cast as enemies of “happiness.”

    Do I wish ill upon my fellow participant Mr. Ehrenstein? No. But if his “happiness” at having “[his] mutual commitment recognized” (as Mr. Volokh puts it) results from the dealing of what may be among the last of many death blows to the American nuclear family as we know it, I can’t share in it.

    L.N. Smithee (a438da)

  10. Someone should launch an investigation to see if Justice George ever visited Judge Kozinski’s site.

    Missed It By THAT Much (25c26c)

  11. L. N. Smithee, let me ask you this. if the sanctity of marriage is that important to you, why are you not out gathering petition signatures to outlaw divorce? It’s just too darn easy for folks to change their minds. DoMA should have covered this; who knows which of Bob Barr’s or Newt Gingrich’s marriages might have been defended.

    Either that, or at the very least, bring back the laws that require adultery to be in the picture before divorce can be filed.

    I believe that should be done. In addition, let’s also return to the days when the full names and addresses of those filing for divorce are printed on the Vital Statistics page of the newspaper. It will let the GOOD, DECENT folks among us make obscene phone calls to the women at 2 in the morning, or sit parked in their cars across the street so they can accost the children as they come home from school each day.

    Lest you think this is an exaggeration, our family was made subject to this when my folks split. And this was in enlightened California, not some Bible-belt backwater.

    the friendly grizzly (c79468)

  12. In the micro- I’m very happy for all the couples out there celebrating

    In the macro, it is a sad day because the institution of marriage has been redefined by judicial fiat. Redefined by select few who reject the idea of The People defining a contractual ideal.

    On to legalizing polygamy!

    Darleen (187edc)

  13. On to legalizing polygamy!

    How exactly would that work?

    Do you know anything about American government?

    Levi (76ef55)

  14. Do you know anything about American government?

    Do you, Levi?

    nk (4bb2be)

  15. nk – Nope. He has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding, repeatedly.

    JD (75f5c3)

  16. Do you, Levi?

    I’m not the one running around thinking ‘The People’ trump the Constitution.

    Where’s your position on this? Why don’t you, you know, actually say something, as opposed to following me around with your substance-free posts?

    Levi (76ef55)

  17. Levi accusing someone else of being substance-free is my joke of the day. BDS is not substantive, asshat.

    JD (75f5c3)

  18. Err, that’s “Levi“, JD. (Link perfectly safe for work.)

    nk (4bb2be)

  19. Darleen,

    The polygamy parallel is unfounded. The gay marriage issue is one of equal protection (that is, the ability of straight individuals to marry the one adult they love while denying gays the same right). The same cannot be said of polygamy, where everyone (gay and straight alike) is prohibited from marrying more than one person of their choice.

    Similarly, the “onward to child marriages” argument (another favorite of those who believe gay marriage to be a slippery slope into all manner of debauchery) is unfounded; these gay marriages are taking place between two consenting adults, and children cannot legally give consent.

    People are trying to make a prophetic bogeyman out of this case where none exists.

    Leviticus (1086cb)

  20. The polygamy parallel is unfounded. The gay marriage issue is one of equal protection (that is, the ability of straight individuals to marry the one adult they love while denying gays the same right). The same cannot be said of polygamy, where everyone (gay and straight alike) is prohibited from marrying more than one person of their choice.

    Similarly, the “onward to child marriages” argument (another favorite of those who believe gay marriage to be a slippery slope into all manner of debauchery) is unfounded; these gay marriages are taking place between two consenting adults, and children cannot legally give consent.

    People are trying to make a prophetic bogeyman out of this case where none exists.

    Hey buddy, stop being so arrogant!

    Levi (76ef55)

  21. Is it not a foundation of the Republic, that the People are Soveriegn?
    Does not the Preamble to the Constitution start with “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a More Perfect Union…”?
    If the Constitution trumps the People, how could the People ordain and establish a Constitution?
    Just asking.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  22. It is sad, however, that this outcome has a foundation of sand. Like the abortion right, there is no clearly expressed popular agreement that gay marriage should be supported by the state. WHich is sad because if the courts had stayed the frack out of it, it would probably be voted into law soon in several states including California.

    But NO ONE likes to be told they’re too stupid to do what is right, and are likely to react badly to that. Why is it that the control freaks always think that they’re doing us unwashed people a favor? And so surprised when the people retaliate?

    Kevin Murphy (df0a56)

  23. Kevin: the voters of California will be voting on this issue in November.

    If the constitutional amendment fails under these circumstances, then there will no longer be a foundation of sand (although, like parental notification, we may be voting on it every election for a few years).

    The danger, of course, is that it will pass.

    But … the signatures were submitted before the decision, so the amendment would have been on the ballot with this decision or not. And it’s not clear to me whether the amendment is more or less likely to pass now.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  24. Oh goody, the next step towards Happyland will have to be changing the language of ‘husband and wife’, ‘father and mother’ since these are discriminatory titles towards those who are ‘husband and husband’ and ‘mommy and mommy’.

    Shiny Happy People.

    That’s all that matters, right?

    By the way, don’t you know…. there is no longer such thing as Justice in America.

    syn (1017f1)

  25. By the way, don’t you know…. there is no longer such thing as Justice in America.

    Yes, because clearly, gay marriage should be the central focus of justice in this or any other country. Forget the criminal justice system – what we need is a revamp of the legislation of non-universal social values.

    Chris (7a4666)

  26. Syn: what does justice have to do with it? *puzzled look*

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  27. Syn: what does justice have to do with it? *puzzled look*

    Reference to the recent Supreme Court ruling.

    Back to the law, how will the language be redefined as to make the law equal?

    The law still cannot define fetus which is the basis for all abortion laws; as it stands now the definition changes according to gender, time and need. Look at the fricken mess that’s created.

    So I quess this means all the lawyers and judges and law clerks and all that crap in the judical system wiil be drowning in all the greenbacks they’ll make arguing laws that have no meaning.

    Laws must have reason not empathy otherwise it’s all a bunch of irrational emotionalism.

    syn (1017f1)

  28. “Hey buddy, stop being so arrogant!”

    – Levi

    Nice try, but at no point in my comment did I say anything along the lines of “my logic is unassailable, and anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is an idiot”.

    I understand that you’ve put forth some perfectly reasonable comments and nevertheless been attacked by conservative commenters on grounds that are tangential at best. I’m sorry about that, and they should be too. But you’ve also put forward a great number of comments where your very tone expressed utter contempt for the motivation and intelligence of conservatives, as a group. For those comments, you deserved the drubbings you got.

    Seriously, I think Patterico should settle this once and for all: Patterico picks an issue, and Levi and some willing conservative commenter agree to argue it out on a closed thread. Patterico sets and enforces the rules of conduct; the first person to descend into personal/broad ideological attack loses. If that person is Levi, he is banned. If that person is the conservative commenter, Levi is allowed to choose a new net handle and attempt a fresh start without being outed by Patterico or anyone else with access to IP addresses.

    Cage Match. It’s time for you to prove that you can be polite, and for your opponents to prove that they have actual, substantive responses to the questions you pose.

    Leviticus (579843)

  29. Syn: I think you and I mean different things when we use the word ‘justice'; I literally don’t understand how the word is even relevant to this discussion.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  30. Kevin: the voters of California will be voting on this issue in November.

    If the constitutional amendment fails under these circumstances, then there will no longer be a foundation of sand (although, like parental notification, we may be voting on it every election for a few years).

    My partner of 7 years and I plan to wed in October, but it’s the above that makes the whole thing seem somewhat futile to me.

    Honestly, how many people would welcome the idea of their marriage coming up for a vote every election cycle?

    I would have preferred a legislated solution, but even then, with California’s abused proposition system, it would hardly feel permanent.

    Scott (096a48)

  31. I think its just a matter of focus. Zoom out a bit and you’ll see their celebration is just as self-serving as Volokh says it is.

    On Lawn (22a604)

  32. #19 Leviticus

    ability of straight individuals to marry the one adult they love while denying gays the same right

    Funny, but I don’t remember any requirement in the statutes that the man and woman apply for a state license prove “love.” Or even sexual orientation.

    But hey, if you think love makes the right to marry, why are you so bigoted against three or more people who love each other?

    This has nothing to do with “equal” protection.

    Darleen (187edc)

  33. Darleen,

    What does the state license require? What does make the right to marry, then, that straight people have and gay people do not? Tradition? If that’s your argument, it’s pretty weak.

    Leviticus (4f8c3f)

  34. What does the state license require?

    One man, one woman … consenting adults of a certain degree of consanguinity.

    What does make the right to marry, then, that straight people have and gay people do not?

    There is no sexual orientation requirement. You got that right?

    No one is denying any one from loving, from having a wonderful relationship and life.

    But a society also has a right to promote what it believes is an ideal public institution and define the parameters of who can participate. We have all sorts of restrictions on joining the military, or running for President.

    Tradition? Yes. So what? That makes it bad? That makes it worthy of being abandoned without any thought to the consequences?

    No. It doesn’t.

    In the micro, compassion means celebrating and congratulating any couple, gay or straight, that loves and commits. May health and happiness and long years bless each and every one.

    In the macro, standards that speak to the health of the society means upholding the ideal that works best for the majority and that facilitates the raising of children. The ideal for children is to be raised by a mother and father.

    Not all people will or can fulfill that ideal. That doesn’t make the ideal illegitimate.

    Darleen (187edc)

  35. If that person is the conservative commenter, Levi is allowed to choose a new net handle and attempt a fresh start without being outed by Patterico or anyone else with access to IP addresses.

    Why would I need a new handle? Why do I need to attempt a fresh start?

    That’s a really shitty ‘prize.’ I’m supposed to bet my ability to visit this web-page so I can change my name? You know I can do that already, don’t you?

    Levi (76ef55)

  36. And you know that Patterico could tell us all what new name you were using, right?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  37. Cage Match. It’s time for you to prove that you can be polite, and for your opponents to prove that they have actual, substantive responses to the questions you pose.

    Comment by Leviticus — 6/17/2008 @ 2:14 pm

    Your whole post was excellent, Leviticus; couldn’t agree more. After observing him for a while, I think Levi might literally not know how to argue an issue w/o such personal attacks.

    Fantastic suggestion you had of a closed thread in which the first person to devolve to mockery, or personal/broad ideological attack, loses. Would only suggest this change to your proposal: the conservative commenter also agrees to be banned, just like Levi, if he/she devolves as described above. If both remain polite then Levi will have proved to everyone here that he can discuss issues substantively while remaining civil. Am sure several posters have issues they’d like to discuss with Levi.

    Levi, what do you think? You’re pro-choice, right? Want to talk about abortion? Would love to discuss any of the “life issues” (abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research) with you. Would also love for you to prove wrong all the people here who think you can’t argue without being rude and argumentative. If Patterico’s willing, how about it?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  38. Your whole post was excellent, Leviticus; couldn’t agree more. After observing him for a while, I think Levi might literally not know how to argue an issue w/o such personal attacks.

    Fantastic suggestion you had of a closed thread in which the first person to devolve to mockery, or personal/broad ideological attack, loses. Would only suggest this change to your proposal: the conservative commenter also agrees to be banned, just like Levi, if he/she devolves as described above. If both remain polite then Levi will have proved to everyone here that he can discuss issues substantively while remaining civil. Am sure several posters have issues they’d like to discuss with Levi.

    Levi, what do you think? You’re pro-choice, right? Want to talk about abortion? Would love to discuss any of the “life issues” (abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research) with you. Would also love for you to prove wrong all the people here who think you can’t argue without being rude and argumentative. If Patterico’s willing, how about it?

    Yes, I will debate abortion with you. I don’t know why we need all the fancy trappings, why we have to ‘put something on the line,’ but whatever makes you feel good.

    The problem I’m already butting up against is that the bar is set pretty low for me, by you guys, for what qualifies as ‘devolving into mockery.’ I just tried to point out in the other thread that DRJ’s first salvo in our little debate challenge was an entirely semantic one, and already Patterico has decreed that I’ve already lost!

    But whatever, if you want to debate abortion with me, go ahead. You start. I’ll be here.

    Levi (76ef55)

  39. Levi would not know good faith if it jumped up on his lap and called him Daddy.

    JD (75f5c3)

  40. The fact that you can’t see that your tone most of the time is definitely demeaning and mocking (the content of your ideas is not at issue at the moment, just your ability to express them respectfully) is, well, interesting.

    I would like to discuss abortion (interesting how you automatically changed my verb to “debate,” especially after someone else accused you of seeing everything as “debate and orate”). And I’ll be happy to do it for “free” the next time an abortion post comes up.

    However….the point of this “exercise” though is respectful discussion, and seeing whether that’s possible for commenters on this thread. Quite a lot of posters here seem to not want to even discuss anything with you because you’re perceived as rude, insulting, arrogant and argumentative (as opposed to a respectful arguer).

    I guess I’m taking Leviticus’ suggestion and “betting” my posting privileges here that I’ll be able to have a discussion on an extremely controversial topic without getting insulting, personal or by swiping whole groups of people. (DRJ on the other thread will certainly be able to do it, and I’d bet my own posting privileges on her performance too. But not on yours.) Are you willing to bet the same thing I am, to prove your detractors wrong?

    If you are, we’ll ask Patterico if he’s willing to do it. That’s all.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  41. on this thread = on this blog

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  42. “You know I can do that already, don’t you?”

    – Levi

    I do know that. I also know that that’s a form of sock-puppeting. Typically, if you create a reputation for yourself, you’re required (at least in this forum) to live with it.

    Leviticus (4710b8)

  43. “No one is denying any one from loving, from having a wonderful relationship and life.”

    – Darleen

    Yes, they are (at least to the degree that a sexual relationship plays a role in living a “wonderful life”).

    I see what you’re saying – that every individual has the same privilege to marry a member of the opposite sex – but that’s not enough, because gay people have no desire to marry a member of the opposite sex.

    Imagine the tables were turned, and a gay majority were to enforce provisions prohibiting marriage to members of the opposite sex. Would you feel that you’re rights were being violated in such a scenario, and would you be right?

    Leviticus (4710b8)

  44. Leviticus #43 – Imagine the tables were turned, and a gay majority were to enforce provisions prohibiting marriage to members of the opposite sex.

    It’s interesting that you bring up my main concern of this entire issue. I am uncomfortable with the government regulating the recognition of what seems to be for most a religious ceremony. As has been discussed before, this seems to be a fight over government regulation, which is in reality an attempt to control others.

    What are your feelings on this?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  45. is it still sockpuppeting if the hand that was inside the sockpuppet got squished by the banhammer and only the sockpuppet itself was left standing?

    assistant devil's advocate (426628)

  46. It’s interesting that you bring up my main concern of this entire issue. I am uncomfortable with the government regulating the recognition of what seems to be for most a religious ceremony.

    It already does: there are religious same-sex wedding ceremonies which are not recognized by the state.

    Fundamentally, though, a civil marriage and a religious marriage are different things which happen to share the same word. *Most* religious marriages, but not all, are automatically recognized as civil marriages. But i’m not sure it runs the other way.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  47. Aphrael #46 – It already does

    I’m not arguing that point. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I believe that the “issue” of “gay marriage” is a direct result of the fact that government has muddied (by regulation) religious and civil procedures to a point where people are arguing at cross purposes. Both sides are trying to use the sledge of government to control others.

    I predict that the ballot initiative in California will reverse the current course, and once-again, a problem will exist where none actually does.

    Gay rights groups are not arguing for the same rights, they’re arguing to use the rule of law to force other people into recognition of something they do not wish to recognize.

    Were the government simply to enforce civil unions, contractual arrangements, and interpersonal designations regarding inheritance, insurance and visitation, while leaving all ceremonial distinctions to extra governmental organizations, you’d have no fight.

    But then some wouldn’t be able to control others, and the control freaks seem to have no other hobbies.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  48. Levi,
    Looks like Patterico’s clarified the rules on the other thread for your discussion with DRJ.

    Am of course still willing to have the discussion we talked about today, if you still want to, but the other discussion was started first and has the same demonstrative value for everyone about your ability to discourse respectfully.

    I have so much confidence in DRJ’s ability to discuss in a civil fashion that as I said before I’m still willing to ask Patterico to ban ME if SHE devolves to the personal or mocking level to you — and she doesn’t even know I’m doing this, she’s not on this thread, but I have that much respect for her discussion skills with people who disagree with her.

    My point is, I doubt anyone commenting on this blog would say the same about you. I would think that would tell you something about perhaps paying more attention to your own discussion style and how it affects your “debates”.

    Will leave it up to you. We can ask Patterico about a separate discussion between us, or if you prefer just proceed with your one with DRJ. Am not going to infer any bad motives if you say you just want to discuss with DRJ. Frankly I’d prefer that you just change your style of communication –that was the whole point of this anyway–than keep up the disrespectful tone and probably be banned eventually for it anyway. Disrespectful attitudes always seem to go over the top in the end.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  49. the friendly grizzly wrote:

    L. N. Smithee, let me ask you this. if the sanctity of marriage is that important to you, why are you not out gathering petition signatures to outlaw divorce? It’s just too darn easy for folks to change their minds. DoMA should have covered this; who knows which of Bob Barr’s or Newt Gingrich’s marriages might have been defended.

    This part of your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Try reading a comment before responding to it. We don’t need another guy around here who thinks he can skim text and read the mind of the writer. One is more than enough.

    Either that, or at the very least, bring back the laws that require adultery to be in the picture before divorce can be filed.

    OK, now we’re getting somewhere. I covered that point in a link in my comment to a previous post in which I summarize the crazy quilt of legislation over four decades that paved the path to this decision. The pertinent sentence is this:

    In an indirect way, even Ronald Reagan has a share in the lead-up to this decision when you consider that he set the tone throughout the nation in endorsing no-fault divorce as Governor. The unintended consequence of no-fault was to truly make marriage “a piece of paper,” a contract that could be ripped into shreds at any time for any reason by either party.

    In the same way that George would like the other 49 states to follow his lead and make In re Marriage Cases the new Perez vs. Sharp, they did follow California and Reagan’s lead in no-fault divorce. At the time, the stated purpose of allowing divorce for any reason was to avoid the spectacle of children having to see their parents accuse each other in court. What it ended up doing is devaluing marriage to the point that Britney Spears could marry a friend on a whim and be done with it less than 72 hours later. And before you ask, the answer is yes, I have long been on record as saying that the former Mrs. Federline has damaged marriage more than gays.

    I believe that should be done. In addition, let’s also return to the days when the full names and addresses of those filing for divorce are printed on the Vital Statistics page of the newspaper. It will let the GOOD, DECENT folks among us make obscene phone calls to the women at 2 in the morning, or sit parked in their cars across the street so they can accost the children as they come home from school each day.
    Lest you think this is an exaggeration, our family was made subject to this when my folks split. And this was in enlightened California, not some Bible-belt backwater.

    ::::Sigh:::: ……re-read my first response. And BTW, if what happened in “enlightened California” is something that you would expect in “some Bible-belt backwater,” maybe you should reconsider the supposed differences.

    L.N. Smithee (a438da)

  50. Leviticus wrote: What does make the right to marry, then, that straight people have and gay people do not? Tradition? If that’s your argument, it’s pretty weak.

    Accepting your premise that “tradition” is a “pretty weak” argument for the moment, I sincerely invite you, as someone who applauds this decision, to make the case AGAINST polygamy and/or incestuous marriage of adults WITHOUT using “tradition” as a factor.

    ‘Scuse me while I zap some popcorn. Don’t start without me, I don’t want to miss a single word. :)

    L.N. Smithee (a438da)

  51. L.N.Smithee #50 – While I don’t “applaud” the decision, I’ll attempt to play devil’s advocate and give it a shot. Feel free to fire back.

    As we’ve seen with the FLDS case, there is a subtle link between polygamy and incestual relationships, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with tradition, or even sex. It is about commerce, either financial or with regards to status, and almost always violates equal protection.

    In the FLDS case, I would assert that there is a level of coercion present (isolation – physical and economic) that would violate the protections of the “wives” and children, i.e. the lesser members of the sect. The sect leaders had complete authority of behavior, and also regulated the financial aspects of the other members. That set up worked well for the sect leaders, to the detriment of the others.

    Incestuous relationships almost without fail occur in situations in which an inordinate amount of control or exposure alters the balance of power between what should be individuals. It is precisely because of the extra close proximity of family that incest is frowned upon. It’s seen as gaming the system, and most all societies seem to regard it as cheating. That’s because it is cheating. The fact that incest has been recognized as a negative for quite some time (and could therefore be termed ‘tradition’) does not diminish it’s negative attributes (not to mention possible health effects).

    As to polygamy, currently practiced in a larger part of the world, the correlation between commerce, status and multiple wives is evident in its actual practice. It is worth noting that polygamy is recognized only in areas where there is no equal-protection. In this instance, the acquisition of many wives is concurrent with the acquisition of wealth and status. The wives are property, cheating them of equal protection in the relationship. If they cannot bear children, their function, along with their worth, is diminished. What’s more, the removal of many women from the matrimonial pool for one man deprives men of lesser means the opportunity to marry, while simultaneously shrinking the gene pool of the offspring.

    Neither argument rests on ‘tradition’ for support. There are valid reasons to avoid both practices, and the fact that we already do so is not the primary reason, IMO.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  52. Levi,
    Looks like Patterico’s clarified the rules on the other thread for your discussion with DRJ.

    Am of course still willing to have the discussion we talked about today, if you still want to, but the other discussion was started first and has the same demonstrative value for everyone about your ability to discourse respectfully.

    I have so much confidence in DRJ’s ability to discuss in a civil fashion that as I said before I’m still willing to ask Patterico to ban ME if SHE devolves to the personal or mocking level to you — and she doesn’t even know I’m doing this, she’s not on this thread, but I have that much respect for her discussion skills with people who disagree with her.

    My point is, I doubt anyone commenting on this blog would say the same about you. I would think that would tell you something about perhaps paying more attention to your own discussion style and how it affects your “debates”.

    Will leave it up to you. We can ask Patterico about a separate discussion between us, or if you prefer just proceed with your one with DRJ. Am not going to infer any bad motives if you say you just want to discuss with DRJ. Frankly I’d prefer that you just change your style of communication –that was the whole point of this anyway–than keep up the disrespectful tone and probably be banned eventually for it anyway. Disrespectful attitudes always seem to go over the top in the end.

    I can do more than one thing at a time. I don’t know why we need to do all this under the threat of bannings, though. I like coming here, and I want to continue to be able to do so, and if others like coming here, I want them to be able to do so, too.

    Whenever you’re ready…

    Levi (76ef55)

  53. I like coming here, and I want to continue to be able to do so, and if others like coming here, I want them to be able to do so, too.

    The problem is that we quickly tire of your special blend of moron and retard, and while some of us enjoy laughing at your idiocy and un-deserved sense of self-importance and deluded sense of superiority, VERY few of us would weep if you ceased to darken this demse…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  54. Apogee wrote:

    As we’ve seen with the FLDS case, there is a subtle link between polygamy and incestual relationships, and it really doesn’t have anything to do with tradition, or even sex. It is about commerce, either financial or with regards to status, and almost always violates equal protection…

    In the FLDS case, I would assert that there is a level of coercion present (isolation – physical and economic) that would violate the protections of the “wives” and children, i.e. the lesser members of the sect…That set up worked well for the sect leaders, to the detriment of the others.

    When the wives/mothers of the FLDS cult were interviewed on TV, they insisted that they weren’t being controlled, coerced, or intimidated. There is no indication heretofore that law enforcement has been able to coax anything different out of them.

    Do I believe them? Of course not, but absent contradictory evidence, you’ve got to take them at their word. And there’s no way a fair jurist could make a blanket ruling stating that because some women potentially could feel pressured by their chosen religious leader, none of them could possibly make a free choice to abide by the rules of the sect.

    Of course, your argument doesn’t address whether there is a Constitutional reason to, as the advocates of SSM have traditionally termed it, “limit” marriage to only two adults any more than there was a reason to limit it to opposite-sex couples.

    Incestuous relationships almost without fail occur in situations in which an inordinate amount of control or exposure alters the balance of power between what should be individuals. It is precisely because of the extra close proximity of family that incest is frowned upon. It’s seen as gaming the system, and most all societies seem to regard it as cheating. That’s because it is cheating. The fact that incest has been recognized as a negative for quite some time (and could therefore be termed ‘tradition’) does not diminish it’s negative attributes (not to mention possible health effects).

    Try this on for size: Two pairs of legal-age identical twins — two men, two women — go to City Hall in San Francisco and ask for a marriage license. For what reason would they be denied?

    They are of the same gender? BUZZ! That doesn’t matter now.

    It’s “frowned upon?” BUZZ! So what? So was interracial and same-sex marriage.

    They could have children that might be deformed? BUZZ! They can’t produce children without a womb or sperm of an unrelated person. It’s a non-issue.

    It’s illegal? BUZZZZZZZZZZ! It is to laugh.

    L.N. Smithee (a438da)

  55. I don’t know why we need to do all this under the threat of bannings, though. I like coming here, and I want to continue to be able to do so, and if others like coming here, I want them to be able to do so, too.

    Whenever you’re ready…

    Comment by Levi — 6/18/2008 @ 6:01 pm

    Am glad you like coming here; so do I. And thanks for the respectful reply.

    Hope you won’t think me too blunt if I press the point, since it’s important, that the very fact that you see the condition of banning under Leviticus’ proposal as a “threat” is very revealing. This condition he proposed would hold no threat whatsoever to someone determined to be civil, that is, not personally insulting or mocking and honestly trying to at least understand the other person’s position. (This is why Patterico’s insisting on that restating in the other thread: it proves both understand, and want to understand, the other’s POV.)

    None of these conditions of civility is unreasonable, yet you either don’t seem to think you can do it, or just don’t want to do it, since you think you might be banned if you agree to do it. I know for sure that I won’t, which is why I “upped the ante” and agreed to the “conservative side’s” theoretical banning even when Leviticus didn’t propose that.

    So. The fact that you (apparently) fear not being able to remain civil, and in fact want the “freedom” to continue being uncivil (really just another way of saying “I don’t know why we need to do all this under the threat of bannings”), seems to be the problem here.

    Am still happy to discuss the issues I mentioned above with you if you so choose, and if Patterico agrees. But (1) this is not an abortion thread so to start a discussion would be best done on another thread set up by Patterico, (2) the main purpose is not to hammer out the abortion issue but to see if it’s possible for us to have a reasonable, civil discussion, and (3) it seems rather pointless to talk with someone who can’t/ won’t make even a basic starting commitment to being civil, as I explained above.

    For the record, I like reading everyone’s honest opinions on this site, liberal and conservative. But a friendly suggestion: you may want to reconsider your general communication style or you might find yourself unable to come here someday; it’s happened to many people before you who showed consistent disrespect to others and who one day went just a little too far and never expected to be shown the door so suddenly. IOW disrespectful habits die hard.

    So, it sounds as though you’d rather not do Leviticus’ proposal (w/ my addition). But if you change your mind am still willing for us to ask Patterico if he’s willing to set it up. Must turn in now but will check back in the AM; hope you have a good evening.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  56. L.N.Smithee – Thanks for the reply even though I just jumped in.

    You’re right – A jurist probably couldn’t make a blanket ruling against all the women in the sect, just as CPS couldn’t keep the children from their parents based on the reported evidence.

    But a jurist could limit the isolation of the individuals who are not of consent by allowing CPS to conduct checks, as well as find that the financial disbursements received from the state and the earnings from the ‘sweat equity’ of the membership be evenly divided. Without the coercion and isolation, I would predict less ‘unity’ and eventually more freedom.

    I didn’t address the Constitutional arguments in regards to the SSM question because your challenge specifically asked to give reasons against polygamy and incest without invoking tradition. It’s my belief, again, that the State has no right to recognize ceremonial marriage at all. The State, IMO, should busy itself with the legalities of the contractual nature of the agreements between individuals, and not attempt to legitimize or de-legitimize what is in my mind a religious question. Am I abandoning morality? Hardly. I’m ensuring it, as the Constitution used as a cudgel is dangerous to all. I would be very careful of creating the “oppressed group.” It is all some people live for.

    To your other hypo – the identical twins marrying each other, I have a few questions.

    If the relations did not seek a marriage license, and simply lived together in a sexual, monogamous relationship, is there anything that the State could do about it?

    Number 2, Is there anything that the State should do about it?

    Number 3, have you ever heard of this happening, and which country in the world welcomes, approves of, and encourages incest?

    If 90 percent of the world’s population was suddenly enthused about bestiality, do you think any arguments you have would suffice to quell that enthusiasm? Change will happen – I prefer to protect my freedoms before, during, and after any change, and I find that limiting the power of government to make me think or ‘feel’ in the currently approved manner gives me the most protection.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  57. One other thing LN,

    I actually did state a Constitutional reason to restrict Polygamy – and that is equal protection. Polygamy, as it’s practiced, is primarily a business decision, ensuring a multiplication of the power and connections of the man taking multiple wives. (See Saudi Princes)

    For that practice to effectively take hold in the US, there would need be a corresponding limit to the recourse sought out by the poly (the wives) in the arrangement. I don’t think that would come to pass, due to equal protection. Otherwise, with litigation at the levels of this country, a wealthy man would be eaten alive by his wives as they divorced him one by one and took off with the fortune.

    Similar to what I said regarding the identical twins, there’s really no law against multiple women living with one man – it’s just not recognized as marriage. I don’t know of any legal restrictions currently in place preventing a group of women from writing a contract with a wealthy man whereby they make certain promises of time spent in return for monetary compensation, as long as there’s no sale of sex.

    Wealthy men have several “girlfriends” sometimes, but that’s not really a disadvantage to the men. The disadvantage is the lack of recourse for the women upon being dumped. Remember the ‘Palimony’ of the Marvin case?

    Again, the problem seems to begin when the State is given authority to legitimize or de-legitimize a behavior. If it can legitimize only two in a marriage, it can legitimize polygamy.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  58. Hope you won’t think me too blunt if I press the point, since it’s important, that the very fact that you see the condition of banning under Leviticus’ proposal as a “threat” is very revealing.

    Oh my god, buddy. Find a hobby.

    Levi (76ef55)

  59. Can’t help smiling at this comment, mostly because it comes from someone who, in the last couple of days, has posted about fifty times more than I have (don’t know how much you post in general cause am not here every day)…..Also, am neither a god nor a “buddy;” am a girl. :)

    Thanks for proving my point though. And so fast, too. 😉

    Still hoping your discussion with DRJ in the other thread will go well; I see the two of you’ve started it.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  60. Thanks for proving my point though. And so fast, too.

    Lol, and what point is that?

    Still waiting for you to start talking about abortion. I’ve asked three times now? You don’t want to derail this thing to talk about abortion, but you don’t mind derailing it to imagine how threatened I feel?

    Levi (76ef55)

  61. “As has been discussed before, this seems to be a fight over government regulation, which is in reality an attempt to control others.

    What are your feelings on this?”

    – Apogee

    I agree with you, more or less.

    I feel that the government should limit itself to civil unions across the board, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Leave “marriage” to the churches, and to anyone who finds it important enough to arrange an additional ceremony to legitimize their union.

    At this point, the argument goes away. There’s no more discrimination in the public sphere for the gay community to protest, and there’s no (legitimate, acceptable, or Constitutional) way for the government to force any given religious institution to recognize marriages they deem inappropriate.

    Leviticus (c72d16)

  62. Still waiting for you to start talking about abortion.

    Levi – Did you get knocked up, you sitzpinkler?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  63. Lol, and what point is that?

    Just in case you’re not being sarcastic, my point in that post was that you see banning as a “threat” (your word, not mine) because you want to continue to be able to be uncivil w/o consequences.

    You don’t want to derail this thing to talk about abortion, but you don’t mind derailing it to imagine how threatened I feel?

    Well… I don’t think I’m “imagining” that you’re the one who used the word “threat” in talking about banning. You called it a “threat,” not me. So it’s a “threat” but you don’t feel “threatened?” Hmm. Just BTW, this is yet another example of your mocking which doesn’t even make sense, let alone approach civil discourse. I trust you’re beginning to get “my point” now.

    Second, yes, I’ll be happy to talk about abortion, but I’m not doing it to talk about abortion per se; I’m willing to do it in order to see if you’re willing to even try to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with you. So far you won’t commit to it, even theoretically, and if you had earlier, you’d be banned already for your comment # 58. I’m truly not understanding why you don’t seem to see that this is not about abortion. It’s about your (apparent) extreme difficulty in having a decent, civil conversation with people with whom you disagree.

    So, once again, if you’re willing to have a conversation about abortion in front of Patterico, following Leviticus’ proposal except that I add I’m willing to be banned also if I don’t follow his rules, let me know, am still willing to do that. Have other things to do today but will check back tonight.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  64. Patterico is very tolerant. But anyone who is rude to DRJ will be banned and I think somebody knows that.

    nk (4bb2be)

  65. No thanks, lady.

    Levi (76ef55)

  66. No thanks, lady.

    Comment by Levi — 6/19/2008 @ 10:14 am

    OK.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  67. “Accepting your premise that “tradition” is a “pretty weak” argument for the moment, I sincerely invite you, as someone who applauds this decision, to make the case AGAINST polygamy and/or incestuous marriage of adults WITHOUT using “tradition” as a factor.”

    – L.N. Smithee

    … I can’t. Thought about it, and I can’t. There are the economic issues raised by Apogee in re: polygamy, but the incestuous relationship analogy is airtight, as far as I can tell – two adults prohibited from marrying one another by society, in both cases.

    For what it’s worth, the child marriage argument (to which I originally objected) remains invalid due to the necessity of consent. But I see your point. I was trying to reason around your examples on equal protection grounds and I couldn’t do it.

    Also, I don’t really “applaud” this decision (if you’ll notice comment number #61). I don’t think the government should have its fingers in the institution of marriage.

    Leviticus (ed6d31)

  68. Lest you think this is an exaggeration, our family was made subject to this when my folks split. And this was in enlightened California, not some Bible-belt backwater.

    Good.

    Divorcees should be shunned by those who have not been divorced.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  69. I actually did state a Constitutional reason to restrict Polygamy – and that is equal protection. Polygamy, as it’s practiced, is primarily a business decision, ensuring a multiplication of the power and connections of the man taking multiple wives. (See Saudi Princes)

    Equal protection only places restrictions on public acts, not private acts.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  70. As to polygamy, currently practiced in a larger part of the world, the correlation between commerce, status and multiple wives is evident in its actual practice. It is worth noting that polygamy is recognized only in areas where there is no equal-protection. In this instance, the acquisition of many wives is concurrent with the acquisition of wealth and status. The wives are property, cheating them of equal protection in the relationship. If they cannot bear children, their function, along with their worth, is diminished. What’s more, the removal of many women from the matrimonial pool for one man deprives men of lesser means the opportunity to marry, while simultaneously shrinking the gene pool of the offspring.

    This is based on two faulty assumptions.

    The first assumption is that women would refuse to live with a married man if the state refused to recognize that relationship as a marriage. Clearly, married men and women do take mistresses.

    The second assumption is that women who enter into polygamous marriages are unavailable forever. Given the nation’s divorce rate, there would be significant turnover in polygamous wives.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  71. My partner of 7 years and I plan to wed in October, but it’s the above that makes the whole thing seem somewhat futile to me.

    Just remember that God is the Final Arbiter, not the state of California.

    Michael Ejercito (c5d682)

  72. “Congratulations to David Ehrenstein and his partner of 37 years.”

    What I have never understood about this whole controversy is why no-one ever refers to Mr. Ehrenstein (for example) and his husband.

    Well, I suppose conservatives don’t because “it’s not and can’t ever be marriage” and “partnership” is okay (albeit clunky) as a substitute.

    But those who agree with Patterico and Volokh and all the rest who want Ehrenstein and his boyfriend of 37 years (now husband) to be able to marry, why don’t they use the word?

    Unless they don’t think it’s “really” marriage either? Or…? One would have expected them to have claim the term for their own right from the start…

    Carbonel (3adcdf)

  73. Michael #69 – Equal protection only places restrictions on public acts, not private acts.
    You quoted the wrong part of my comment. Please re-read #51, 56 and 57. You are repeating some of my statements, and ignoring others. Again:

    For that practice (Polygamy) to effectively take hold in the US, there would need be a corresponding limit to the recourse sought out by the poly (the wives) in the arrangement. I don’t think that would come to pass, due to equal protection.

    Polygamy, as it’s practiced, requires women to be second class citizens to men, as is the case in Saudi Arabia. That would not be a private act. I go on to explain, and you go on to confuse, in your #70 – This is based on two faulty assumptions.

    The first assumption is that women would refuse to live with a married man if the state refused to recognize that relationship as a marriage. Clearly, married men and women do take mistresses.

    The second assumption is that women who enter into polygamous marriages are unavailable forever. Given the nation’s divorce rate, there would be significant turnover in polygamous wives.

    Again, you ignore my full comment. Please re-read:

    Otherwise, with litigation at the levels of this country, a wealthy man would be eaten alive by his wives as they divorced him one by one and took off with the fortune.

    Similar to what I said regarding the identical twins, there’s really no law against multiple women living with one man – it’s just not recognized as marriage. I don’t know of any legal restrictions currently in place preventing a group of women from writing a contract with a wealthy man whereby they make certain promises of time spent in return for monetary compensation, as long as there’s no sale of sex.

    Wealthy men have several “girlfriends” sometimes, but that’s not really a disadvantage to the men. The disadvantage is the lack of recourse for the women upon being dumped.

    In order for Polygamy to take hold in the US, there would need to be a State recognized reduction in the rights of women. As I said, there is nothing keeping multiple women from living with one man right now. The difference is in the equal rights of women. When women have a say and are treated as legal equals, it becomes rare and transient.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  74. Just remember that God is the Final Arbiter, not the state of California.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/19/2008 @ 5:57 pm

    That’s ok. We’re not inviting God to the ceremony.

    Scott (096a48)

  75. Poor Mike Ejercito got an earful, didn’t he? LOL!!

    Before you leave to tell people to thank God for the California fires, you should note that many of us opposed the California Supreme Court ruling [endorsing fag “marriage”]. The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles had issued a statement condemning same-sex marriage in the strongest words. I can provide you a link to their statement if you like.

    We will work to amend the constitution to conform the legal definition of marriage to God’s Law, just as we will work to do good and oppose other evils. [Ed: Yes – and just as effectively, too. These people are clueless … hello, is this thing on?! It’s WAY too little, WAY too late for your milquetoast and ineffectual hand-wringing-while-you-tip-toe-to-not-offend-any-poor-little-pervert routine. You’ve not gotten this picture clear: God is looking at each of you, and seeing each of your evil hearts, thoughts and deeds … and he’s raging mad at each of you. Every day, every day, every day you’re seeing the siege strengthen and further choke you. Congratulations – you’ve made company with every kind of sin and filth – and now you’ve nothing to look forward to except absolute certain destruction and everlasting punishment. And for those of us right here looking you in the eye as you INTENTIONALLY and MALICIOUSLY rebel against your Creator: That’s pure goodness! :p]

    Michael Ejercito

    Greetings, liar –

    You condemn yourself with your phony words of pretence. WHERE are you to stand in the gap and make up the hedge for the Lord your God?!? PICK ME – I KNOW – you are hiding with the rest of the fearful and unbelieving that will also find themselves in HELL!

    First – the Catholic Pedophile machine is not really your most credible spokesman for anything on morality! :roll:

    Second – what did YOU do? You will stand before God on your own two feet – there will be no pedophiles standing with you to protect your or run interference for you.

    So – how about you shut your mouth and OBEY YOUR GOD! The nerve of you writing us to run your contentious mouth while you have all these years sat quietly on your dead arse while the fags took over this nation lock, stock and barrel! YIKES! How much does God hate you? 88| YIKES!

    Meanwhile – we will THANK GOD FOR THE CALIFORNIA FIRES and we will pray for more! :yes:

    Sister Taffy (6f4b40)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4070 secs.