Prop. 8 Arguments Today in Supreme Court: The Backdoor Executive Veto
The gay marriage cases are argued today and tomorrow in the Supreme Court. One big issue is how the Supreme Court will address the situation where government officials abdicate their responsibility to defend measures passed by the people.
Today’s arguments deal with Prop. 8, which Jerry Brown refused to defend in court. Tomorrow’s arguments deal with DOMA, which Barack Obama and Eric Holder refused to defend in court. Indeed, Obama is sending in his Solicitor General to argue for DOMA to be struck down — and his argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to gay marriage being legalized in all 50 states.
The immediate issue is whether lawyers not representing the State of California (for Prop. 8) or the United States (for DOMA) have standing to defend legislation when the executive has decided they will not. If the Supreme Court ultimately holds that the groups now defending DOMA or Prop. 8 have no standing in court to defend the measures, it would essentially confer a backdoor executive veto on any legislation that an executive doesn’t like. You disagree with a law? Don’t bother engaging in the political process and trying to get it overturned. Just wait until your guy sits in the governor’s office or the Oval Office, and have someone bring a lawsuit. Your guy will refuse to defend the legislation, and BOOM! you’re done. The lawsuit wins, the legislation gets invalidated, and there’s nobody around with any right to complain about it. Easy as pie!
Such a result would, in my view, radically restructure the balance of power on both state and federal levels. It’s hard for me to imagine the Supreme Court letting it happen. If even Congress doesn’t have standing to defend its own laws, something really strange is going on.
Although I have to say, it feels a little funny to be yammering on about the dangers of upsetting the careful balance of power established by our Constitution, when in reality we are leaving all such issues to be decided by a single man: our King, His Royal Highness Anthony Kennedy.
It will be interesting to hear how it all goes down today. The L.A. Times has an article today about waiting in line to attend the arguments. Not mentioned: a prominent person who will not be attending — all because he wants the pro-gay marriage side to win. I’m referring, of course, to Vaughn Walker, who shockingly never got back to me concerning those emails he exchanged with a Gibson, Dunn partner about whether his attendance would hurt his preferred side in the arguments. It would be nice if some of the coverage today mentioned Walker’s absence, and provided some context as to why that might be, but I’m not holding my breath. It’s Big Media, and they have their own agenda.
I believe that, in addition to releasing a transcript of today’s oral argument (as is standard), the High Court will also release audio, as it often does in landmark cases such as this. I’ll try to link the audio and transcript later today, and provide a little analysis if I have time.
UPDATE: Audio here, transcript here. Thanks to How Appealing for the links.
Preliminary analyses I have read indicates that the standing issues are not necessarily the same at every level of the process — i.e. a lack of standing at one appellate level does not necessarily mean a lack of standing at the trial court level. I’ll have to listen to it all to make up my own mind.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:11 amWhat if you hold office and legitimately reach the conclusion that the law is unconstitutional? Should the government waste money trying to defend unconstitutional laws?
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:27 amThe DOMA case is a lot closer in my mind on this point because it is not Congress as a whole that is attempting to defend the law but only the HOR. The argument for legislative intervention would have been far stronger if both houses were united in defense of the law.
Soronel Haetir (02427a) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:29 amIf the AG declines to prosecute someone that Congress really wants prosecuted, does Congress have standing to hire a lawyer to prosecute the person for them?
aphrael (b57693) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:35 amOne recalls, how the firm that declined to defend
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:36 amDOMA was the one who gladly took up the Gitmo bar.
Samuel – one of the points the court-appointed amica made was that BLAG wasn’t technically authorized to intervene until after the rules change adopted by the new Congress.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/12-307_tsacCourtAppointed.pdf (pages 17-20)
aphrael (b57693) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:38 amThe Holder DOJ is too busy trying to deport Germans who came here legally and were granted asylum because they wanted to homeschool. Apparently individuals have no rights, only groups
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2013/201302110.asp
If this hemorrhagic fever virus ends up being used in a bioterrorism attack, will it be called a workplace accident because the vial was “misplaced”? Anybody who worked in the facility named Hasan with a history of giving presentations on how Islamist jihadists could use deadly viruses against the infidel?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:22 amhttp://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/21786298/utmb-viral-of-deadly-virus-missing
if a future Team R president sends his little attorney general doggy to the pervert Roberts court to defend fascist laws like obamacare
then there’s really no sense to this whole exercise anymore
it seems clear as clear can be that other parties have standing to defend legislation
why stupid Rs want to defend the DOMA straightjacket what is strangling their stupid intolerant little party is a whole other question
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:35 amThe Plaintiff had standing to bring the DOMA challenge and that satisfies the Article III jurisdictional standing requirement. A party’s waiver of a material argument may be binding on the party, it is not binding on the Court. The Court can proceed to decide every colorable issue raised by her complaint with or without the SG’s help.
See also, Obamacare, “No, it is not a tax, it is a tax.” 😉
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:40 amI thought you believed social issues are the death knell for the GOP, happyfeet, and you wanted Republicans to focus on economic issues. However, your unwavering support for gay marriage suggests to me that you really, really care about social issues.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:41 amNK: the question in the BLAG standing case is whether anyone has standing to appeal. The plaintiff doesn’t, as she won at the trial court. DOJ might or might not; it agreed with the trial court decision but wants to appeal anyway, which seems … questionable. So the remaining question is whether BLAG does.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:42 amrepublicans are spending real real monies hiring lawyers to prance around the pervert Roberts court to defend DOMA – how is that in any way tantamount to “focusing on economic issues” I ask you
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:46 amyou realize of course that after spending millions of dollars on defending a silly law Team R no longer gets to sneer that DOMA was signed by a herpes-ridden slut like Bill Clinton
they will own it all themselves they can wear their DOMA bigot-badge with pride
and then maybe they will decide to focus on the economic issues?
I’m not holding my breath
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:49 am“they will own it all themselves they can wear their DOMA bigot-badge with pride”
Mr. Feets – Only 67 reps and 14 Senators voted against it, so it’s tough to say Team R owns it alone.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:54 amhow many of those ones are even still in congress?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:58 amPlus there remain seven Democrat senators who have not yet been bludgeoned into evolving on SSM.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:58 amyour unwavering support for gay marriage suggests to me that you really, really care about social issues.
I wonder why people feel one way or the other about the issue of same-sex marriage and the GLBT crowd in general. I ask not to be snarky, but because I’m really curious about what influences the public out there. For example, whether it’s because “my son is gay,” or “my best friend from elementary school is gay,” or “because SSM is a matter of tolerance and humaneness,” or “because I myself am into alternative lifestyles and don’t want to be hypocritical.” Or — and I’m being just a tiny bit glib here — “because I think doing strange things is hip and cool….do you like my tongue stud and nose piercing?! I’m going to get even more tattoos next week!”
If 80 percent of the GLBT crowd were politically moderate to conservative instead of liberal to ultra-liberal, I would re-assess my opinion of what makes them tick.
Mark (5f0661) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:59 am“how many of those ones are even still in congress?”
At this point, what does it matter?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:01 amDOMA financially rapes the surviving partners of gays and lesbians and redistributes their monies into food stamps for losers and welfare money for piggy piggy egyptians Mr. daley
that is what Team R is defending
it’s a deeply twisted exercise in punitive fascism
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:02 amAt this point, what does it matter?
mr. daley the congresswhore Rs what are financing the support of DOMA are much more in ownership of this silly law than representatives what aren’t even in congress anymore
to my knowledge the senate Rs aren’t participating in the DOMA defense in a financial way
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:04 amWell, aphrael, you just answered it. Section 1254(1) just wants a petition for certiorari from “any party” not every party. The case is in.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:04 amOur host didn’t really include the word “backdoor” in the title of a post about same sex marriage, did he? 🙂
The highly amused Dana (3e4784) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:05 amI better not get ahead of myself, did DOJ file, or join in, a petition for certiorari, because that’s the core of my argument.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:07 amNK – sure, but since the question is “did anyone have Article III standing to bring the appeal to the 2d circuit, the fact that there’s statutory authorization for an appeal *from* the 2d circuit hardly matters. The statute doesn’t cover the question of whether anyone could appeal to the 2d circuit in the first place, and to the extent that the statute confers standing beyond that conferred by the US constitution, it’s unconstitutional.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:09 amDana: hah!
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:10 amhappyfeet:
I’m not talking about Republicans. You’re the one who is focusing on social issues instead of economic issues. You aren’t neutral on gay marriage now would you be satisfied if the Republicans were neutral. You’re the one who wants the GOP to take your preferred stand on social issues like gay marriage.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:11 amNK: I don’t remember who filed with the Supreme Court, although it’s worth noting the Supreme Court filing was made *before* the 2d circuit ruled, and so the proper set of rules to use are the ones for direct appeal from a district court bypassing the circuit court.
That said, the standing issue is also heavily about whether anyone had the authority to go to the 2d circuit at all. DoJ tried to, but the argument is that since DoJ *agrees* with the district court, there’s no actual case or controversy to handle in an appeal by the DoJ.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:11 amhow am i not focused on economic issues i already identified the mostest offensive aspect of DOMA in economic terms
see #19
Team R is defending the use of the tax code to punish a wee small minority just for so the majority piggies can have a lil more slop
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:15 amBeing “neutral” on civil rights is part of what makes the GOP so irrelevant these days.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:17 amRestating what’s been previously stated:
– The issue as framed by the media and SS proponents is, “Don’t be unfair, let
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:18 amthem have the same rights as married peoplethem share the right to be married and as “normal” as everybody else.– The majority of the public say, “Yeah, don’t be unfair, let them be”.
– Others of us say, “We’re happy to let them be if they let us be. They can have the same legal rights as heteros if that is what everyone agrees to, but that doesn’t mean you get to tell me my personal moral and religious convictions are wrong and codify it in US law.”
– Then most of the public says, “What?”
– And a few (relatively) outspoken people say, “Equality for us!! (But not for you, because you will then be the small-minded, hating bigots trying to raise your children to be just like you, but we will not let you, oh no we won’t, as long as you’re in a public school.”)
– And about that “not having your children in a public school thing”, we want to be just like Europe, at least Germany, in that too…
– Watch what they do rather then listen to what they say (when they know the mic is on). (By the way, what did they say when the tape was rolling that the LATimes has?)
Are you neutral on gay marriage and DOMA, happyfeet? Do you oppose DOMA solely for economic reasons?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:19 amI got it, thank you aphrael. It is a little confusing.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:24 amI am shocked that kmart would allow the Executive to simply declare laws unconstitutional and not enforce them. The law is what Teh One says it is.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:26 ami do not understand why you are so bent on this interrogation
it’s kind of like the weirdly personal thing Mr. Jester does sometimes
but I don’t really play that game cause it distracts me from my Preferred Memes Du Jour
which, why for else am I spending the time and energy to make the commentings?
i have to get in shower now and scoot scoot scoot
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:26 am“that is what Team R is defending”
Mr. Feets – No, that’s merely your spin on what is being defended, which cynically ignores the popular bipartisan history of the legislation as well as state level options available to mitigate negative consequences of DOMA to gay couples. Staunchy type conservatives know these things.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:29 amNK – i’ve learned more about the law of standing reading the briefs in this case than I did in civil procedure.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:30 amI wonder how DOMA would treat my parents’ marriage certificate scribbled in Greek by some semi-literate village priest (with long hair and beard) in 1955?
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:32 amLots of civil rights had to be won by ignoring their popular bipartisan histories. FDR wouldn’t sign the freaking anti-lynching law, ferchrissakes.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:32 amOf all people, David Frum has actually written a thoughtful piece that provides a valuable public service this morning.
“When 80% of Americans under 30 agree about something, that something will happen — it’s only a matter of time.
But while straight young Americans support marriage for gays, increasingly they opt against marriage for themselves. Nearly half of American children, 48%, are now born to unmarried women. Among women without college degrees, and of all races, unwed motherhood has become the norm.
…For 20 years, Americans have fiercely debated whether gays — who constitute maybe 3% of the population — should be allowed to marry each other. Meanwhile, Americans have given short shrift to what is happening to the 97% of the population that is allowed to marry, but increasingly opts not to do so.
…
But that bottom-line number conceals a widening divergence between the family patterns of the college-educated top one-third, where family life is increasingly stable, and those of the non-college-educated bottom two-thirds, where family life is increasingly disrupted.
It’s the family life of the bottom two-thirds that is the family policy challenge of the 21st century. The debate over same-sex marriage is yesteryear’s issue. It’s settled, whether the Supreme Court knows it or not. But how to ensure that the next generation of American children enjoys the more equal chance and the wider opportunities from a more universal commitment to marriage — that debate needs to begin.”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/opinion/frum-real-marriage-issue/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
elissa (688dbb) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:37 amwhat percentage of that 3% even want to get gay married?
we’re talking about a rounding error here
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:38 amAre you CERTAIN that “our King, His Royal Highness Anthony Kennedy” hasn’t abdicated his throne to the Chief Justice?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:42 amSCOTUSblog is tweeting that Justices Roberts and Kennedy REALLY don’t want to deal with the constitutional issues of Prop 8, so the court is likely to punt on them.
What that means in real terms is that same-sex marriage will be the law in California (per the 9th Circuit decision), but since the constitutional issue wasn’t reached, nothing happens anywhere else.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:44 amWould you prefer that attorneys defend a law they don’t believe in, or have that law be defended by “outside” attorneys?
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:46 amhappyfeet,
I don’t understand why it is a “weirdly personal” interrogation to ask if someone is neutral or has a position on a topic of national interest, but I accept that you do and I will not pursue any further discussions with you.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:49 amKman – i’m annoyed if that’s the outcome. I’d much rather have prop 8 upheld than the 9th circuit’s standing decision overturned.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:50 amYou can read the live-blog at the WSJ here.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:52 amTed Olson > Charles Cooper
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:53 amit’s weird cause i’m not being evasive on the matter in the slightest
i think DOMA is bigotry plain and simple and i’ve communicated this idea many many times for many many moons
you know very well not neutral am i
my daddy taught me not to let bigotry passed unremarked
it was a lot cause of he was a businessman, my dad
and a lot of the people he did business with were people of color and such
and then later when all the fundies started taking over school boards in texas where we were
he wasn’t happy about it, cause of they were divisive and short-sighted people, and intolerant of opposing views
dad supported gay marriage fairly early on
he was afflicted by a gay brother you see
one our grandad liked to slap around and belittle
and then slap around some mores
so I been not neutral about the bigotry most my whole life
except for I won’t spend money in indian casinos
and I think egyptians are actually a lost tribe of rapey pig people
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:02 amWhat if you hold office and legitimately reach the conclusion that the law is unconstitutional? Should the government waste money trying to defend unconstitutional laws?
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:27 am
— Yeah, to HELL with the Judicial branch! The Executive branch has lawyers; let’s let them decide the constitutionality of our laws . . . saves time and effort, plus the expense of having to pay for a litigant. We can just have the Preezy and the AG vote on it, and if there’s a tie the Veep can break it (just like he does in the Senate).
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:03 amThe thing is, the executive *routinely* decides whether or not to appeal adverse decisions in the trial courts. That’s part of the executive’s job.
What makes this issue different? Or are you saying that any time the executive loses a case, Congress has the power to appeal on its own if the executive decides not to?
Wouldn’t such a rule violate the separation of powers?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:05 amaphrael and (biting my tongue) Kman are right. Totally. The legislative branch passes the laws; the executive branch enforces them; the judicial branch adjudicates cases and controversies that come before it.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:18 amNK: as an aside, while I don’t believe BLAG has standing, I think it’s totally clear that the official proponents of prop 8 *do* have standing, and i’m highly annoyed at the prospect that the Supreme Court may trump up some standing rigamarole in the prop 8 case in order to avoid issuing a decision on the merits.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:25 amDOMA financially rapes the surviving partners of gays and lesbians and redistributes their monies into food stamps for losers and welfare money for piggy piggy egyptians Mr. daley
Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:02 am
— The hell it does! I have a friend whose partner unexpectedly passed in 2011. Not a single penny of the deceased’s monies were “redistributed”; the surviving partner received everything as the result of an ironclad will, in Texas.
so I been not neutral about the bigotry most my whole life
Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:02 am
— QUESTION: Does exclusion always equate to “bigotry”?
[Is “you must be this tall to ride this ride” just as bad as singing “short people got no reason to live”?]
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:28 amIt’s not an equality issue. Gays are just as entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex as straights are.
CrustyB (69f730) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:31 amMy concern is a single one — pun intended, of course — and that is what the legalization of same sex marriage would do to the Church. We are seeing ever-more-frequent pushes against businesses which are owned by people who disagree with the concept of same sex marriage and don’t wish to provide wedding cakes or photography services or whatnot, things which could easily be provided by another vendor.
Well, if same sex marriage becomes fully legal, it won’t be long before a homosexual couple shows up at their local Catholic Church, and requests a nuptial Mass. The priest will have to decline, of course, at which point a lawsuit will be filed.
Some of my friends on the left have pooh-poohed this concern, but it’s easy enough to see if you just change the terms a bit: what would happen to a church which refused to perform an interracial marriage. Churches are already considered public accommodations for certain things, such as renting out publicly available meeting halls and the like.
The Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:33 amWhat a novel and completely ironclad argument from CrustyB. Cue applause.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:34 amCrustyB wrote:
Even there my rights are very restricted: I very much want to marry Nicole Kidman, but am not allowed to, just because she’s already married.
And, of course, the fact that my wife would kill me.
The frustrated Dana (3e4784) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:35 amMr. Icy doma is what it is and it do what it do
and what it do is it rapes the surviving partners of gays and lesbians and redistributes their monies
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:35 amand the remedy is, I presume-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:36 am– if legislative branch does not do their jobs in the eyes of the public, vote them out
– if the executive branch refuses to do their job, as we have seen in CA and Obama/Holder, vote them out or if sufficiently outrageous initiate impeachment
– if the courts don’t do their jobs, I guess you wait until new cases and new justices have a chance to rule something different, or a civil war, in the case of Dred Scott, if I understand it correctly.
Dana: I believe a church which refused to perform an interracial marriage would be the subject of public protests but would face no legal repercussions.
Now, if it refused to rent out their publically available meeting hall to an interracial couple, *then* they’d face legal repercussions.
But part of the intrinsic meaning of the 1st amendment is that the state doesn’t get to tell a church how to hand out its sacraments.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:36 amIcy: i’m fairly certain that even property which passes subject to an ironclad will is subject to the estate tax. That’s the key issue in the DOMA case – property passing to the surviving spouse due to the death of a member of valid NY opposite sex marriage isn’t taxed, but property passing to the survivine spouse due to the death of of a member of a valid NY same sex marriage *is* taxed.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:38 amMD, on the home-schooling thing (and it is in fact philosophically applicable to the SSM question.) LWW. Long-winded Warning!
A DI orders his platoon to appear for inspection in white gloves and helmet liners. They do. Only in white gloves and helmet liners. Thing is, the inclusion of one does not necessarily preclude the other.
My daughter did not achieve 99th percentile nationally in reading (have I mentioned that before 😉 ) in her public school. She achieved it like this. She was just turning eleven and she wanted her own cell phone. Mama said you get it when you read fifty books. I intervened as my daughter’s attorney, pro bono, in the negotiations. I said reading should be just because she likes to read, and we should get her an iPhone 4 just because it’s her eleventh birthday. Mama conceded that the phone will be gotten on a credit basis, she will have the phone now but she will still have to read the fifty books. In turn “we” conceded that it can be a Samsung 3G instead of an iPhone 4 because there is no loss insurance available.
Parents can send their kids to a public school and then spend time going over what the kids are taught there and teaching them what the parents want them to know too. And if we are going to be giving out asylum visas for education I would give the first one to the Pakistani girl who was shot for going to a public school.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:38 amWould you prefer that attorneys defend a law they don’t believe in, or have that law be defended by “outside” attorneys?
Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:46 am
— And if the law that the AG doesn’t believe in is the one he took an oath to defend, which includes the clause “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”. What then?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:39 amaphrael: Wouldn’t such a rule violate the separation of powers?
How quaint. Kind of reminds me of the time when the Constitution still mattered….
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:41 amIcy – if I’ve taken an oath to defend the constitution and laws which are made in pursuance of it, and I believe a law is made in contravention of the constitution, don’t i have a responsibility to defend the constitution against the contravening law?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:41 ambeer ‘n pretzels: i’m a lawyer arguing a fairly obscure branch of constitutional law. *of course* i’m going to make reference to the constitution.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:42 amAphrael: That’s not quite true. The government does regulate sacraments, in that the use of peyote by the so-called Native American Church can be, and is, prohibited, something upheld by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v Smith.
Further, the government regulates the sacraments of the churches by refusing to allow them to perform plural marriages in any form which submits them to the state, and by restrictions which would prohibit consanguineous marriages or those in which one or both parties were minors.
The very Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:43 amwhat would happen to a church which refused to perform an interracial marriage
It would lose its tax-exempt status. And the federal exemption would be the small hit. Imagine the Catholic Church having to pay real estate taxes on all its properties and personal property taxes in those states that have them. Chalices and miters might have to be melted down.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:44 am“Lots of civil rights had to be won by ignoring their popular bipartisan histories. FDR wouldn’t sign the freaking anti-lynching law, ferchrissakes.”
carlitos – D’oh! That’s because FDR had so many racist Democrats in his administration.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:44 amKman, are you really so ignorant that you don’t understand that the executive branch at the national level and law enforcement at local levels have an obligation to enforce the laws on the books, regardless if they “like” a particular law ?
Would you really want law enforcement officers to pick and choose which laws they defend, based on their own personal preference ?
Elephant Stone (3167fc) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:45 amnk, I was mentioning something along those lines to a friend while discussing the new pope. Why doesn’t some enterprising DA charge the catholic church under RICO? They certainly have racked up the predicate offenses.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:45 amElephant Stone – but law enforcement officers *do* pick and choose which laws they defend. They do this *all the time*. Police make decisions about which crimes to follow up on; prosecutors make decisions about which crimes to prosecute; etc.
Not every crime, even those committed in front of a police officer, results in an arrest. Not every crime reported to a police officer results in an investigation. Not every investigation or an arrest results in a prosecution.
This *has* to be the case for reasons of resource allocation if nothing else; we don’t have the money or the resources to pursue everything, and part of the job of the elected executive is to decide what to pursue and what not to pursue.
So what’s different here?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:51 amTrue. And a lot of the language used by Southern opponents of his Depression-era aid packages should sound familiar. The president as “messiah” for giving the “negros” handouts and what not.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:51 amThat would be a terrible precedent that would put every church out of business, carlitos. BTW, wasn’t Jim Bakker something like that?
The anti-clerical nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:53 amThe first $5 million of an estate is tax exempt. So the estate tax affects how many people?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:53 amIcy – if I’ve taken an oath to defend the constitution and laws which are made in pursuance of it, and I believe a law is made in contravention of the constitution, don’t i have a responsibility to defend the constitution against the contravening law?Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:41 am
— Hence the need for a SCOTUS.
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:54 amFrom the pinkos at the Brookings Institution:
I think it’s a lot of smallish businesses that are adversely affected.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:55 amMr. feets, I have not read DOMA and I only think I know what it says because of places like this.
My understanding is that DOMA just defines marriage as between a man and woman, and says nothing about not having legal contracts between SS partners with identical legal benefits/protection as marriage.
If I am wrong in that I would like to be edumacated.
This gets to my ongoing arguments (nitpicking trivia, hateful bigotry, or realistic concerns, takes your pick) about the difference between allowing SS couple to have what they want in terms of legal equality of their relationship versus trying to change the definition of a word and cultural norm by political maneuvers.
My concern overlaps that of Dana. You already have the feds saying that religious conviction grants freedom from the feds only in the context of official institutional organization. You can’t tell the feds you don’t want to pay for birth control for your employess unless you are a church or similar organization, your personal religious convictions mean diddly squat, (like homeschooling, per Holder).
I heard something that said that even if a church was not mandated to offer same-sex marriages, that if SSM became the law, a church’s tax exempt status could be removed if they did not grant SSM.
Does that sound a valid concern? if so, again, in one way I don’t care, if that info is part of what is given for people to decide on.
Polls are very dependent on what the question is and what the pollster tries to claim from it.
I would not be surprised if a majority of 30 and under thinks SS “marriage” is no problem, but I bet a large number of those same people would say that people who disagree with SSM have “every right” to that opinion too.
But feets has said, if I understand correctly, that at the end of the day somebody has to be a bigot, the only question is who. (I assume even if DOMA doesn’t hurt SS couples financially).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:56 amIn one way that is the question, can people disagree on SSM, but allow SS legal protection and not be a bigot?
Some say no prob, you have your SSM and I don’t agree with it but I’m not a bigot,
others say no no, you are either with it or you are saying you don’t like us “because of who we are” and you, sir or maam, are indeed a bigot.
They have an obligation; they also have discretion. In the criminal law field, an AG may choose not to appeal a case he lost. They are not obligated to pursue everything.
But this isn’t about a law that the Obama Administration doesn’t “like”. They think the law is unconstitutional. They are obligated to serve the Constitution. If they think a law is unconstitutional, they shouldn’t be in court trying to defend it.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:58 am“True. And a lot of the language used by Southern opponents of his Depression-era aid packages should sound familiar. The president as “messiah” for giving the “negros” handouts and what not.”
carlitos – The language sure does does familiar and look at how bad the economy was during the 1930s in spite of what FDR did. Something to look forward to, right?
Comparing something FDR did not sign to something Clinton did sign just doesn’t float my boat.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:00 amMD in Philly – DOMA also controls when the federal government will recognize marriages.
So if, as in the Windsor case, there’s a tax exemption for estates passing from a deceased to surviving spouse, a private cotnract can’t grant that tax exemption.
aphrael (b57693) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:01 am“Roughly 33,500 estates filed returns in 2009 but fewer than half—only 14,700—of those estates had to pay any estate tax at all.”
carlitos – RAPEBARN REDUX!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:03 amit’s not just about the estate tax mr. icy
Team R has lost the gay marriage debate
more and more people everywheres are more and more coming to a consensus that gay marriage is very america cause of we believe in treating people equally here
Team R can ill-afford to plant their flag on a bigoty little hill and fight to the last
the rest of us were counting on them to remain viable for to fight the fascisms
and they are decidedly jeopardizing that viability on the national level
you only see sea changes in public opinion on the order of what we’re seeing with gay marriage when your grassroots thought leader type people are on board – those random but omnipresent people what are a tad more influential than others – what have earned a certain authority in matters regarding social issues – people what can confer respectability on opinions what were but recently considered rather unorthodox notions
Team R isn’t choosing its enemies wisely at all with respect to the gay marriagings
this helps explain why a fascist food stamp whore can get reelected in the midst of a dismal economy and third world levels of unemployment I think
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:04 amI think the religious issue is a bit of a red herring.
Catholic churches are not legally obligated to perform Jewish wedding ceremonies… nor can the law compel them… nor are they “bigots” for refusing to do so.
To think extent that some gay couple wants to “force” a particular church to do something against its tenets, I don’t think it will happen (certainly not frequently), and I think the courts will end up siding with the church. But the reason I don’t think it will happen is because I can’t imagine a gay couple in love WANTING to have their ceremony in a church that is hostile to them. Who would?
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:04 amHappyfeet: how is marriage NOT an economic issue as well? The quick version of the tedious recital of studies is this: parents who never married the mothers/fathers of their children are six times as likely to live in poverty. Even controlling for other factors, their kids are more likely to drop out of high school, drop out of college, get pregnant as teenagers, do drugs, get arrested, serve jail time, and continue the cycle of poverty.
We cannot balance the budget in a world wherein 48% of first-time births are to never-married parents. A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for long-term economic health is to have as many children as possible born in wedlock.
bridget (55e4a2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:09 am“So if, as in the Windsor case, there’s a tax exemption for estates passing from a deceased to surviving spouse, a private cotnract can’t grant that tax exemption.”
Sure it can, just pass a tax law making it so. Bingo, no need to redefine marriage. Unless of course redefining is the actual goal.
Hoagie (3259ab) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:10 amHi Mr. Dr. I will edumucate you but I have to be quick like a bunny
DOMA just defines marriage as between a man and woman, and says nothing about not having legal contracts between SS partners with identical legal benefits/protection as marriage.
DOMA tramples on the rights of states something awful Mr. Dr.
We have 9 states what are saying hey fascist federal government, we would like our gay married people to be treated equally like all the other married people. We thought about it a lot and yup that is how we roll here.
And the fascist federal government says hell no – you don’t have the right to decide who is married in your state and who isn’t. That is a Federal Matter now. It never was before but it is now.
Got that, states?
Going forward you will have two classes of married people in your state whether you like it or not. We’ll treat your gay married citizens like second class married people, and your more conventional married people we will shower with benefits. And don’t bother suing cause Team R will hire lawyers to put you in your place.
But they’re not bigots they just like treating equal people unequally for non-bigoty reasons.
Besides it’s really not your place to question that sort of thing.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:12 amthere’s a tax exemption for estates passing from a deceased to surviving spouse, a private contract can’t grant that tax exemption.
aphrael
can’t, or currently doesn’t?
– I just want the issues and arguments precise and clear, like the law should be (at least when it is on one’s own side).
– If the issue is a SS couple want the same legal standing as a hetero married couple, there is a potential remedy for that which does not do the radical thing of changing thousands of years of human history without adequate reason.
– If the issue is recognizing SS behavior and civil partnerships are idential to heterosexual marriages, and if you do not agree with that then you are violating a person’s civil rights, that to me is a very different matter.
If the fight is for #2, then let’s argue that case. If the fight is for #1, then let’s fight that case.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:13 amTo some degree I have spent little time arguing for anything other than that #1 and #2 are not the same thing, and the consequences are very different for society.
Hoagie: I’m sorry, your response was noneresponsive and conflated two unrelated issues.
I said:
> “a private contract can’t grant that tax exemption.”
You said:
> “Sure it can, just pass a tax law making it so.”
The private contract can’t do that. The private contract has no power to pass laws or to change the operation of the tax law.
Now, the legislature *can* pass such a law. But pointing that out is hardly responsive to the claim that the desired change *cannot be made by private contract*.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:13 amA necessary, but not sufficient, condition for long-term economic health is to have as many children as possible born in wedlock.
bridget there are 9 states where gay marriagings are proceeding apace
where is the evidence that these marriagings have had any impact on the incidence of out-of-wedlock births?
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:15 amHey, I’m opposed to DOMA, but you’re mischaracterizing it. It doesn’t say “no” to states. People who are married in a SSM state ARE married. It’s just that the federal government, for federal purposes, doesn’t recognize the marriage. But “not recognizing” the marriage isn’t the same as negating it.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:16 amMD: can’t. Definitionally, a private contract cannot change the operation of law.
You *could* structure the law so that it granted this tax exemption to any couple with a certain kind of private contract, but that’s not the way the law is currently structured. As long as the law is set up to *only* grant the tax exemption to married couples, then there’s no way for a private contract to do it.
—-
For me, the way I think about the DOMA section 3 issue is this: NY has decided to allow same sex marriages. The US Government has decided to treat some NY marriages differently from other NY marriages.
This problem goes away if the feds have their own marriages rather than saying “any marriage which a state thinks is legitimate is legitimate for us EXCEPT FOR THESE MARRIAGES which we don’t like”. But if what they’re doing is the latter, then to my mind it’s self-evidently discriminatory.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:17 amno Kman person DOMA makes it to where your gay people have qualitatively different marriages than the other ones
this is because different benefits are conferred upon different forms of marriagings
DOMA in effect defines two forms of marriage in America – according to DOMA you have federally recognized marriages and marriages what the federal government refuses to acknowledge.
For people who blather incessantly about the Sacred Definition Of Marriage they sure have played holy hell on it.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:21 amIf the AG declines to prosecute someone that Congress really wants prosecuted, does Congress have standing to hire a lawyer to prosecute the person for them?
No, but if it is the other way around, as it is here, they have to power to hire someone to DEFEND them.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:22 amit’s self-evidently discriminatory
perspicacious!
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:22 amSure it can, just pass a tax law making it so. Bingo, no need to redefine marriage. Unless of course redefining is the actual goal.
Comment by Hoagie (3259ab) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:10 am
— How . . . DARE you make sense!?!
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:26 ammr feets, the feds, either by court or legislation or amendment, are likely going to end up deciding if SSM is the law of the land or not for all 50 states. some would say let the states decide.
– Guess what, the people of CA made a decision but the fed court said oh noes you donts
– just like hilary and everybody said there was no need to make a fed amendment on marriage because they wanted to leave it to the States
if you believe that then you believe that Pres. clinton did not have sex with that woman and do you mean “is” or “is”
– Clarity and honesty is my first request
– I’m content to be called a bigot for believing what I believe. In many places I could be executed for it. I just don’t like the public having a bait and switch played on them.
– I think that is not too much to ask.
– Except asking the Left to be honest is too much to ask.
– Just remember, the countries that will kill me for what I believe will also kill those of you who want SSM (if you jump up and down and tell them). But the country I would run would not kill you, we wouldn’t even call you a bigot for not liking (I almost mispelled that word and it would have been embaraasing) us. I would just say, that person, by their own outspokenness, is a gay rights advocate, and I disagree, if you ask me.
Yes I keep posting on variations of a theme because I think it is very important and I don’t know if I’ve adequately made my case so that I can go do something else like I need to. Maybe it’s my arrogance, maybe it’s just that I think it is important enough.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:28 ambigotry is the word for when people single out wee small minorities and treat them like second-class citizens Mr. Dr.
it’s a perfectly serviceable word in this context
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:30 amOkay, I agree with that assessment. I read your earlier comment as suggesting that federal law negated state law re: marriage.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:30 amFWIW, i thought hoagie made perfect sense and that is what i was trying to get that on the one narrow point. law could be changed to remedy that specific concern without touching the definition of marriage.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:31 amMD – agreed that you could change the law to remedy the specific concern. I was arguing with his *wording* – such a change would be an action by legislators, not by the private contract.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:33 amAlso, in response to 97, while you and I obviously disagree on the merits of same sex marriage, I think you have been a perfect example of *civil* disagreement on the issue. For which I thank you. 🙂
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:35 amThe standing basis of the appellant is FAR more important than whether a union is called marriage or not. I don’t bold things here often, but:
If the Prop 8 appeal is vacated on grounds of standing, the Initiative in California (and likely all other states with the same) is gutted.
The Initiative was created to be a check on the state government; to provide a way where the People could direct the State against the interests of entrenched powers. To say that only the State is allowed to defend is say that only the party LEAST likely to want to defend it, can.
All that needs to be done is for “someone” (nearly anyone) to sue in federal court over some alleged controversy and win by default when the state’s AG declines to participate. Talk about politicizing the courts!
This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about Prop 13 and redistricting and balanced budgets and pension reform and term limits and nearly anything that the powers-that-be would rather not abide by.
Precedents matter, and deciding this case on standing would alter California government for my lifetime. However important gay marriage is, it doesn’t justify handing the AG a veto power over all Initiatives.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:35 amaphrael,
icy and I understood what hoagie meant. Did you really not understand, or did you understand and use the wording as a reason to confuse the issue?
yes, it is a loaded question.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:35 amMD: I don’t think I was confusing the issue; I was asking for *precise use of words* in a legal discussion, which I think is a reasonable request.
The last paragraph of my comment in #89, I think, makes it clear that I wasn’t trying to confuse the issue.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:37 amPrediction: If the court rules the appellants have no standing then Proposition 13 will be overturned within the year.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:38 amKevin M – I completely agree with #103. As I’ve said in several places today, I would rather lose on the merits (and have Prop 8 upheld) than have the 9th circuit’s standing ruling overturned.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:38 amTeam R can ill-afford to plant their flag on a bigoty little hill and fight to the last
— Got it. You’re planting your flag on the “Team R is on the wrong side of history, because no matter how they explain it their opposition to same-sex marriage will always have the appearance of bigotry” hill.
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:40 amJustice Jackson, was wrong ‘the constitution is a suicide pact’
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:40 am“Well, if same sex marriage becomes fully legal, it won’t be long before a homosexual couple shows up at their local Catholic Church, and requests a nuptial Mass. The priest will have to decline, of course, at which point a lawsuit will be filed. ”
These types of cases have already been filed. They are already in process. You can’t bullshit that it ‘will never happen’ because it’s already happened and is happening.
luagha (5cbe06) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:40 amComment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:30 am
Thank you again.
If feets has a minority view, that would be interesting.
If feets has a majority view, then it is not an issue of people being allowed to do and believe what they want
it is an issue of who are the nice people and who are the evil people
and that is what feets says and I’m a bigot because I beleive the way I do
the question then is where do the rights of one person bump against the rights of others
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:41 ampeople can like vanilla or chocolate and no moral connection is attributed to it (by most of us, anyway)
if you want to change the definition of marriage, then why is it not bigoted to be against a 3 way marriage? just because the minority is a smaller minority and can’t get the votes of a judge yet?
What we’ve discovered is the whole thing ‘is a mockery of two travesties of a sham;
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:43 ami think the process used in california has been crass and brutish but states should get to decide these matters I think
does anyone really doubt that gay marriage will come to california in the blink of an eye as these things go?
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:44 amDid anyone here actually READ our host’s post? I am certain that it had nothing to do with the merits of gay marriage, but about the Standing argument and the absolute need to have effective appeals of court actions.
Do we really need another 500 posts about gay marriage, when that isn’t what Patrick was talking about at all?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:46 amFWIW, i thought hoagie made perfect sense and that is what i was trying to get that on the one narrow point. law could be changed to remedy that specific concern without touching the definition of marriage.
Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:31 am
— Wow! You mean that DOMA could be amended to allow for equal federal recognition of civil unions? Who’da thunk it?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:48 amCertainly not those in support of the plaintiffs.
Mr. Dr. I don’t get why supporting gay marriage means we all have to get on board with the sister wives thing
states get to decide these things about marriagings
and the whole sister wives thing finds its home way more on the right than on the left I think
its very much a red state deal anyway
and I don’t think any of the red states are even remotely close to giving consideration to the legalizings of polyamorous trailer parks
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:48 am*it’s* very much a red state deal I mean
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:48 amYou don’t like that type of frosting on your cupcake, tough pikachu.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:51 amThe last paragraph of my comment in #89, I think, makes it clear that I wasn’t trying to confuse the issue.
Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:37 am
A good point.
For me, the way I think about the DOMA section 3 issue is this: NY has decided to allow same sex marriages. The US Government has decided to treat some NY marriages differently from other NY marriages.
Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:17 am
Thank you for explaining your thinking.
Pardon my non-lawyerness, but are you saying that since the feds say the states have to honor some marriages of NY, but not all marriages from NY, then the feds are being unfair?
If so, then you are essentially saying it is not up to the states but it is a central federal issue, not something with state freedom, is that correct?
Sooo while feets would say let people decide for themselves in the states,
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:52 amyou are saying that is inherently unfair for states to do their own thing
do i understand that right?
MD – There are two provisions of DOMA. One involves whether a state has to recognize a marriage; one involves whether the *feds* will recognize a marriage.
The provision of DOMA which allows TX to not recognize ssm from NY is one thing. I think it simply restates what the law has always been – a state is not required to recognize an out-of-state marriage which violates a strong public policy of that state. As far as I’m concerned, that’s well settled law going back centuries.
The provision of DOMA which says the feds will not recognize ssm performed in NY is much more problematic to me. There I think the feds have abandoned their history of recognizing any marriage the domiciliary state (eg, the state where the couple lives) thinks is legitimate, and have instead chosen to recognize some state-recognized marriages without recognizing other state-recognized marriages.
To use an analogy: back in the days of anti-miscegenation laws, VA was not required to recognize a NY recognized interracial marriage, BUT the feds *would* recognize that marriage if the couple lived in a state which recognized it.
Under DOMA, VA is not required to recognize a NY recognized same sex marriage, AND the feds will also not recognize it.
It’s the second half of this which I think is problematic.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:57 am==We cannot balance the budget in a world wherein 48% of first-time births are to never-married parents. A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for long-term economic health is to have as many children as possible born in wedlock.==
Agree completely with this sobering observation. It’s a fiscal and social nightmare. Still, one cannot deny that to our shame and on our watch both the societal value of a strong and self-sustaining family unit and the concept that there should be an established traditional heterosexual marriage commitment before forming a family and conceiving children has sadly been allowed to degrade–by heterosexuals ourselves. So much for our fealty to the “sanctity of marriage”. This, it seems to me, is where the money and energy and focus of committed conservatives and our future candidates needs to be aimed. Let’s work toward restoration of the lost family units that WE let get away. (Rather than arguing whether aphrael should be able to marry his partner or Ellen Degenerous can marry hers.)
elissa (688dbb) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:57 amKevin: I suspect that the standing issue is only interesting to lawyers or laypeople with a special interest in law.
I’m happy to talk about standing. 🙂 I think that the official proponents clearly have standing – if the state doesn’t have the power/authority to choose who gets to vindicate the state’s interest, then there are potentially extremely problematic outcomes, and I don’t see where the federal constitution limits a state’s power to choose its representatives.
That said, I think BLAG doesn’t have standing; the decision to take an appeal is a fundamentally executive function, and even if it weren’t, if the amicus is right in her claim that BLAG was never authorized, then we don’t even get to the theoretical question – a government agency which exceeds its authority is acting illegally.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:59 amComment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:46 am
In one way I agree 100% with you, even though I am one of the worst offenders.
OTOH, I think in general the issue is little but obfuscation fighting to allow the parts to be looked at. In fact, the reason there is the question in the first place is because decisions are made because of what people think about SSM, not about the logic of the law.
In my 10th grade speech/rhetoric class the argument “because they won’t” does not pass mustard as a tool of logic (though I’m blanking on the technical phrase at the moment). I just don’t like it when there is a pretense of logic when really there is no more logic than “I want it this way, and you are wrong”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:01 amDo we really need another 500 posts about gay marriage, when that isn’t what Patrick was talking about at all?
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:46 am
— Point taken, but perhaps Patrick contributed to the turn this thread has taken by repeatedly referring to the issue as “gay marriage” in his post, rather than using the correct (or more accurate, or at least less volatile) term “same sex marriage”. Lest we forget, it is the opposition to both Prop. 8 and DOMA that continuously bring up the sexual orientation of those that are potentially affected by these decisions. THEY are the ones that, at least in part, argued that Prop. 8 deserved to be struck down because its proponents were demonstrably bigoted against the homosexual lifestyle.
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:08 amComment by elissa (688dbb) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:57 am
My last comment for now anyway.
The trajectory of popular culture and sentiment is that anybody who wants to call themself a family can and a married
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:09 amcouplegroup the head of that family can. Which means anyone can do anything.When anyone can do anything then the only level of responsibility is the state. Then the only rights are group rights and there are no individual rights.
Every child should be able to go to a state sponsored day care, every parent who wants to go to work should be able to, every one has a right to get what they want.
Except when they don’t, because they can’t, because life isn’t fair.
The world can be made fair to all groups when Obama can control the levels of the ocean.
THEY are the ones that, at least in part, argued that Prop. 8 deserved to be struck down because its proponents were demonstrably bigoted against the homosexual lifestyle.
Comment by Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:08 am
yeah, that. Off to being my typical bigoted self for the rest of the afternoon.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:13 amThat said, I think BLAG doesn’t have standing; the decision to take an appeal is a fundamentally executive function, and even if it weren’t, if the amicus is right in her claim that BLAG was never authorized, then we don’t even get to the theoretical question – a government agency which exceeds its authority is acting illegally.
Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:59 am
— Then again:
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:21 amThe Justice Department filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2012, despite its approval of the ruling, to facilitate BLAG’s defense of the statute.
NOTHING unauthorized
NOTHING exceeded
NOTHING illegal
Claim NOT “right”
BLAG has standing
I just don’t like it when there is a pretense of logic when really there is no more logic than “I want it this way, and you are wrong”.
That at least is an argument. What I fear is “I want it this way and you can STFU.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:22 amThen your problem should be with the estate tax.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:22 amIcy – the amicus the court specifically appointed to address the question disagrees.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:24 am127.I just don’t like it when there is a pretense of logic when really there is no more logic than “I want it this way, and you are wrong”.
– That at least is an argument. What I fear is “I want it this way and you can STFU.”
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:22 am
I guess, “I want it this way and if you don’t like it you’re the bigot” is something in the way of compromise.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:25 amIf an asset is left to a spouse or a Federally recognized charity, the tax usually does not apply
Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:35 am
Then your problem should be with the estate tax.
Comment by Tanny O’Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:22 am
— What, you mean that lawmakers have the ability to make everything fair and equals WITHOUT the need for redefining marriage, and WITHOUT the Supreme Court (of California or otherwise) interpreting a phantom “constitutional right to marry”?
Are you sure?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:43 am“and the whole sister wives thing finds its home way more on the right than on the left I think
its very much a red state deal anyway”
Mr. Feets – I thought the Unitarians are very big on the polyamorous marriagings these days and the Unitarians are about as far from a 700 Club, PTL, Religious Right conspiracy as you can get.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:43 amIcy – the amicus the court specifically appointed to address the question disagrees.
Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:24 am
— And if the Court for some specious reason decides that BLAG does not have standing, then the DOJ still wants the case to go forward, so as to determine the constitutionality of DOMA’s Section 3.
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:48 amUnitarians
unitarians do the multiple wives thing?
jeez nobody tells me anything
the internet says Mr. Frank Lloyd Wright was a unitarian
there’s a Frank Lloyd Wright tour thingy you can do in Arizona
I’ll be straight with you I don’t know what to do about the unitarian menace Mr. daley this just hit my inbox today.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:54 amI always enjoy looking up the actual definition of “bigot.” Unfortunately, it seems, these days, to be “people who disagree with me.”
And I don’t have some person issue with Mr. Feet (and from what he posted, I am truly sorry that he had a family member have to deal with homophobia). I don’t think his schtick is funny, but a lot of people do. He is internet Brussels Sprouts to me. Some people like it, some people don’t. Not a big deal. Who the heck am I, after all?
What I do object to is intellectual dishonesty. If the issue is that government shouldn’t intrude into relationships between consenting adults (which is highly defensible from my point of view), I am on board.
But it isn’t.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven of political fashion and cheerleading. Political fashions change. And folks really do need to think of long term impacts. But our whole culture is very black and white, something must be done right now, and this is just like the battles over civil rights.
And most interestingly, if you disagree, you are a bad person. Which is hardly the case…not matter what Joy Behar and Jon Stewart say.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:55 amNo, we don’t.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:57 amThen your problem should be with the estate tax.
yes Tanny O’Haley i do not like the estate tax treatment of gay peoples
the estate tax should say oh hi married gay people not to be rude but I don’t want your monies I’m a treat you like all the other married people
and then the estate tax would walk away humming i see trees of green red roses too I see em bloom for me and for you
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:59 amJUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, I think that you’re not answering the fundamental fear. And so — and — and the amici brief that sets forth this test of fiduciary duty doesn’t quite either.
The assumption is that there are not executive officials who want to defend the law. They don’t like it. No one’s going to do that. So how do you get the law defended in that situation?
MR. OLSON: I don’t have an answer to that question unless there’s an appointment process either built into the system where it’s an officer of California or —
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So why — why isn’t this viewed as an appointment process, that the in — the ballot initiators have now become that body?
MR. OLSON: And that’s the argument —
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Is that your argument —
MR. OLSON: That’s our — that’s the argument our opponents make.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:59 amWhy, Kman! How could you be so…so..duonormative!
http://www.uupa.org/
Mind you, it seems darned complicated to me. But then, I am a bigot, from all appearances.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:00 pmIcy, oh, I think it’s quite clear that DOJ doesn’t have standing either. It agrees with the opinion below; there’s no controversy if it appeals.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:00 pmMr. Kman then how did this rumor start about the unitarians and their polyamourous ways? Have you heard of this before?
Maybe there’s a show on cable about it.
Nobody tells me anything.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:01 pmThere are lots of gays and lesbians in Oak Park. And a Frank Lloyd Wright museum. Meta.
There’s a homosexual lifestyle? LOL. Am I living the heterosexual lifestyle?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:02 pmare Unitarian Universalists same same as plain old Unitarians?
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:03 pmI don’t think UU is a real thing they sound like a teensy teensy collective of loopy but harmless weirdos
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:06 pmC’mon, Mr. Feet. You don’t sense even a little bit of irony in your posts?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:08 pmFirst of all, finding something on the Internet doesn’t make it so. I’m sure I can do a google search and find support for the fact that Catholics are polygamous. There, did it.
Just because a fringe group with a bad website calls itself the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness does not mean it is a tenet of the Unitarian (or the Unitarian Universalist) faith.
Kman (5576bf) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:11 pm“unitarians do the multiple wives thing?
No, we don’t.”
Kman – I didn’t say Unitarians did it. It’s illegal, you goofball. There is a groundswell of Unitarians who want to so Mr. Feets insinuation that this is a red state religious right phenomenon is a bunch of bigoted nonsense.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:14 pmMr. Feets – Did you hear about the Unitarian’s 50 wives?
49 of them have it soft.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:17 pmQ: Why did the polygamist cross the road?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:23 pmA: To get to the other bride.
aphrael – I don’t understand the concept of the Supreme Court granting cert to either case and then dismissing on the basis of standing. What would be the purpose?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:43 pmIt only takes 4 votes to grant cert. It takes 5, essentially, to make a decision.
My sense from the arguments is that:
(a) there are three strong votes to uphold prop 8 substantively (scalia, alito, roberts)
(b) there are three strong votes to overturn prop 8 substantively and nationalize same sex marriage (kagan, breyer, ginsburg)
(c) sotomayor and kennedy are unpredictable on the substance
(d) there are at least four strong votes to dismiss on standing (roberts, sotomayor, ginsburg, breyer)
(e) kennedy doesn’t want to decide it at all
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:52 pmbut i should add (f) kennedy is opposed to dismissing on standing, as are scalia and alito.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:53 pmSotomayor is a gimme for your side , aphrael
JD (3cbfc7) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:57 pmi don’t even know why we have to talk about people what want to marry gobs of different people all at the same time anyway
that’s so freaky
whereas gay people getting married is normal and kind of sweet
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:58 pmInteresting take that I’d not considered Rico(or rather had not been pointed out to me).
The Prop 8 case of Walker’s is toast tho.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:58 pmi don;t have statistics but I bet a lot of gay people grew up in homes with married people in them, so it’s only to be expected that they would want to live that way at some point
it’s like if your parents are smokers you’re also way more likely to smoke
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:00 pmAlso, (g) there are 7 clear votes against a nine-state solution which would convert strong civil unions into marriages. That’s the baby-splitter which nobody likes.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:07 pmThis is going to become as acrimonious as Roe. Because it was removed from the people. How it happens matters.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:07 pmit’s different than Roe cause as the anti-gay people are dying they aren’t really being replaced
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:10 pmthere’s a Frank Lloyd Wright tour thingy you can do in Arizona
— My folks just took that tour last month for their anniversary (their 49th). They said it was muy bueno.
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:25 pmOr if your parents didn’t have any kids, you probably won’t either.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:30 pmKman,
You’re so predictably dishonest in your arguments.
It reminds me of the Brett Kimberlin legal strategy is to preach, “for me, but not for thee !” in his sociopathic application of “fairness.”
It is not the Obama Administration’s jurisdiction to determine whether or not a law is “unconstitutional.”
Their jurisdiction is to enforce the laws on the books.
Federal laws are not a buffet line at a cafeteria, where The Obamessiah gets to pick and choose which laws are yummy to his tummy.
The determination of the constitutionality of a law is the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
If a Republican Attorney General, whether at the federal or state level, were to not enforce certain laws under the masquerade of “well, I don’t think law ‘x’ is Constitutional, therefore I’m not going to enforce it !” you lefties would be having convulsions about how the Constitution is being trampled.
Elephant Stone (dcb472) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:32 pmOr if your parents didn’t have any kids, you probably won’t either.
Take a bow, carlitos!!!!
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:32 pmI think that every president has the right, upon taking office, to take a look at the 374657382647483 laws on the books, and decide that some of them, she or he just doesn’t feel like enforcing. And by stating you don’t think they are Constitutional, that is sufficient. Then, he can direct his agencies, by regulation, to take actions contrary to the laws he chooses to not enforce, or by executive order, simply make them disappear.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:35 pmI wanna do it Mr. Icy it looked really fun and a lot of it is very outdoorsy
hah I’m adopted!
I have a feeling though the hooch they adopted me from was a wicked smoker.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:42 pmHmmm, if the SCOTUS were to ever uphold one of those laws that the president was failing to enforce, that would put the Commander in Chief in quite a pickle!
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:44 pmdaley, did you see this?
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/former-stl-tea-party-pols-starring-in-wife-swap/article_4b4b9044-063b-5fa6-a00a-b61dc0f8904b.html
This is important reading, too…
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-22/national/37938821_1_unitarian-universalists-union-of-one-man-marriage
My prediction? If this moves forward, there will be efforts to normalize all kinds of other relationships. And why not? If the goal is to normalize loving relationships between consenting adults—to recognize those relationships for the value they bring to the participants–where do we draw the line?
Unless some relationships are more equal than others. Which is the argument that SSM folks make.
And this is why I think it is best for government to keep its nose out of the relationships between consenting adult individuals.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:56 pmJD: I think that every president has the right, upon taking office, to take a look at the 374657382647483 laws on the books, and decide that some of them, she or he just doesn’t feel like enforcing….
Like Obamacare, for example.
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 3/26/2013 @ 1:59 pm“My prediction? If this moves forward, there will be efforts to normalize all kinds of other relationships.”
Simon – If marriage is not about procreation, can I marry my dog?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:00 pmI’m still having trouble seeing what “right” feets thinks DOMA is trampling on.
Elena Kagan: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
I find it highly amusing that I’m getting called a bigot for espousing the view of Elena Kagan of March 2009 and Elena Kagan of May 2010 and Barack Obama of April 2012.
That there is no such thing as a right to gay marriage and it is certainly not the federal government’s job to impose it.
Another thing I find highly amusing is now getting lectured by the likes of Barack Obama. Everybody suspected he was lying to somebody in 2008. Gay marriage advocates and gay marriage opponents both voted for him in 2008 believing he was really just lying to the other crowd to get votes.
Gay marriage advocates were sure he had only switched his position on gay marriage and opposed it after supporting it because he needed to con religious people. Gay marriage opponents thought he was just hinting that he might secretly support gay marriage just to shine the gay marriage advocates on and take their cash.
I know Vaughn Walker lied multiple times in his ruling when he deliberately misrepresented the trial record to support his fore ordained conclusion.
These people are the ones who have the moral authority to sway my opinion? Hardly.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:03 pmit’s not amusing Mr. 57 this stuff is seriously damaging Team R
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:07 pmdaley and his dog have exactly the same chance of procreating as the legal mrs. carlito and myself.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:08 pmYep.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:09 pm150.Q: Why did the polygamist cross the road?
A: To get to the other bride.
Comment by carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 12:23 pm
I thought that was tastefully funny, thank you for the comic relief.
I think the quote is “I was for it before I was against it, or against it before I was for it, or… what is it I’m supposed to say, again?”
If this goes forward, what will happen with immigration law and someone who wants to import multiple wives?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:10 pmi try to warn errybody but they not listinin
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:11 pmI have no problem with it happening organically, Happyfeet.
JD (3cbfc7) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:13 pmno mr feets, this stuff is certainly hurting civilization
be for gay rights all you want, but a society that wants to change the definition of marriage to what is fashionable at the moment has lost its moorings
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:14 pmcarlitos – Would Mrs. Carlito and I have a better chance of procreating than you and she? You want I should stop by?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:17 pm“daley and his dog have exactly the same chance of procreating as the legal mrs. carlito and myself.”
– carlitos
How could this come to pass!? Steve57 has dictated that only the Procreators may marry.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:18 pm“What will happen with immigration law and someone who wants to import multiple wives?”
– MD in Philly
Prohibitive wife tariffs. We must protect the domestic market!
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:20 pmThe idea that gay marriage is an issue that’s damaging the GOP is funny since the “no on gay marriage side” is the consistent winner when it’s put to a vote.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/06/exit-polls-top-issues-for-voters/
I don’t care what side you’re on, Mr. Feets. But to say this issue is damaging the GOP brand is just silly.
As an issue, gay marriage barely has a detectable pulse outside of certain bars in Manhattan, San Francisco, Miami, and LA.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:26 pm“As an issue, gay marriage barely has a detectable pulse outside of certain bars in Manhattan, San Francisco, Miami, and LA.”
– Steve57
It’s only an issue if it’s the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE!
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:32 pmNobody cares about the Second Amendment.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:37 pmComment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:02 am
What is divisive about the fundies?
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:37 pmIt’s not even on the List!
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:37 pmWhy do you lie so often? Steve has never made nor inferred “that only the Procreators may marry.”
I believe this statement from What is Marriage? is more inline with what Steve has stated.
I believe this statement is true. My wife and I were married in 2004 and without a miracle there is no chance my wife and I will have any more children than we already have because of age. However, our marriage is still valid. Your statement is a straw man argument.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:41 pmAnother lie and off topic to boot. Look! Squirrel!
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:45 pmNo, it’s not. Steve57 repeatedly asserts that the purpose of marriage is procreation. If he admits the existence of other purposes for marriage – love, loyalty, mutual support – he has yet to argue why gay couples may not fulfill those purposes. If he admits of no other purpose(s), then my characterization is not far off and my mockery is justified.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:46 pmTanny, I think that you’ll find that both gender identity and human sexuality run on axes. Cultures in history have had a third gender, for instance. In ancient Israel, they had 5 or 6 genders (but no vowels!) It’s not always as simple as a binary ‘man/woman’ complimentary thing.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:46 pm“Another lie and off topic to boot. Look! Squirrel!”
– Tanny O’Haley
But it wasn’t on the List! Exit poll results show the economy is the number one issue on voters’ minds. Sixty percent called it the most important issue. Health care is a distant second at 17%. It’s followed by the deficit at 17% and foreign policy at 4%. As an issue, the Second Amendment barely has a detectable pulse outside of certain bars in Houston, Omaha, and Puckerhuddle.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:49 pmIt’s only an issue if voters actually think of it.
There are probably dozens of issues that come ahead of gay marriage to the low single digits of voters who think the nation needs to address the gay marriage crisis.
Like gun control, fracking, building the keystone pipeline, amending the DMCA so the Librarian of Congress can’t decree that unlocking your cell phone is a felony, illegal immigration, banning big gulps, taxation, making it illegal for Lindsay Lohan to release a sex tape, etc., etc.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:50 pmcarlitos, those cultures were obviously on the Wrong Side of Truth™.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:51 pmTanny O’Hanley: if your marriage is valid despite the fact that you are extremely unlikely to procreate again, and my marriage is invalid … then *something other than the likelihood of procreation* is the determining factor in validity or invalidity.
And yet the legal argument opponents of same sex marriage have decided to pursue is that procreation is the point to marriage. Your marriage proves that untrue. Hell, my husband’s grandparents’ marriage proves that untrue. As do the marriages entered into by *people serving life prison sentences*.
So … if procreation isn’t the point to marriage, what’s the reason why your marriage is valid and mine isn’t?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:55 pmYou’re mockery is empty-headed. Who cares what other purposes marriage can serve? The only state interest in recognizing it is the procreative purpose.
You’re simply demonstrating that there’s a reason we don’t let the 18-30 year olds decide how we’re going to order society.
Free porn at the student union book store and keggers every Thursday night in the dorms would probably be winning issues in this demographic, too.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:57 pmaphrael, centuries of history and case law is all the proof needed to demonstrate that the only reason that society has any interest at all in recognizing and regulating marriage is due to the procreative potential of the relationship.
There is no other reason. Again, like Judge Walker you’d have to take an airbrush to history to make any other case.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 2:59 pmSteve57: Why is an opposite-sex marriage conducted between two 65-year old adults legitimate?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:03 pmEd Whelan has done a good job of documenting the myths and distortions of the pro-gay marriage people trying to get Prop 8 declared unconstitutional.
Anti-Prop 8 Myths #1 to #5
Anti-Prop 8 Myths, #6 to #9
Anti-Prop 8 Myths #10 to #14
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:07 pm“You’re mockery is empty-headed. Who cares what other purposes marriage can serve? The only state interest in recognizing it is the procreative purpose.”
– Steve57
Then man up and buy your position wholesale. The question is blaringly, painfully obvious: should the state recognize a marriage between a man and a woman who cannot procreate?
The answer is also blaringly, painfully obvious, but the only way for you to maintain a consistent position is to answer to the contrary.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:09 pmSo go ahead and continue to destroy your credibility while I get back to my free porn and keggers.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:10 pmI can’t find it now, but when the pro-prop 8 people first made the procreation argument in court, it was pretty hilariously bad.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:11 pmI’d imagine it went something like this:
Prop. 8 – “The only state interest in marriage is procreation!”
Judge – “What about social stability?”
Prop. 8 – “Derp.”
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:14 pmBigots
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:16 pmWe can procreate without marriage and we can marry without procreating but the primary purpose of marriage is to provide a two-parent home for children? Hmm.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:22 pmFound it:
Gay marriage will raise a thread of unintentional, irresponsible procreation, presumably among heterosexual people. This guy Cooper, he’s not good.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:23 pmComment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:14 pm
Judge: Demonstrate objectively that SS marriage promotes social stability.
Prop 8 opponent: “Derp.”
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:23 pm> But for the reasons that we discussed earlier with respect to the opposite sex but infertile couple, allowing them to marry isn’t something that is inconsistent with the purposes of the core procreative purposes of marriage.
This is exactly my question.
Why is allowing me to marry inconsistent with the procreative purposes of marriage, but allowing an infertile opposite-sex couple to marry *not* inconsistent?
If the issue really is procreative purposes, it seems to me, there should be no difference.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:24 pmFrom Defining Marriage:
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:24 pmI’m sorry; that doesn’t answer the question to me.
It seems to boil down to “because they *could* have produced children when they were younger, they’re just intrinsically different than a couple who couldn’t ever have produced children.”
How that assertion of difference is relevant to an interest in promoting procreation isn’t made any more clear by the assertion.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:29 pmThat whole post from “Defining Marriage” is attacking a straw man. No one is asking anyone, anywhere to deny marriage to infertile couples.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:31 pmCarlitos: I arguably am, because what i’m saying is that the fact that marriage *isn’t* denied to infertile couples undermines the claim that marriage is about procreation. For procreative purposes, my husband and I are identically situated to an infertile couple – and yet CA lets the infertile couple get married and does not let me get married.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that something other than procreation is at issue there.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:33 pm“Demonstrate objectively that SS marriage promotes social stability.”
– Gerald A
I’m sorry. I was laboring under the assumption that you thought that marriage was an institution that promoted social stability. My mistake.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:35 pmaphrael: I think carlitos understands that your question (and my question) is a completely rhetorical question.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:37 pmYa think?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:38 pm“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that something other than procreation is at issue there.”
– aphrael
It’s not hard for Steve, apparently.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:38 pmIf marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your “best friend?”
There is powerful historical evidence that marriages were used to create alliances between nations and between families. Rome a stellar example, where the pater familias chose the children’s spouses and the marriage contracts were year-to-year. William the Bastard err the Conqueror also had a different opinion and enforced it at Hastings.
nk who knows history (c5b7ef) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:40 pmBecause “infertile couples” sometimes can and have reproduced. There are many cases of couples told that they cannot conceive children, they adopt a child, then conceive a child. There are even cases of older couples conceiving children. The state interest in marriage is not in the couple, but in the potential offspring. Therefore the state “controls” marriage for the sake of the children.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:48 pmI find it odd that people attack and mock the very concept of marriage, while at the same time, demanding that it be redefined to include those that have been excluded from said backwards institution.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:50 pmNo, they actually made the case well.
It was reported that they made it badly. The judge lied and said they didn’t make the case. In fact, so did Olsen and Boies when they appeared on talk show.
Do you actually think the gay marriage advocates in the press would report on it any more truthfully than the gay marriage advocates arguing against prop 8 in the courtroom? (And yes that includes Judge Walker.)
Here’s a newsflash people. 65 year old men aren’t infertile. David Letterman had his first kid at 56. He’s 65 now. Anyone doubt that he could have another? Tony Randall, Pablo Picasso, Clint Eastwood, Rod Stewart; all of them had kids into their sixties and even eighties.
Julio Iglesias Sr. had his last kid at 90.
So how does a marriage between two 65 or 80 year olds serve the procreative purpose of marriage? Simple. As long as the dude isn’t stepping out on his wife like Breck Girl and knocking up Rielle Hunter then they are reinforcing the central purpose of marriage. Responsible procreation takes place within marriage, not outside of it.
It is a biological fact that no procreation can take place within a same sex marriage. If Elton John and his partner want to have a baby at any age they need a third party to step in and act as a surrogate. So gay marriage, by it’s very composition can not support the procreative purpose of marriage as a social institution. Which is the only reason it exists as a social institution.
And when you break the link between marriage and procreation it has a damaging effect on society.
HuffPo – STUDY: Single Women Of Color Age 36-49 Have Median Wealth Of Just $5
Sorry to hear people like Leviticus can’t grasp the concept of cause and effect. Which is typical for students, I find, who overwhelmingly voted for the guy who’s putting them on a course toward a life of debt and poverty. As well as Julia of “Life of Julia” fame. Destroying the concept of marriage has been one of the main objectives of the big government crowd. Convince Julia that she doesn’t need to to get married and she’s going to need government programs to live her entire life. And one of the best ways to convince her to forgo marriage is to convince her that marriage and having kids have nothing to do with each other.
Gay marriage does exactly that.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:53 pm“I find it odd that people attack and mock the very concept of marriage…”
– JD
No one here is attacking or mocking the concept of marriage, question-begger.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:57 pmCarlitos, if Cooper’s case wasn’t that good then Boies, Olsen, and Walker wouldn’t have to have lied and claim he actually didn’t make an argument.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 3:57 pm“Here’s a newsflash people. 65 year old men aren’t infertile.”
– Steve57
Here’s another newsflash, dude: you’re missing the point. Some heterosexual people are and will always be completely infertile. Should they be allowed to marry?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:02 pmLeviticus – you could have surprised me.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:03 pmLeviticus – they have answered that question, repeatedly, above.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:04 pmHere, I’ll make it easy:
Tom (a man) and Jane (a woman) each lost their reproductive organs in a horrible and irreparable accident involving a Dodge. They will never have biological children with anyone.
They love each other very much, and want to marry. Should they be allowed to marry?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:04 pmJD, i’m really not sure who *in this thread* is attacking or mocking the concept of marriage.
I’m somewhat mocking the concept that marriage is about procreation. But that’s hardly the same thing, just as mocking a theory about the origins of apples isn’t the same thing as mocking apples.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:05 pmThe “some hetereosexual couples can’t have children” retort is ludicrous. It does not undermine the argument that marriage exists to encourage children to then claim that for that “purpose” to be real, the government is then forced to investigate each married couple for fertility.
That’s not a coherent rebuttal of the argument at all, Leviticus.
SPQR (768505) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:06 pmAnd JD: no they haven’t. They’ve dodge it, repeatedly, above.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:06 pmJD, at 224, as far as I can tell, Leviticus’ question in 222 hasn’t been answered, except by “there’s no such thing as an infertile couple.” Which is a dodge and a refusal to answer the question.
It’s a hard question because almost nobody is willing to answer ‘no, a couple such as that described in #225 should not be allowed to marry’, but answering yes severely undermines the case against same-sex marriage.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:07 pmAphrael – that procreation is one component of it, historically, is really without question. But I was not referring to you. I was referring to Leviticus and Happyfeet.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:08 pmaphrael: For procreative purposes, my husband and I are identically situated to an infertile couple
Sorry, not quite.
After fifteen years of trying just about every treatment in the book to get pregnant, my next door neighbors gave up and were considered infertile. Then, at age 42, the wife became pregnant out of the blue.
Let me know if that might possibly happen in your case.
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:09 pmLeviticus, are you really this obtuse that you have to pretend you don’t get the whole point of marriage?
It exists because it’s necessary, and the only reason it’s necessary is because heterosexual couples can have kids.
Not every heterosexual couple needs to have kids to reinforce the point that marriage is about having and raising kids.
No gay marriage can do that. Gay marriage only becomes thinkable when marriage becomes irrelevant.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:11 pmSigh, repeatedly.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:11 pmIf she got pregnant, then she wasn’t infertile. Just sayin’.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:12 pmIn one way, Leviticus, I think aphrael is attacking marriage in one way but not to do away with it, but to try to cause problems for the traditional definition of marriage. The claim is if you can’t find a rationale for heterosexual marriage for all individual instances, then how can you exclude same sex.
It is a change of attack depending on the specific argument. On one level the statement is “keep the govt. out of the bedroom”, but then when it is convenient we want the govt. in the bedroom to make sure a couple is fertile.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:12 pmOf course, the best arguments hold consistent throughout, like a tax is always a tax.
That is a non-sequitur. The second half of what you said literally does not follow from the first.
Have you read those transcripts? Did you see the ‘expert witness’ debacles? It was a joke.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:14 pmI think it might be a tautology as well.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:15 pmI never was asked I I was fertile, by the folks we got the marriage license from, nor by my Church. I suppose if you could show that is happening somewhere, it would seem relevant to me.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:15 pmaphrael, it’s a non-argument. There’s nothing to dodge. I’ve answered it over and over again. I’ve quoted people who have answered the question.
Both couples that have children within marriage and couples where neither spouse goes outside marriage and has children reinforce the point that responsible procreation takes place within marriage.
Is that really a hard concept to grasp?
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:16 pmAh, I’m not saying I want government in the bedroom to determine if a couple is fertile; i’m saying that the to consistently say that I shouldn’t be allowed to marry because I can’t procreate, you must also say that infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate, and to suggest that the fact that infertile couples *are* allowed to marry implies that something other than procreation is the issue.
I’m not attacking *marriage*; i’m attacking the reasoning used by opponents of same sex marriage.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:17 pmSteve answered this question.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:17 pmcarlitos: If she got pregnant, then she wasn’t infertile. Just sayin’.
Bravo.
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:19 pmSteve57: that doesn’t address the question of cases where neither spouse *is capable* of having children, which is the question that I’m asking and which Leviticus is asking.
If neither spouse is capable of having children, why and if the point to marriage is promoting responsible procreation, why are they allowed to get married?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:19 pmSo infertile couples serve as some sort of marketing for heterosexual marriage? In what way?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:20 pmMy ballot already stands to be diluted when tens of millions of illegals are made citizens as a reward for their criminality and persistence. But if the supreme court takes the next step–throwing out my ballot entirely and allowing gay marriage in California because that’s how the likes of Elena Kagan and Sonya Santomayor think I should have voted–then the direction we are headed will be indisputably clear. As will the steps we must take.
Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:21 pmTanny, at 241: how does Steve’s comment answer Leviticus’ question at 225?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:21 pmCarlitos, all three of them have said the prop 8 attorneys didn’t provide any evidence. And that they didn’t need to provide evidence.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage#p//v/924499914001
All of them; Olsen, Boies, and Walker, are lying when they say that. That’s a flat lie.
Feel free to mischaracterize the case Cooper made, but these jokers are lying when they say the prop 8 proponents said they didn’t need to present a case.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:22 pmGovernment should not be involved in this in the first place. And those that mentioned that there was something else going on above, were right. This isn’t even about marriage. It is about forcing acceptance, otherwise civil unions with legal protections would have been enough. But it wasn’t, an it never would be. the Court will be redefining marriage into something it is not. It will be conflating an action, and a preference, with inherent biological characteristics.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:23 pmI really don’t care what shysters and sophists might argue.
No.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:24 pm“I was referring to Leviticus and Happyfeet.”
– JD
Then you shouldn’t have any trouble pointing out where I’ve mocked or attacked marriage.
MD in Philly,
None of us are arguing that the government should be in the bedroom checking fertility, we’re just asking why (if the sole purpose of marriage is procreation) the hypothetically completely infertile heterosexual couple should be allowed to marry but the homosexual couple should not.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:24 pmHere’s an all around solution:
Get churches out of the civil marriage business. ONLY the state can perform a binding marriage. Churches, etc, can perform religious ceremonies and call the union whatever they want, but the are not acting as agents of the state.
And if a church has an issue with what the state calls marriage, I suggest they do exactly this on their own. There is nothing the state can do to force them to perform a civil ceremony.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:26 pmif the sole purpose of marriage is procreation
It is not the sole purpose. It is A purpose. Amongst many.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:26 pm251. How’s about getting government out of the marriage business? I see(Stranahan at Breitbart) Pigford is all locked up ’cause of guess who?
Shiny Ponies.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:28 pmKevin M,
That’s interesting. I always heard (and approved of) the suggestion the other way around: get the state out of the marriage business and only performing civil unions, and churches can perform marriages under whatever standards they want. Why do you state it the other way?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:28 pm“It is not the sole purpose. It is A purpose. Amongst many.”
– JD
Yep. I agree. And do the other purposes so conveniently biologically preclude gay marriage? I don’t think so.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:30 pmIn 1977 I worked for a man who with his wife had tried to have children for over 10 years. The doctors told them that she was infertile. His wife read a quote from the bible that said “sing oh barren woman” that her womb would be made fertile. She started singing worship songs. After five children he told her that she could stop singing. How do you know a couple will remain infertile? A male and female even in old age is sometimes capable of conceiving children. But it doesn’t matter if a couple is infertile, that is a straw man argument. As Steve said:
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:33 pmHow’s about getting government out of the marriage business?
gary, that takes work and will never ever happen short of the Libertarian utopia.
It takes absolutely NOTHING but a church decision to get a church out of the civil ceremony business. They only have to remove the words “By the power invested in me by the state of ______” and replace that with “”By the power invested in me by God” and they are done.
The Catholic church already refuses to recognize some legal marriages, why not just go whole hog.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:33 pmConveniently?
Men and women are simply not the same. I guess that is convenient.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:33 pmIt’s a red herring, right up there with the notion that Elian had to go back to his father, not acknowledging that in Cuba, children are property of the state.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:34 pmOh, sure if you want your church marrige to have legal standing, you have to go down to city hall. But “render unto Caesar” and all that.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:35 pmaphrael, how clear can I make it. Since the only state interest in marriage is to promote responsible procreation then it doesn’t need to go around doing fertility tests. Non-procreative heterosexual couples reinforce the only legitimate state interest in marriage as well. It doesn’t matter if you can or Leviticus can concoct some statistically insignificant scenario where both the man and woman are infertile.
There is absolutely no reason why an infertile heterosexual couple shouldn’t get married. The fact that it maintains the form means it can still serve the broader societal interest. It isn’t like infertile couples walk around pantsless so everyone can see they’ve been gelded or have their conditions tattooed on their foreheads to advertise why they’re not having kids both within their marriages or outside as some third party’s baby momma or baby daddy.
I hope this tidbit I picked up in High School biology class doesn’t come as a shock, but when Elton John and his male partner or Melissa Ethridge and her female partner show of their kids, everyone knows they had to convince someone like David Crosby to be a third wheel.
That’s what changes the definition of marriage. In a sense, to procreate a gay marriage must be a multiple relationship. Which is why it’s silly to pretend that it’s a huge leap toward polygamy.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:37 pmWhen one wants to change thousands of years of history, I think the burden of proof is on those who want to change, not make the status quo defend itself.
I think the legal people say hard cases make for bad law. If one is talking about the norm of society and the case is made that heterosexual marriage is the established (and proven) best way for children to be raised in society, why is there a need to “weed out” exceptions, except to justify something new.
As Kevin pointed out, there are the legal issues of the process which are important, but since there are agendas involved, many people are in fact trying to win their position, whether close following of the law gets them there or not.
It is pretty clear, I think, that some people want to see homosexual behavior be made a constitutionally protected behavior which then complicates freedom of religion and freedom of conscience principles. Others think all human behavior is not created equal, and sexual behavior is included in that realm.
So the law is muddied because people don’t just follow the law, people want to make it say what they want.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:38 pmCan someone please explain the assertion above? I’m really trying to understand it. How do married older and infertile couples “reinforce the central purpose of marriage?” How do they have anything to do with “responsible procreation?”
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:40 pmHere’s another newsflash, dude: you’re missing the point. Some heterosexual people are and will always be completely infertile. Should they be allowed to marry?
Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:02 pm
— Since WHEN has there EVER been a fertility test for marriage in this country?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:41 pmWell she’s gone on to a ‘more selective venue’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/03/25/msnbcs-contessa-brewer-says-asking-balance-gays-asking-fair-coverage-rac
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:42 pmTanny, so again, rather than engage with the question, you deny that the scenario posed in the question is possible.
So let me rephrase it.
How does a marriage involving a provably infertile couple reinforce the proposition that responsible procreation takes place within marriage?
I submit that it *doesn’t*. That it *can’t*.
I also submit that if marriage should be denied to gay couples because gay couples don’t reinforce the proposition that responsible procreation takes place within marriage, then marriage should also be denied to provably infertile couples because they don’t reinforce that proposition, either.
Do you have an answer to that which doesn’t depend on denying the existence of provably infertile couples?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:42 pmIcy: there never has been such a test. And yet people claim that I shouldn’t be allowed to get married to my husband because I can’t have children with him. It seems totally inconsistent to me!
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:43 pm> Non-procreative heterosexual couples reinforce the only legitimate state interest in marriage as well.
Aha!
*How* do heterosexual couples who *cannot* reproduce reinforce responsible procreation?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:44 pmTomAl (a man) andJanePeggy (a woman) each lost their reproductive organs in a horrible and irreparable accident involving a Dodge. They will never have biological children with anyone.— If you’re gonna do it, make it funny!
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:45 pmResponsible procreation takes place within marriage, not outside of it.
Carlitos – the sentence after the bold I believe is their explanation.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:45 pmThis whole thing is infuriating. It willmhappen organically, and then it will have credibility. Down this path lies ruin.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:49 pmMD @262: that argument – what i’d call the instinctive conservative argument – strikes me as being much better than “responsible procreation”; it’s basically a concern that we should be careful making changes lest there be horrible unintended side effects.
I’ve maintained on this site for a good decade now that one of the fundamental difficulties in this debate is that there are actually at least two different cultural views of marriage extant in the US today. For people in my social circle – straight, gay, married, single, it really doesn’t matter – marriage is fundamentally about *the relationship between the individuals in the marriage*. In a social milieu where that change has already happened, the notion that marriage is about children seems bizarre; so does the notion that a gay marriage isn’t a marriage.
I don’t know your social milieu, but I *suspect* that it’s very different from mine, and that the norms and expectations for what marriage *means* are very different.
So: how do we have one body of law which both your social milieu and my social milieu find acceptable?
That’s a very, very hard question, and it causes me to understand the get-the-government-out-of-the-marriage-business response.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:50 pmI will repeat. What I would like is clarity and honesty.
If people want to marginalize religious conviction and involvement in society, and make the public morality subject to the ruling of judges and not the beliefs of society, go ahead. Say that religious freedom means we can say what we want when in our zoned for religious behavior building and the rest of the week we are subject to the thought police.
Just do that, instead of saying “we just want equal treatment” when that is not what is wanted, what is wanted is legal equal standing for behavior that society as a whole has viewed as “not normative”.
Instead of the people and their representatives deciding what they want to put in legal code because of their beliefs, we have lawyers and judeges telling people what they are to believe. As with abortion, that will never work as far as making society more accepting and civil.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:54 pmMD – I think i’ve been clear and honest about what I want and what I believe, and if you believe I haven’t been, please point out where I have failed and I’ll try to remedy it.
For me, religious freedom means that your church can perform whatever weddings it wants to; it’s a religious sacrament, and I have no right to tell you how what to do.
But that doesn’t mean that the state should only be able to perform marriages of which your church would approve.
———-
> Instead of the people and their representatives deciding what they want to put in legal code because of their beliefs, we have lawyers and judeges telling people what they are to believe.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization.
The people wrote into the constitution a requirement that people not be deprived of the equal protection of the laws.
What many on my side are saying is that when California treats my best friend’s marriage differently than it treats my marriage, it’s denying me equal protection of the laws.
It’s *clearly* a judge’s job to decide if this argument is true or not. Even if the judge were to say, no, go away, it doesn’t deny you equal protection – the judge would still have decided the question.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:59 pmIt takes absolutely NOTHING but a church decision to get a church out of the civil ceremony business. They only have to remove the words “By the power invested in me by the state of ______” and replace that with “”By the power invested in me by God” and they are done.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:33 pm
— And what if the churches don’t want to make that decision?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:00 pmWhat if they like being in the civil ceremony business?
Why should couples that choose a religious ceremony be forced to also go through a separate civil ceremony?
Thanks.
So – Responsible procreation takes place within marriage, not outside of it. I don’t disagree with that one bit. How it argues against recognizing gay marriage, I have no idea, however. How does recognizing Steve and Steve as legally bound to each other encourage irresponsible procreation? Seems like the opposite would be true.
Also, lots of gay couples have children from marriages before they came out.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:02 pmYou can treat things differently when they are different, no?
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:02 pmIcy: there never has been such a test. And yet people claim that I shouldn’t be allowed to get married to my husband because I can’t have children with him. It seems totally inconsistent to me!
Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 4:43 pm
— Somebody you know is claiming that, are they?
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:03 pmAlso, lots of gay couples have children from marriages before they came out.
I thought it was genetic, not a choice. I am confuzzled.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:04 pmI don’t think it is resolvable, aphrael.
My beliefs say that what makes for a moral and just society is much bigger than my personal preferences and experience. My “job” is to discern what I think is true and just behavior and how do I fit into that. Truth is outside of me. I can choose to live in the direction of it as I understand it or not. This is true whether based in belief in a deity or not, but it is objective.
If one rejects the basic notion of an objective outside standard, then the basic foundations are simply inconsistent.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:05 pmYou can treat things differently when they are different, no?Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:02 pm
— No, no, no, you troglodyte! You must PRETEND that different things are the same. Geez, evolve already!!!
Icy (8e3431) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:07 pm– And what if the churches don’t want to make that decision?
What if they like being in the civil ceremony business?
Why should couples that choose a religious ceremony be forced to also go through a separate civil ceremony?
Who said anything about force? Just that churches can opt out of performing legal marriages. Pretty sure all they have to do is 1) make that clear to the couple and 2) fail to send in a form.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:09 pmI don’t know that rejecting objective truth is required to support same-sex marriage. I would say that people in my social milieu hold it as an objective truth that human beings are emotionally and psychologically stronger when they have relationships in which they are tightly bound to other people; that there’s a natural human desire for a single primary relationship; that part of our responsibility to our friends and community are to help sustain the primary relationships of our friends and to reinforce them. (Of course, that’s not everything; there are relationships which are not good for people and which they should get out of. Part of supporting members of your community lies in helping them differentiate the good relationships from the bad).
In that world, where *the relationship* is the focus, there really is no difference between my marriage and the marriage of my (straight) best friend; the important question is whether the relationships are emotionally supportive of us and our spouses, and whether they enable each person in the relationship to achieve their fullest self. The gender of the participants is irrelevant.
The problem, of course, is that you and I have to live by the same laws. And so we *have* to resolve the impasse, somehow.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:09 pmCouple 1 – AA
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:11 pmCouple 2 – BB
Couple 3 – AB
They are different. As different as cats and dogs. They are not the same. The law, I believe, should convey the same benefits, but that doesn’t make them the same.
JD – a lot of men spend decades trying to pretend that they aren’t attracted to other men. This isn’t a good thing; the men end up miserable, and then when they try to fix it, they destroy the life of their spouse and seriously wound their children.
One of the best things about the fact that homosexuality is becoming more socially acceptable is that the incidence of this kind of behavior is decreasing.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:12 pmthat people in my social milieu hold it as an objective truth that human beings are emotionally and psychologically stronger when they have relationships in which they are tightly bound to other people;
Is someone denying you the opportunity to have this type of relationship? Is some Govt entity making it illegal?
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:13 pm@aphrael and @carlitos, I believe I have answered your question several times, it seems that you don’t like my two different answers. So look at Steve’s answer in 261 @ 4:37 pm for a third try. MD said in 262:
It’s your turn to prove SSM should be recognized by the state.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:13 pm“When one wants to change thousands of years of history, I think the burden of proof is on those who want to change, not make the status quo defend itself.”
– MD in Philly
I don’t buy the premise that the status quo merits a presumption of validity, but your point is an interesting one and I’d be happy to discuss it.
My argument would go something like this:
1. Marriage is a positive institution, tending to promote social stability, facilitate childrearing, and embed societal virtues like love, fidelity, and mutual support.
2. Positive institutions be expanded where possible.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:14 pmWho can hermaphrodites marry? Can they have one of each?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:16 pmThis is all a mess because no issue is resolved without flipping to another.
There are centuries of common law precedent that have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian beliefs that say society’s basic structure has been a man, wife, and children, and there is a general complimentary nature of biology and psychology and social function. In one way that is not what we are talking about when we come to the legal arguments, but it is the 800 lb gorilla in the room.
It is hard to argue the law, because people want to use the law to justify their position.
My practice of my religious belief is not limited to what we do in a specific gathering. My practice of my religious belief (ideally) informs my belief and behavior 24/7. My belief that marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean just what I do once a week in a meeting, it means that is what I teach my children and what I think all of the time.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:17 pm“This whole thing is infuriating. It willmhappen organically, and then it will have credibility. Down this path lies ruin.”
– JD
That’s a fair point. We could quibble about what it means for it to “happen organically” I suppose – that is, what it means to “happen organically” if it’s not by the sort of battles that are currently taking place – but I think your point is a fair one.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:17 pm“It is hard to argue the law, because people want to use the law to justify their position.”
– MD in Philly
That’s kinda law’s one redeeming virtue, to my mind.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:20 pmTanny: noting that I bear the burden of proving that same-sex marriage is safe simply doesn’t answer the question I put forward in 266.
My question was:
“How does a marriage involving a provably infertile couple reinforce the proposition that responsible procreation takes place within marriage?”
MD’s comment to which you refer me is:
“I think the burden of proof is on those who want to change, not make the status quo defend itself.”
——
Steve’s answer is better. Even so, I find it a bit odd.
In 261, he seems to be saying that if they *look* like a couple which could biologically procreate, that sends the signal that procreation is supposed to happen within marriage. So by allowing anyone who looks like they could procreate to marry, but not allowing anyone who doesn’t look like they could procreate to marry, the state is reinforcing the idea that marriage is about procreation.
One problem with this is that it seems to be saying that *appearance* is more important than *reality*. It’s not important that people be able to procreate; it’s important that they *look* like they can procreate. I generally find that prioritizing appearance over reality is distasteful, but that’s a personal preference. 🙂
Another problem with it is that it’s really, really tenuous. It seems to boil down to saying: if gay people can get married, then straight people will decide that they can have kids without being married – but if straight people who can’t have kids get married, it won’t have that effect.
I don’t follow. It strikes me as being a non sequiter. But that’s the fundamental problem with this debate: things that one side thinks are blindingly obvious, the other side thinks are irrelevant or don’t follow.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:22 pmOne of the best things about the fact that homosexuality is becoming more socially acceptable is that the incidence of this kind of behavior is decreasing.
Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:12 pm
If a person said that they had same-sex attraction and wanted to go to a therapist to “try to change” (which would have been the professional standard prior to 1970 or so), would be supportive, or would you discourage it? Should a licensed mental health practitioner be allowed to offer such a service?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:23 pmJD – I can form the relationship, and in NY that relationship will be nurtured and supported by the state, but in Texas it won’t be. So i’m not being prevented from forming the relationship, but if I lived in the same state as my cousins, the state would be supporting their relationships in a way that it wouldn’t be supporting mine. Since in my view our relationships are identical, I have a problem with that.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:24 pmaphrael:
Should our laws change to reflect what society is willing to accept, i.e., what satisfies people? I can see that view because people will be more likely to abide by the laws. It also seems that laws should change when it makes society better.
For instance, in theory, most people would be satisfied with laws that tax only the richest people because most people are not rich. But is that a good thing for society? It is to many liberals because it makes people more economically equal, but is that a productive goal?
Similarly, SS marriage makes society more equal. For most liberals, equal is better because it isn’t as discriminatory, but life and society are discriminatory. In fact, trying to escape unequal conditions often makes people more productive.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:27 pmSteve57’s position doesn’t admit that the State has any interest in marriage except the interest in procreation. So (re: marriage) the State is concerned only with propagating itself – not bettering itself (via strengthened social bonds between its citizens), merely mindless propagation.
I find that distasteful.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:29 pmLeviticus,
If you believe in the law, then you believe in the importance of precedent. Isn’t that essentially believing in the status quo until there is evidence of something better?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:30 pmActually I have a friend and know another man at the church I go to that did change from being a homosexual to being a heterosexual and are married and have children.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:30 pmIt is already to start happening organically, Leviticus. How many States have redefined marriage? 9? Public opinion is at historical highs, hell, even CA might be able to change their laws now. Doing it by the Supremes ruling from on high and removing the People from this process will guaranfackingtee that it will be ugly and acrimonious for as long as it exists.
The other thing that bugs me is that we cannot even bring ourselves to call something different different any longer.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:33 pmSo we have to change marriage because it makes people feel more fair and compassionate?
That’s what liberals said about welfare. Welfare programs help people who need help and that’s good, but it also doomed countless people for generations to always needing help. That’s not good.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:33 pmMD in Philly – I think you’re making at least two different arguments in 290.
*Of course* your religious beliefs influence everything about your life; that’s really what it means to have deeply felt religious beliefs, and nobody can reasonably expect them not to.
You have the right to believe what you want, and to speak for and stand for those beliefs, and to teach your children those beliefs, and the state does not have the power to deny you any of these things.
And at the same time, there are people with different religious beliefs. There are people who have religious beliefs that *allow same-sex marriage*. They have the same right to believe that, and speak and stand for it, and teach their children their belief.
So … when it comes time to say who the state shall issue a marriage license to, and there are some people with the deep belief that same sex marriage should not receive legal sanction and there are other people with the deep beleif that same sex marriage *should* receive legal sanction, how do we resolve it? What’s the process?
But there’s a seperate argument in what you posted.
> There are centuries of common law precedent that have nothing to do with Judeo-Christian beliefs that say society’s basic structure has been a man, wife, and children,
I think there’s some evidence that many societies have had a basic structure which revolved around extended families rather than nuclear families.
But that’s neither here nor there, I think, because I find it incomprehensible that allowing same-sex marriage is going to change society’s basic structure. We’re talking about *at most* 5% of couples. Even in a world where same-sex marriage is legal, the overwhelming majority of married couples will be opposite sex couples.
We’re arguing over what will be at best a rounding error.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:33 pm“For instance, in theory, most people would be satisfied with laws that tax only the richest people because most people are not rich. But is that a good thing for society? It is to many liberals because it makes people more economically equal, but is that a productive goal?”
– DRJ
It seems to me that there are good reasons for not only taxing the richest people. It doesn’t seem to me that there are good reasons for not allowing gay people to marry each other.
Keep in mind that I don’t view adherence to tradition as a presumptively good thing (which may or may not be a key disconnect, I don’t know).
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:34 pmLeviticus:
That’s how you feel, Leviticus, and I respect that. But other people feel differently. Why should your feelings trump others?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:37 pm*Of course* your religious beliefs influence everything about your life; that’s really what it means to have deeply felt religious beliefs, and nobody can reasonably expect them not to.
Remember when Obama said his religion informs his politics, and he was against SSM?
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:39 pmSo have I Tanny, and this is a consequence that I think should be acknowledged. I think aphrael’s view would put societal pressure on an individual person to say “even if I don’t like my same sex attraction, my not liking it is the problem, and I need to come to grips with ‘who i am’ rather than try to change.
It is hard, if not impossible, to “be fair” at the same time to a person who has SS attraction and thinks that is normal and someone who has SS attraction but wants to change.
The “fairest” treatment is to leave them all alone, but there is no way once you get it before a government ruling body to be fair.
A boy is not a girl and a girl is not a boy.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:40 pmMD @294, that’s a difficult question, and the honest answer is that I don’t know.
I *really doubt* the efficacy of such programs; I think that sexuality can’t be changed, and that *for a gay person* (as opposed to a bisexual person) the outcome of such a program would be years of miserably trying to force themselves to be something they weren’t, and ultimately failing; and that overall they’d be happier if they found some other way to assuage whatever was causing them to want to do it.
But I may be wrong, right? So at the end of the day if they were *determined*, I’d like to think that once it became clear that they were certain it was what they wanted, I’d be supportive of it and hope that it worked out for them. I don’t know if I have the strength to do that, though; it’s a hard thing to happily watch someone you love do something you think will hurt them, because they believe they need to do it.
I think the situation is massively complicated by the existence of bisexuals. Not all self-proclaimed gay people are bisexual (eg, capable of attraction to both genders), but some are … and the likelihood that such a program can succeed *with a bisexual person* is much harder than with a gay peron, because at that point the program isn’t trying to deny the person’s sexuality altogether, it’s trying to get them to focus on one aspect of it. I still think such programs are overall more likely to lead to unhappiness than to happiness; but that doesn’t change that they are, at that point, a different game.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:40 pm“If you believe in the law, then you believe in the importance of precedent. Isn’t that essentially believing in the status quo until there is evidence of something better?”
– DRJ
I believe in precedent as a tool, nothing more. Throw precedent at the feet of two combatants and one of them will grab it. I absolutely do not believe that what is precedent has anything to do with what is right.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:40 pmWe’re talking about *at most* 5% of couples. Even in a world where same-sex marriage is legal, the overwhelming majority of married couples will be opposite sex couples.
Aphrael – this seems like the least convincing argument you have ever put forth on this subject. There are all sorts of things that are only done by a tiny portion of the population.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:42 pmDRJ, at 296, that’s a fantastic question, and it’s one which is properly deserving of more thought.
*In this case*, I think the two options align – I think both that same sex marriage satisfies people (certainly in my milieu it does, and the number of people who are content with it seems to be growing organically) *and* that it will be good for society.
But it’s a good point that these aren’t always aligned, and that as voters part of our responsibility to each other is to consider the greater social good when voting.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:42 pm“That’s how you feel, Leviticus, and I respect that. But other people feel differently. Why should your feelings trump others?”
– DRJ
They shouldn’t, of course. But I happen to think that I have arguments, and not just feelings, in my favor – which is why I’ve been pressing poor Steve on this apparently intractable infertile heterosexual couple thingamajig.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:42 pmJD – I don’t think you understand my argument. 🙂
What i’m saying is that it’s difficult to imagine that something being done by 5% of the public will “change society’s basic structure”.
I think that the argument that it is is an argument based in fear and is also – ironically – an argument which presumes that society’s basic structure is *weak*, so weak that it can be permanently and harmfully changed by the government recognizing an activity in which less than 5% of people will participate.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:44 pmDRJ, at 304: aha! that’s the core question I’m asking, just in reverse.
We have to have one set of laws to share between us, people on both sides of this issue. How do we make that work?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:46 pmMD in Philly, at 306: of course, the opposite view tends to create societal pressure on people to say “i feel same sex attraction and this is a problem and i need to do something about it!”
I’ve been on the receiving end of that societal pressure. It’s … unpleasant. I would prefer that nobody ever have to go through it again.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:49 pmI guess since I don’t think it will change the basic structure, I didn’t think I needed to address that.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:49 pmI hate to interrupt, but did I miss the part of the Bill of Rights in which the founding fathers set out percentage quotas for minority rights that matter? does 5% not make the cut?
black vinyl shoes (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:49 pmOf course I was making more than one argument, as I mentioned, it is all a Gordian knot.
I have to take you at your word, aphrael, that you really think the ruling has to do with a relatively small number of people.
I really think it is a denial of the obvious, that men and women are different and not interchangeable and a major step toward chaos,
and if you want to let people marry “who they want” when there are 2 people, I do not see any reason why you need to limit it to 2.
All that said, I don’t see you as an “enemy” and would defend your desire to live like you want to, up to the point where you ask me to implicitly or explicity say I agree with you, which is what I feel you (and others) are doing when you want to change a definition of fundamental human interaction that has existed for thousands of years.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:51 pmThen go through the legislative process to change the law. Don’t try to change the plain meaning known for thousands of years by judicial fiat. I don’t think it’s fair that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than my son, does that mean I should just stop paying taxes? I think that cars are safe on the freeway at 80-100 MPH, should I drive 100 MPH because I find 65 MPH to be “distasteful”?
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:51 pmelissa @39 linked to and quoted from a David Frum article here on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/opinion/frum-real-marriage-issue/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
It’s worthy of bringing it everyone’s attention one more time.
David Frum seems perplexed that support for gay marriage is highest among people who don’t see the point in getting married. As if that’s a paradox. It isn’t.
Demosthenes, Athens, 4th century BC:
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States, 21st century AD:
California Court of Appeals, United States, 21st century AD:
We are experiencing an explosion of out of wedlock births precisely because we’ve already broken the link between procreation and marriage in the minds of many. Gay marriage is both a symptom of that disconnect, and the evidence from Europe strongly indicates that when legalized gay marriage then serves as a cause to further break the link.
It really shouldn’t be too hard to grasp. I definitely have an interest in the fact that 83% of high school dropouts have kids outside of marriage. That the median age at which women now have children is lower than the median age at which those women who do get married do tie the knot. We all have an interest in these relationships or their absence precisely because of their wider impact on society.
aphrael, I have not compelling interest in your relationship with your partner. But to the degree it just reinforces in the minds of many that by calling it marriage it simply proves that marriage, procreation, and child rearing are separate issues then I have to say it’s in all of our best interest not to call it marriage.
I’m curious, aphrael. Is there any amount of evidence that would convince you to at least consider the idea that redefining marriage in this way might actually have a negative overall effect?
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:53 pmBlack vinyl – a tiny minority of people use guns illegally in mass shootings, a smaller number than than would engage in a SSM. Why differentiate in only one direction?
Can you point out where the Founding Fathers included SSM in the Bill of Rights?
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:55 pmThe state has no right to prevent a man from marrying three or four women concurrently, nor does the state have the right to prevent a man from marrying a twelve year old girl, nor does the state have the right to prevent a man from marrying his sister.
After all, “equal protection” must apply to the aforementioned, if it applies to same-sex couples.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:00 pmIf I do not respond to every point it is not to slight anyone, it is just I am already posting a huge amount.
As far as the fragility of society, society has already plunged into a perilous situation. Simply having families (nuclear and extended) with married people raising children is the best thing to fight poverty and crime. As a society we made it easy for men to dodge their responsibilities and ask the govt. to pick up the slack, and it hasn’t worked.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:00 pmI don’t see how pushing the envelope farther from the historical norm is expected to be an improvement.
The “what about infertile couples” argument demonstrates a total lack of common sense among those who make it.
Infertile couples do not threaten to redefine the institution of marriage because they suffer a physical disability. In all ordinary circumstances infertile couples would be able to reproduce. Homosexuals cannot reproduce under any circumstances at all.
CK (ae4bf1) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:01 pmyes yes organically is best
state by state
but doma needs to goma
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:03 pm“Then go through the legislative process to change the law. Don’t try to change the plain meaning known for thousands of years by judicial fiat.”
– Tanny O’Haley
Nah, I think I’ll try the judiciary. Seems more effective. I don’t have any reverence for originalism; and one good judicial fiat deserves another. What you call “judicial activism” I call “separation of powers in action.”
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:04 pm“The state has no right to prevent a man from marrying three or four women concurrently, nor does the state have the right to prevent a man from marrying a twelve year old girl, nor does the state have the right to prevent a man from marrying his sister.
After all, “equal protection” must apply to the aforementioned, if it applies to same-sex couples.”
– Elephant Stone
So elegant. So original. So … simple.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:05 pmaphrael: We have to have one set of laws to share between us, people on both sides of this issue. How do we make that work?
I believe JD answered that nicely in #284 — unless you contend A=B.
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:07 pmCan anyone make an honest legal argument why gay marriage should be legalized but polygamy not?
CK (ae4bf1) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:08 pmIt’s not intractable. It’s irrelevant. The interest society has in marriage is promoting responsible procreation. If an infertile heterosexual couple lives up to the concept of marital fidelity it’s promoting society’s interest in marriage.
And what relevance does your sense of aesthetics have on the matter? So you find the facts distasteful; deal with it. The historical record is clear. The only compelling interest that caused societies to recognize marriage at all is the procreative aspect of the relationship. That’s the only reason it exists as a social and legal institution.
Marriage has evolved over the centuries. And people’s understanding of marriage varies from culture to culture. But it doesn’t change the fact that procreation has always been central to the understanding of marriage.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:09 pm“As a society we made it easy for men to dodge their responsibilities and ask the govt. to pick up the slack, and it hasn’t worked.
I don’t see how pushing the envelope farther from the historical norm is expected to be an improvement.”
This is about creating a method for people to form families and be able to partake in the responsibility that is marriage. That’s the improvement.
ChadP (c770a7) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:10 pmYes, it is simple, leviticus.
Throw away history and precedent because one segment of society feels their behavior is unfairly maligned and give them legally protected status, and then tell me why you will not do the same for other maligned groups. Will you be a bigot towards those who want polygamy??
Separation of powers doesn’t work when one of the branches, in this situation the executive branch at the state and fed levels, decides to sit out.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:12 pmaphrael:
Let the States experiment and see what works. It’s much better to put the choices at the local or state level when it comes to personal issues.
Think about Brown vs Board of Education when the schools were integrated. We tend to view that as a blanket rule against segregation, but it isn’t in practice. We not only ended up with different solutions in different States, but each community crafted different solutions that worked for it.
Homes, marriages, children, schools — those are issues that need to stay close to the community so people will be connected to the solutions.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:12 pmI don’t think this is a very apt analogy. I think that all adult Americans should be allowed to own a firearm as long as they pass a background check and some kind of mental health evaluation (I’m sure we disagree on the desired level of gun control, but that’s not the topic of discussion so let’s not derail here…) just as I think all adult Americans should be allowed to participate in the institution of marriage.
And to answer your question, no, not explicitly, but I don’t see “straight” marriage or loads of other political issues we nevertheless discuss in light of constitutionality in there either. What I do see is the Ninth Amendment as well as the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution. (That actually being the argument I’m most interested in hearing, via the constitutionality of DOMA.)
black vinyl shoes (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:15 pmLeviticus, why are you willing to discriminate against people who wish to practice polygamy, incest, and marriage between a legal adult & a minor ?
If you believe that people who wish to marry each other should be allowed to have a marriage license, then why discriminate ?
How about a forty year old man, and a sixteen year old boy. That’s a same-sex marriage—do you oppose it ? How about two same-sex men who happen to be brothers ? That’s a same-sex marriage—do you oppose it ?
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:15 pm“If an infertile heterosexual couple lives up to the concept of marital fidelity it’s promoting society’s interest in marriage.”
– Steve57
Wait, so society has an interest in marital fidelity? It looks like that’s what you’re saying.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:15 pmBecause I thought that society’s only interest was in procreation.
You realize that marital fidelity and procreation (and even responsible procreation) are different things, right?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:17 pmComment by ChadP (c770a7) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:10 pm
One does not need a marriage certificate to be a responsible party to a relationship.
But when the government steps in to undermine reponsibility history has shown it to be a disaster.
I don’t think SSM will have the direct economic damage as divorce laws and welfare, but I think the idea that “more change can’t hurt” is inadequate.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:17 pmhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578384690932822164.html?mod=us_most_pop_newsreel
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:18 pm“Will you be a bigot towards those who want polygamy??”
– MD in Philly
Will you stipulate that I’d be tolerating polygamists who genuinely loved each other and were taking care of their children?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:18 pmCivil society’s interest is in stability and rule of law.
Colonel Haiku (2214cb) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:19 pmhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/33185607/Prop-8-Trial-Closing-Arguments-16-June-2010
It’s interesting how Judge Walker would interrupt Cooper as Cooper was going through the evidence that shows procreation is at the heart of our understanding of marriage and has been since before the founding of the country.
To, uhh, insert into the record comments to the effect of “what do you mean you don’t need to provide evidence?”
Then quote himself in his ruling and edit Cooper’s remarks to misrepresent the record as if that’s what Cooper was saying.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:19 pmEverybody loves them some history – except it’s myriad ugly parts. How’s this for history: once there were these things called miscegenation laws, and everybody thought they were fine, and then everybody realized that no, they were not fine, and then black people and white people started getting married sometimes, and then society was just completely fine.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:21 pmHe’s like Bizarro Scalia, because the latter actually asks probing question.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:21 pmWait, so society has an interest in marital fidelity? It looks like that’s what you’re saying.
Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:15 pm
Of course society has an interest in marital fidelity. Marital fidelity promotes marital stability and stable families, even if an individual couple cannot have children, their example is “a thread of strength in the fabric of society”.
Besides, if the rumors were true, a little more marital fidelity may have kept Obama out of the US Senate, hence out of the WH, and that would have been a major move in the interest of society. 😉
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:23 pmSome of those black/white couples didn’t even have babies! And yet, somehow, society remained just completely fine.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:23 pmIn New Mexico, it’s forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public.
You may not carry a lunchbox down Main Street… in New Mexico.
Colonel Haiku (2214cb) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:23 pmLeviticus, the only reason society has an interest in promoting marital fidelity is to promote responsible procreation.
That’s it.
You have no point when you try to imagine there’s any other reason that society, and consequently government, would have any other interest in marriage.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:24 pmYes, just like I’d oppose a marriage between a forty year old man and a sixteen year old girl. How on earth does changing the gender of the participants change our conception of stuff like the age of consent? They are underage, not mature, etc regardless of gender or sexuality. Therefore it is wrong. This is probably the worst anti-SSM argument out there, tbh.
black vinyl shoes (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:24 pmIdiots may not vote in New Mexico.
Colonel Haiku (2214cb) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:25 pmMD in Philly,
Good one (seriously).
Basically, I think one of the strongest arguments re: gay marriage is that it allows gay couples to do their part as “threads of strength in the fabric of society.” I hope that quote doesn’t come from a source that hurts my argument in some way, because it’s an elegant one.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:26 pmI gave you the consideration of an honest answer and an honest question and you give me snark? It makes me think that you really aren’t interested in any answer I give to you. That seems disingenuous on your part.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:26 pm“Idiots may not vote in New Mexico.”
– Colonel Haiku
You say the darndest things.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:28 pmDRJ, at 332: i’m actually fine with a regime where DOMA section 3 is struck down and the feds recognize any marriage which is recognized in the domicile state of the couple, while DOMA section 2 is upheld and states don’t have to recognize out of state same sex marriages.
I voted against prop 8, but at the end of the day I would have preferred a repeal than a lawsuit.
But even restricting it to states doesn’t help. Gay marriage is popular and normal in NYC; not so much in the finger lakes. But the people of the finger lakes and the people of NYC have to live by the same laws in this regard, and it really *does* seem to be a zero-sum game.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:28 pmAnalogies are of great help, to the degree they are accurate. People in various/many societies had married across ethnic and racial lines before miscegenation laws were created.
I think you are dodging the polygamy question, Leviticus. No one can guarantee that any marriage will be a loving unit providing good care for any children present, whether hetero or SS or polygamy.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:28 pm335. The Gauls and Celts had government and were very much interested in martial fidelity as contributing to social peace.
A mummy found in a Scottish bog in the past decade was a young lady bound hand and foot.
We are fast reaching the point where society can ill afford the knocking down of another barrier or two to anarchy.
Not that I plan on losing.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:29 pm“That seems disingenuous on your part.”
– Tanny O’Haley
You’ve dodged my only real question for an entire thread and you’re going to accuse me of disingenuousness? I was being completely genuine; I will try to use the judiciary where I don’t think I can use the legislature. I have no qualms about availing myself of what you call “judicial activism.”
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:30 pmHistory. You ought to try reading some sometime, Leviticus.
Miscenegaton laws were never part of the common law. And the only reason people with racist theories dreamed them up is precisely because everyone understood the centrality of procreation to the marital relationship. That’s exactly what they intended miscegenation laws to prevent; legal recognition of the offspring.
You could go down to the slave quarters and have your way with the women all you wanted in the antebellum south. Later, you could knock up your maid if that’s what shook your peaches. But no way was the law going to recognize any progeny as your legal heir.
See, I loves me some history so much I know you don’t even know what ours is, Leviticus.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:33 pmWhat you call “judicial activism” I call “separation of powers in action.”
Nonsense. Where does the judiciary get to insert their preferred outcome for the actions/inactions of the legislature?
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:34 pmBecause miscegenation laws are unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment which gave equal protection to blacks. The 15th and 19th amendments show that, any other reading is historically inaccurate.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:34 pm357. Now we’re assuming Social Darwinism eh?
You really are young.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:35 pm“I think you are dodging the polygamy question, Leviticus.”
– MD in Philly
Fair enough. I am, kind of.
Here’s the best answer I can give, at the moment:
I think there are a number of purposes for marriage (including promotion of procreation, including marital fidelity, including effective childrearing, including expression of love and devotion, including promotion of responsibility and mutual support, etc.). Provided that polygamist marriages fulfill some of these purposes, I don’t see how I could object to them in full consistency with the arguments I’ve been making re: gay marriage.
I think at some point a numerically over-expansive group marriage would be hard pressed to effectively fulfill any of these purposes.
I don’t know. It’s a really difficult question.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:35 pm342 – do you really equate sexual orientation with race?
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:37 pmGlad you liked the joke.
As far as the phrase, “threads of strength in the fabric of society”, i thought that quite lyrical myself, so much so I wonder where I did get it
but…
the closest I can consciously recall, admission against interest, is (don’t look) “Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of Our Lives”
sorry. it does seem like such a nice turn of phrase that i would have liked to have taken credit for it
referee whistle, FWIW,
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:38 pmi don’t think leviticus was being meanly snarky to O’Haley, just sort of leviticus snarky
Who said anything about force? Just that churches can opt out of performing legal marriages. Pretty sure all they have to do is 1) make that clear to the couple and 2) fail to send in a form.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:09 pm
— And this will make things better HOW?
Icy (f2b455) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:39 pmTo the certain extent the philosophical debate we’re having here is completely irrelevant. This whole affair is about the radical gay agenda shoving it’s worldview down our collective throats. You’re either a complete dupe about this–thinking it’s about “rights”–or you aren’t.
Gays are 2% of the population. They are a community ravaged by disease, a product of their promiscuous behavior. Their “cause” could not have possibly gained any traction without the massive propaganda campaign conducted by anti-religious, anti-American liberals. This campaign is made to persuade the 98% to change their minds and normalize homosexuality. That’s what the marriage campaign is about–normalizing homosexual deviancy that no healthy society on earth would tolerate.
After they have achieved that, they will not shut up and go away. For example, they will force schools to indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality as normal.
Led to it’s logical conclusion, the total normalization of homosexuality will lead to an increase in that sort of behavior. That would lead to a declining birth rate and eventual extinction even if only a fraction of the population–say 10%–became gay.
CK (ae4bf1) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:42 pmAgain, at a very base level, it seems we are at a point where we cannot even state that tow things are not the same. Even when they objectively, are not.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:43 pmI have directly answered your question three times. I don’t know what else to do. Claiming I haven’t is not being truthful. Use of the judiciary instead of the legislative process makes me think that you believe rules don’t apply to you. If you were not being disingenuousness, then why the snarky answer?
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:43 pmIt mainly promotes social stability when there are children. Maybe there is some social benefit when there’s not children, but the main social stability connection with marriage is…children!
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:44 pm285.JD – a lot of men spend decades trying to pretend that they aren’t attracted to other men. This isn’t a good thing; the men end up miserable, and then when they try to fix it, they destroy the life of their spouse and seriously wound their children.
Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:12 pm
— Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg can do a PSA encouraging closeted gay men to come out for both their own good and that of society at large.
Icy (f2b455) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:44 pm361.“I think you are dodging the polygamy question, Leviticus.”
– MD in Philly
Fair enough. I am, kind of.
Here’s the best answer I can give, at the moment:
I think there are a number of purposes for marriage (including promotion of procreation, including marital fidelity, including effective childrearing, including expression of love and devotion, including promotion of responsibility and mutual support, etc.). Provided that polygamist marriages fulfill some of these purposes, I don’t see how I could object to them in full consistency with the arguments I’ve been making re: gay marriage.
I think at some point a numerically over-expansive group marriage would be hard pressed to effectively fulfill any of these purposes.
I don’t know. It’s a really difficult question.Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:35 pm
Thank you sir, you do your state proud.
All I am saying (que the John Lennon) is before one wants to change a thousands of year old definition, think about it. If you will change it for one circumstance, do you have a reason for not changing it again and again? I don’t like the argument that says, “Oh, shucks, nobody really wants polygamy”.
I would bet you more people in the US would theoretically go for polygamy, if they could find willing partners, than SSM. Polygamy and harems have been around more consistently that SSM.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:47 pmSteve57,
What I take from your comment #357 is that the idea that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation is rife for exploitation by people with a desire to oppress minorities. Is that what you were trying to say?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:47 pmA very wise man once said, “we could redefine vegetable to include meat, then vegetarians could eat cheeseburgers”
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:47 pm289.Who can hermaphrodites marry? Can they have one of each?
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:16 pm
— They already have one of each.
Hoarders!
Icy (f2b455) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:47 pmSo if there’s ever a religious conservative majority in the courts, as there probably once was, you wouldn’t complain, based on legal reasoning, if people brought a lawsuit in federal court seeking to have sodomy declared illegal nationally. Your attitude would be, you’ve got the votes, it doesn’t really matter what the constitution says.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:49 pmhttp://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/reaction-to-prop-8-oral-argument/#comments
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:49 pm“I don’t like the argument that says, “Oh, shucks, nobody really wants polygamy”.”
– MD in Philly
I don’t either, it’s a huge cop-out. Questions about marriages to children and animals (often though not always leveled for mindless shock value, as by our dear and mutual friend Elephant Stone) are of course far easier to answer based on the impossibility of consent; but the question of polygamy is a difficult one and deserves some attention.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:50 pmIcy – on some level, isn’t that what the it-gets-better project is about?
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:51 pmRemember when Obama said his religion informs his politics, and he was against SSM?
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 5:39 pm
— Thou shalt flip-flop when it is politically expedient.
Icy (f2b455) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:53 pm“I have directly answered your question three times.”
– Tanny O’Haley
My apologies. It seems we’ve miscommunicated.
Just to clarify, if you would be so kind: if there were two heterosexual individuals, both of whom were totally infertile (and I assume that you will stipulate that total infertility, in good faith), should they or should they not be allowed to marry?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:54 pm“One does not need a marriage certificate to be a responsible party to a relationship.”
I suppose, but I am replying to the argument that tied responsibility to marriage.
But one does need a marriage certificate to set up the responsible structures we have created for families, like DOMA case shows.
ChadP (c770a7) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:56 pmYes. Please see Steve’s posts as to why.
Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:56 pmSo, discrimination against same-sex partners is “acceptable” if those same-sex partners happen to engage in polygamy, incest, and adult/minor relations ?
This is so funny.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:56 pmNo matter what the issue, left wingers cannot help but fall back on their Orwellian “Animal Farm” default position…where some animals are more equal than others.
In this case, some homosexuals are more equal than others.
“Yes. Please see Steve’s posts as to why.”
– Tanny O’Haley
Okay. Thanks. Sorry for the miscommunication.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:00 pm349. Idiots may not vote in New Mexico.
Comment by Colonel Haiku
————————–
Colonel Haiku, I would submit that there is ample evidence that idiots are being allowed to vote in New Mexico.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:01 pmI guess some idiots are just more equal than others.
Bill Richardson didn’t make it off of dead people alone.
Icy (f2b455) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:05 pmElephant Stone, it’s baffling to me how you can take the position that opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships should be treated the same way, and contort it into the position that homosexuals are more equal than others.
I somewhat suspect you’re seeing what you want to see rather than what’s actually there.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:11 pmno Aphrael it isnt and its an attempt at forcing acceptance that is driving this whole gay marriage thing.
I dont say this out of unkindness, but homosexuality will nevert be acceptable anywhere.
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:12 pmEPWJ, *you* may never find homosexuality to be acceptable, and that’s your right. But the poll data are pretty clear that overall society finds homosexuality more acceptable today than it did 20 years ago – and speaking as a man who was alive 20 years ago, I think it’s undeniable that society is much more accepting of homosexuality today than it was in 1993.
> but homosexuality will never be acceptable anywhere.
I live in a city where it’s perfectly acceptable. So while I accept that *you* don’t find it acceptable, you don’t get to make “never … anywhere” claims.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:18 pmI dont say this out of unkindness, but homosexuality will nevert be acceptable anywhere.
You are well and truly an idiot. And wrong wrong wrong.
JD (3cbfc7) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:25 pmAphrael
its not how I feel its just a fact. And no it not really acceptable in your city – if there was a referendum to outlaw it – it would pass – rather easily.
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:27 pmA good question I think;
JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when - when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:28 pmHey MD – Actually the stuff that Ryan was alleged to have done all happened with his wife. So it wasn’t even really infidelity. I would have liked him as a Senator. We played volleyball in the same league; seemed like a straight shooter.
(pun)
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:28 pmA moron never misses a chance to beclown himself. Ever been to Berlin, Mr. World Traveler? Chicago? New Buffalo, Michigan?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:30 pmaphrael,
Seriously, bro ?
I was writing in the voice of a same-sex marriage proponent who believes that same-sex partners should not be prohibited from marrying one another—unless those same-sex partners happen to be engaging in incest, polygamy, or adult-minor relations in which case, prohibiting their marriages is somehow acceptable.
The point is that people do accept that the state (via the legislature) does reserve the right to limit marriage to certain types of couples.
And before you accuse me of not liking gays, I work in Hollywood on the creative side of the ledger, and happen to spend more time with openly gay people than does Bette Midler.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:31 pmI think what elephant stone was saying, though he can speak for himself,
is that there is traditional marriage that has been around for thousands of years,
and there are people who think the definition of marriage should be changed to include SS partners,
but the people who want the definition changed to include SS partners don’t want the definition changed to anything else, such as multiple partners
hence some alternatives to traditional marriage are “more equally alternative than others”
to anyone who sees marriage as what it always has been, whether or not one wants to give equal treatment to SS civil unions or not, for one group to say “we want to get in on marriage too” but not be for another group seems illogical
A major assumption, which Olson asserted and one of the justices questioned, was that SS attraction was equal to and just as normal as heterosexual attraction, hence a SS couple “naturally” has the same “right to marry”
I guess if one approaches the issue from that foundation, the idea of equating SS marriage to polygamy seems like apples and oranges
Which goes back to the gorilla in the room that some are asking the law to validate a social and scientific claim, which would then have the effect of saying those of a different opinion are wrong about scientific fact and accepted social norms
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:32 pmAphrael
its not how I feel its just a fact. And no it not really acceptable in your city – if there was a referendum to outlaw it – it would pass – rather easily.
It is absolutely not a fact. The idea it would be outlawed is absurd, which is a gross understatement.
JD (3cbfc7) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:34 pmaphrael,
As a conservative, I’m leery of big societal changes but I accept that non-traditional marriage like SSM will come to pass. Frankly, I doubt it will change our secular civilization much, although I think it will fundamentally change most American Protestant religions. Still, I feel sorry for the Mormons who were cast out because of their version of non-traditional marriage. I guess it’s true that timing is everything.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:34 pmUSA vs. Mexico on ESPN2. I’m out for a while. See you in a bit. Go ‘Murica.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:35 pmin fact your state just voted gay marriage out correct?
I guess I took offense when you made the bullet point stratement about men attracted to men was ruining some families – the old propaganda line from the militant extant SF literature from the 70’s.
spread your prop’s somewhere else – your state voted it out – right – despite the heavy handed tactics worthy of union thugs by your side –
And trying to infer soething about me when you cant defend the fats that its not acceptable and never ever will be.
adultery is also unacceptable and never will be – passing laws making it legal wont change that fact
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:37 pm> Still, I feel sorry for the Mormons who were cast out because of their version of non-traditional marriage
As well you should. I don’t see that as a sexual freedom issue, though, but a religious one: the nineteenth century Mormon church had the same right to define marriage, for church purposes, as any other right, and the fact that they were effectively forced to change their definition is a stain on the honor of our country.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:37 pmComment by carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:28 pm
Well…in one way you are right that infidelity was not quite the correct term, but the mrs apparently didn’t really count it as fidelity either
I personally assumed divorce fights including/over custody could get quite nasty, and I’m not sure what to do with claims in a supposedly sealed document that were intended only to make the ex look like a monster to the judge, rather than see the light of day
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:38 pmEPWJ, at 399, it’s totally unclear who you’re talking to.
As against the off chance that it was me:
* my previous state legalized homosexual conduct more than a generation ago
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:40 pm* as did my current state
* my current state has legally recognized gay marriage, adopted by the state legislature without court intervention.
my current state has legally recognized gay marriage, adopted by the state legislature without court intervention.
This, I have no problem with.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:45 pmJD
sure it would no doubt about it – look nothing gets more ugly than this topic – people dont want it – dont want it in the schools – and its the tip of the spear to this social change that no one is asking for.
Who’s asking for it – I know many many gay couples, I and well everyone knows for a fact that the non gays are pushing this – its not a gay issue, never was – its about power and marginalization
Its all about the running away from religion which is conservatism. Sure the Lutheran Church the ELCA made a bold statement about gay couples and gay priests and guess what – nothing – it wasnt acceptable and the congregations soundly rejected it – same for most of the sects of chrisitianity,
This is just to divide conservatives and we’re not falling for it
Isnt going to happen, not ever be acceptable. All the laws in the world are not going to have people accepting it – just like child abuse, adultry, stealing, etc.
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:48 pmI can’t believe the left actually has people so bamboozeled they are considering gay relationships equal to real marriage. You do realize a mere 20 years ago the suggestion of such nonsense would have people rolling on the floor laughing. Is there any common sense left or is everything up for interpretation based on the leftist mode of “what is worse for American society and culture”? And when I say interpretation I really mean re-defining.
Hoagie (3259ab) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:48 pmNever in the course of human events have the very same people said the very same things and repeated themselves so many times as on this thread.
Zee head. Eet hurts!! Apparently it’s just me on this diet but after 25 years of marriage my big menu items are fighting back against Obamacare and cap and trade along with coveting a big side order of spending and deficit reduction.
elissa (688dbb) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:49 pmthere are sexual freedom issues that are not religious??
I think very much it is how a poll question gets asked.
Are people much more tolerant of homosexuals now that 20 years ago? yes, very much so
Do people think that homosexuality is totally equivalent to heterosexuality? Not by nearly the same margin.
I think in the public arena you are seeing the fact that more people are more accepting of gays translated into a “let them alone and let them do what they want so why can’t they get married or something too”, but the majority of people still do not like to be called a bigot by feets and others because they really don’t think of gays as equals, just as people to be left alone to themselves
and to believe that being homosexual is the same as being heterosexual is about as consistent with the New Testament as saying cohabitation is ok, adultery is ok, or cheating on your income tax is ok
of course, in the desire to be like Europe, we can become a post-Christian society as well, which in some ways we are already, if you measure by adherence to what we say we believe
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:49 pmmy daddy taught me not to let bigotry passed unremarked
Well, happyfeet, you apparently didn’t pick up enough from your daddy because — like a two-bit bigot — you have slandered polygamous marriages. I won’t say anything about the times you’ve used the word “gay” in a negative, mocking manner.
Multi-partner relationships, mainly of a male with many females, actually applies to the desires of far more people (again, mainly males) than the desires of those males who want to be with other males, or females who want to be with other females. So, if anything, polygamy is a more logical accommodation of innate human instincts, far more than what’s true of homosexuality and same-sex marriages. And with Sharia Law knocking on the door — and polygamy therefore in some parts of the world being a conservative construct — fans of same-sex marriage better keep their big yaps shut about the wrongness of multi-partner relationships.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:50 pmMine too, Elissa, night all.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:53 pmEPWJ is a moron. But I repeat myself.
What — I imagined the rainbow pillars that the city of Chicago installed on N. Halsted St in Boys Town? Designating the gay neighborhood in town with rainbow colors as a tourist area doesn’t mean that homosexuality is acceptable? On what planet?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:54 pmWell elissa, the wurlitzers were on guns a few weeks ago, that ran it’s course, so we have this situation, which wouldn’t even present itself for Judge Walker’s malpractice. Eventually they’ll come back around and push cap n trade, when the mercury gets a little hotter.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:54 pmaphrael
Your state voted out gay marriage, the fact is its not legal and one day I’m sure the behavior/activity will come under more restrictions as well even in SF. My personal opinions vary on this but society for eons has dictated norms between and for adults
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:56 pmAnd, for the record, I was an officer in an ECLA Lutheran Church in Chicago, and we had not one but two consecutive day pastors. We just completely ignored the synod’s ruling on gay ministers and communion. I guess we found our pastors to be “acceptable.”
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:56 pmcariltos
bs total bs
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:56 pmGay pastors, not day pastors
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 7:56 pmEPWJ, at 412: you are aware that I am a citizen of the state of New York, where gay marriage is legal, right?
It is true that I was a citizen of California from 1983 until 2011, so I can understand the confusion.
But the fact remains that the state where I live has legal gay marriage, adopted by the legislature and signed by the governor, without court intervention.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:00 pmNo, that’s not what I was “trying” to say. Nor was it what I actually said. You’ve got to try pretty hard to misunderstand to mangle what I said into what you want to turn into your strawman so you can argue against your own strawman instead, Leviticus.
1. However people hope to benefit privately from marriage, the only reason it exists as a social and legal institution is because of the wider impact of the procreative aspect of marriage.
2. The only interest society has in marriage is to promote responsible procreation.
3. The reason for anti-miscegenation was entirely because of the recognized fact that procreation is central to the purpose of marriage, and the only interest that society has in recognizing and regulating marriage.
I have no idea how you get to the completely out-of-left-field notion that recognizing the procreative nature of the marital relationship somehow makes marriage uniquely vulnerable to the machinations of racists who want to oppress minorities.
If that’s what the racists intend, then they can also criminalize interracial fornication in general. And some states did just that; interracial fornication and cohabitation was a felony in some states. But then, the racists had all sorts of laws on their minds (and often on the books) to enforce all types of racial segregation, not just in the categories of marriage and sex.
There is nothing about the fact that procreation has historically been viewed as central to marriage that ever made marriage law more likely to be used to oppress minorities than any other kind of law.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:01 pm“Who’s asking for it – I know many many gay couples, I and well everyone knows for a fact that the non gays are pushing this – its not a gay issue, never was – its about power and marginalization”
If it was gays alone it would never win. Not enough of them. There’s also folks who have gay friends and family. Like the chief justice.
ChadP (c770a7) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:02 pmREminding us about Andrew Cuomo, who totally fumbled the gun bill, who is blocking fracking from NY State, because they don’t need the jobs, but here’s something shiny.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:05 pmFWIW, carlitos, I have friends whose congregation was kicked out of their building (held to be the property of the denomination), when they refused the bishop communion for her pro-gay stance
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:05 pmI could see that, M.D. Whatever your stance on the issue, to say that homosexuality will “never be acceptable ” is absolutely ridiculous. It’s acceptable in my state, my city, my neighborhood, and my homeowners association.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:09 pmAphrael
Doma is the law of the land – however a state referendum on gay marriage is bein discussed for New York and will certainly change the landscape -Pataki failed in 2002 to bring referendums and initialives to New York but as some might ee New York is becoming more conservative as the lack of jobs and tax structure are removing retirees blue collar retirees and govt worker to states like tennesee and florida who dont have the tax burdens
So dont count on it for long
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:10 pmCarlitos- he is apparently hellbent on proving that he is the biggest d-bag around. In other news, water is wet.
aphrael – I apologize for that nonsense. I trust his warped and twisted views do not reflect on everyone else.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:10 pmJustified rocks
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:12 pmFarmers are playing the Ballad of Jed Clampett (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgLSowrUQKU) in northern PA thanks to Gov. Cuomo. They are getting more for mineral rights than they would if they had to compete with the folks 100yds away across the border.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:13 pmUS looks good against Mexico so far. And the Hawks shut out Calgary.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:15 pmSee the point is aphrael that this concerns 4% of the populace if that – lifetime committed homosexuals are even rarer – but its a nice distraction from jobs,growth spending, defense, etc for politicians.
After every election, 45% of the one side or the other feels disenfranchised – this is just more in a long line of distractions – like the sayiong SQUIRREL – no one is going to accept it and when these anti religious want to make everyone go to school and work on christmas and easter and on sundays – yeah –
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:15 pmnarciso – i’ve got my issues with Cuomo. foremost among them is his absolute betrayal of his word on the creation of a redistricting commission. this is *not* the place or the time, though.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:16 pmColonel Haiku, I would submit that there is ample evidence that idiots are being allowed to vote in New Mexico.
I guess some idiots are just more equal than others.
Comment by Elephant Stone
You are right of course, Stones. The state did vote 0bama in both 2008 and 2012.
Colonel Haiku (380e2a) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:16 pmJD
Didnt say those were myview – those are the realities though
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:16 pmI think there are many who are for gay rights just as other types of limousine liberals are for the poor or the inner city or whatever, a nice cause as long as you don’t need to get your hands dirty.
I took care of a person once who had been instrumental in starting the ACT-UP chapter in his community (not Philly). He was ostracized and marginalized when some of his behaviors embarrassed his cohorts. I remained his doctor, though.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:18 pmof course, in the desire to be like Europe, we can become a post-Christian society as well, which in some ways we are already, if you measure by adherence to what we say we believe
Or, for that matter, a pre-Christian society. Or proof that human nature can be — and has been — corrupted on a cyclical basis. Or that the old is new again—and aspects of the new (ie, of deviancy defined down) ain’t so new after all. Therefore, one should always remember the line: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Mark (fe3429) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:24 pmU.S. looks ANYTHING but good thus far. They are tied, but Mexico is dominant.
GUS (694db4) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:27 pmno one is going to accept it
I accept it.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:32 pmIf it was gays alone it would never win. Not enough of them. There’s also folks who have gay friends and family.
I’d guess that far more of what is triggering all the teary-eyed feelings about same-sex marriage in more people than not — whether they personally know or don’t know anyone in the GLBT category, among friends or family, etc — is the phenomenon of compassion for compassion’s sake. It’s sort of an off-shoot of political correctness run amok, and if things reach their logical (or illogical) end point, we’ll end up like a giant Fort Hood, literally or figuratively speaking.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:33 pm0-0 at the half. Looks good to me. Those early chances looked better than they were. Mexican fans are apparently shooting lasers at the us players again. Tough stadium.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:37 pmHopefully, the ‘Muricans will start raining down with cups o’piss like the Mexicans do at boxing matches at teh Olympic in L.A.
Colonel Haiku (5d5b6e) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:38 pmWell, when it happens we can invade Iran and impose it on them, so it’s not a total loss.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:45 pmGus,
Team USA has made some good plays tonight.
Mexico has always had a distinct advantage when playing home games at Azteca Stadium.
It seats about 105K fans, it is at an incredibly high altitude of about 7200 feet, (Denver’s old Mile High Stadium used to sit at about 5,200 feet.) and of course, there’s the ‘urine bombs’ that the fans throw at our players.
(A urine bomb is a balloon filled with urine.)
The problem I see with Team USA is that Coach Juergen Klinsmann continues to change the line-up from game to game, disallowing for continuity and familiarity among the players.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:53 pmNeither team is playing at full strength, no?
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 8:55 pmAlright one question about standing, Kennedy took it, so is he second guessing himself?
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:04 pmCarlitos, no offense. MEXICO IS DOMINATING. I am BIG TIME rooting for the U.S. I played 3 years in college, my Dad played in the Scottish Premier League.
GUS (694db4) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:05 pmMEXICO IS DOMINANT.
JD,
Ha, ha, with the way our Coach has juggled the line-up his entire stint as the Decider-in-Chief, it is difficult to say what is “full strength” as far as our team is concerned.
We don’t have Landon Donovan, who is out on sabattical from soccer, and our team captain of the past few years, Carlos Bocanegra, was deliberately left off the traveling squad.
Our number one goalkeeper, Tim Howard, has been injured, although our number two guy, Brad Guzan is quite good.
Truth is, in soccer, it’s rare for a team to be at full strength for a long stretch of time.
Someone’s always gonna have a muscle tear or strain that will keep them out of a match.
And a major reason for that is because the substitution rules are rather stringent. It’s not like football or basketball where you can sub guys in-and-out throughout the game, catering to a guy’s injury or cardio level.
Also, the speed and fitness level at this level of soccer is so intense, that you can’t really afford to send a slightly-injured guy out there unless he’s pretty much in tip-top shape. Otherwise, he’ll get burned.
In soccer, if you’re not ready to go the full ninety minutes from the get-go, you’ll probably not start the match.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:11 pmmexico city has the gay marriage you know
yup
they’re not really as backasswards there as a lot of people think
definitely a cosmopolitan city in a lot of ways if you know the ins and outs of it
is my understanding
myself i never been
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:14 pmdefinitely a cosmopolitan city in a lot of ways if you know the ins and outs of it
is my understanding
myself i never been
Cosmopolitan is not the word I would have chosen.
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:16 pmWell they should have those rules for most of our teams, who half the time don’t show in the first half, or quit in the second.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:17 pm444. when going to Mexico City, I suggest a vest made of kevlar.
mg (31009b) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:17 pmGoodnight, bigots
JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:23 pmCosmopolitan is not the word I would have chosen.
yeah I just thought I’d toss that out there mostly based on the fact that madonna opened her first gym there
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:23 pm448. Just don’t call me late for supper.
mg (31009b) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:27 pmJD, that’s no way to talk about your LIBTARD PALS!!
GUS (694db4) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:32 pmthat neat actress lady from The Killing is in World War Z who knew
I need to pick the book back up
it’s ok but it has stupid weirdo political subplots that are very off-putting and tedious
it’s not even totally lefty lefty that I could figure
just annoying
it feels amateurish and juvenile, the politics parts
and there’s this whole israeli thing I’m not sure where it’s going but obviously Mr. Brooks gets the benefit of the doubt there
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:40 pmit’d be an easier read if i hadn’t read robopocalypse already I think
it’s the same damn book except with robots instead of zombies
robots and zombies
zombies and robots
we’re so screwed
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:45 pm0-0 at the Azteca… F*CK YEAH. Huge for us, very happy. Thanks to elissa for her eminently sensible comment (seriously), nothing but good will for the Colonel and the Stones for their NM cracks (since I’m flying high and they don’t know any better – poor souls), mad love to the ever-awesome carlitos, and goodnight to all y’all. I love you guys. These issues will be sorted out organically, as JD has repeatedly indicated. Peace to the continental and beyond. Leviticus out.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:00 pmYeah she was in Gangster Squad as well, as Josh Brolin’s wife, it’s certainly a ‘be careful what you wish for’ book, the Palestinians end up with a state, because of the zombie apocalypse, of course
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:09 pmthe Iraq War is the reason the army doesn’t respond, as if zombies are otherwise minor foes.
mister happyfeet
vince flynn doesn’t have zombies or robots in his novels
neither does john p. marquand nor john dos passos
and some of the characters in sherwood anderson’s “winesburg, ohio” only behave like zombies, but i don’t think they’re real zombies
now, saul alinksy, his book “rules for radicals” doesn’t have any zombies in it per se, but you risk becoming a zombie by reading that garbage
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:11 pmZERO-ZERO is awesome.
GUS (694db4) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:12 pmTo not recognize how FORTUNATE the U.S.was to NOT LOSE is BIZARRE.
I am as BIG a U.S. fan as there is.
But MEXICO dominated.
WOW. We got a point!!! YES.
Neither does John O’hara, who wrote of the same upper class milieu,
narciso (3fec35) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:14 pmyeah I could mix it up a little but i only read when i fly anymores
it’s pitiful
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:15 pmYeah, a zero-zero tie at Azteca is a good result for Team USA. And we did it without Landon Donovan on the field, who has historically played well against Mexico. We also accomplished this without Carlos Bocanegra’s stewardship of the backline.
Furthermore, to put a cherry on top, Panama actually defeated Honduras, 2-0.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:18 pmGus,
C’mon, you know a soccer match is not always won by the allegedly more dominating team.
Elephant Stone (2c6acd) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:22 pmAnd the evidence that this is an improvement is to be found where? Not in Europe where some countries do have gay marriage.
WaPo: More Longtime Couples in France Prefer L’Amour Without Marriage
Evidence indicates that when marriage is redefined to be primarily about the needs of the adults, and not about having and raising children, marriage itself is seen as largely pointless. Old-fashioned, “religious,” and hopelessly “bourgeois.”
There is an undeniable correlation between the rise in out-of-wedlock births, the decline in couples getting married, and a growing acceptance of gay marriages.
It’s one thing if some wealthy French socialists arrive at the conclusion that marriage serves no identifiable purpose let alone a worthy purpose. It’s another if the 2/3 of the population most likely to need public assistance; young single women with only high school degrees, a GED or just dropouts.
We can’t afford to adopt these attitudes. And the evidence indicates that when gay marriage is legalized, it reinforces the belief marriage is outdated and useless.
But then the push to hurry up and concoct a constitutional right to gay marriage is clearly designed to make sure no one follows the evidence. We’ve already seen that in other areas.
Mark Regnerus and the Storm over the New Family Structures Study
It has become an article of a secular religious faith that gay marriage has no negative effects whatsoever, that it can have no negative effects, and moreover no one is allowed to inquire into the matter. Just as no one is allowed to test the “no difference” hypothesis when it comes to parenting outcomes because it’s public heresy say same sex couples are not exactly the same in every meaningful respect as heterosexual couples. It’s then an act of blasphemy to try to measure any differences, which we are not allowed to imagine exist.
It’s clear that Scott Rosensweig (pen name “Scott Rose”) was trying to have a chilling effect on any sort of research into these matters. To conduct such research, even to propose conducting it, is “homophobic” and means there must be an anti-gay political agenda at work.
At least that’s what the gay political activist Scott Rose insists. But then it’s equally clear from his baseless allegations that forced UT to launch the “scientific misconduct” investigation that exonerated Regnerus the activist was simply trying to shut people he disagrees with down and smear them.
I’ll just close by observing it is still unremarkable to say there are differences between same sex couples and opposite sex couples, that difference is why it is perfectly reasonable to distinguish between them in law, that difference has to do with the procreative potential in marriage defined as only between a man and a woman, and the procreative aspect of that relationship is why marriage was recognized in our laws in the first place.
Cooper pointed out that the vast majority of judges(70 out of 108 when he was before Walker) arrived at the above conclusions although some did so in their dissents.
The idea that SSM will somehow strengthen or at least not harm the institution of marriage is simply an assertion at this point. But it doesn’t appear to be the case. In fact it appears the opposite is the case.
So I’m not going to jump on the SSM bandwagon. Not out of any anti-gay bias, but simply because I’m persuaded that it’s necessary to keep marriage as is to avoid certain negative social trends.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:32 pm448.Goodnight, bigots
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/26/2013 @ 9:23 pm
— Mmmmm, gonna dream me up some hatey-hatey anti-gaytey.
Icy (f2b455) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:33 pmThe New American Divide
These are the trends I’m concerned about.
Changing the definition of marriage so that it’s about the emotional satisfaction of the adults involved and not focused on the children involved is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:17 pmSteak sauce steve
read dana loesch’s missive over at the bigoted evil red state blog – she nailed it – not that it was all that hard
EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:27 pmI’m a save a spot for you on the bandwagon anyways
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/26/2013 @ 11:28 pmThe ethnocentrism of this age in the West is gobsmackingly ignorant. There is no evidence whatever that changing our genes will change mankind’s frame, let alone changing his laws, his peers’ mores.
All the evidence from archaeology and history is that social order and disorder are cyclic, with a granularity of a century or two.
We are mere months from economic reset and global war. All bets are off. There is no good reason to suppose the West has the will to win versus a culture that burys women to their neck and stones them or hangs adolescents for effeminancy.
Lord of the Flies, you are free for a time.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:35 amThe USA and the states have no compelling interest in legislating SSM period. No responsibility to provide for it, or to make laws to dissolve SSM. It would just be another unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. I’ma gonna raise all of your legalese with just a wee bit of countryese.
Shucks, everyone who is not a total fool knows that the only compelling interest all 57 states have in any marriage are the results that are produced when that couple procreate. After all, the future of any and all nations are its children, for without children, that nation will soon cease to exist. Why any nation would willfully abort its future is insane, but that’s a topic for later arguementing.
Now I don’t need me no fancy smancy Surpreme Court decisions and what-nots to show that thar procreation thingy is the primary purpose for the states/USA to be involved in the regulation of marriage because it this one thing that causes babies, and all of the other decisions concerning property and finances flow from this. First, all I need is 225+ years of history to show there is no right to SSM. Second, I’ll take all 57 States and its several Territories Family Courts to show that the only compelling interest the state has in marriage is offspring that resulted from two opposite sexes procreating.
Question: What is the courts’ first and foremost responsibility in the dissolution of any marriage, whether the parties involved are 18yoa or 100 yoa? Ifn ya’ll are not totally dishonest jackasses, youns answer is gonna be, “Are there any children that have not yet attained the age of majority?”
This is usually the very first question that is asked after the usual of name and addresses of the parties involved. And this one single question then determines the course of all the others. If the answer is no crumb snatchers, then we can get on to divvying up the loot. BUT, if the answers is that rugrats are acrawling, then that other sheite becomes secondary and takes a back seat until the disposition of the little drool makers gets decided.
Disposition of house, cars, family assets, alimony, and child support are all decided upon who becomes the custodial parent and who is the non-custodial parent, prenupts be damned. You see, the judge’s first duty in any divorce proceeding, is the welfare of any children involved. (you know they are the future of the nation-there’s that compelling interest thingy thing again)
Heck, old judgey-wudgey might even appoint a special guardian and attorney for the little pocket robbers, and even award custody, house, car, child support, health care, clothing allowances, etc…. and support to a responsible third person as their guardian.
That shows that the states only compelling reason for intruding into any relationship in the regulation of marriage, are the results of the procreation that is expected to occur in said marriage. And since procreation results outside of marriage, the good ole judge is gonna slap the babydaddy around fo some of that thar welfare of the child too, for this hyar one simple reason. “The children are the future of our nation.”
And that is why the gubmint has no business or compelling legal reason to add another unneeded and unnecessary burden onto the backs of the already overburdened taxpayer by legalizing SSM. Because with the addition of SSM will also come same sex divorce courts. So until ‘Adam and Steve’ can do as ‘Adam and Eve’ and become fruitful and multiply, there is no reason that you can give for allowing SSM.
peedoffamerican (c8db89) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:31 am“So if, as in the Windsor case, there’s a tax exemption for estates passing from a deceased to surviving spouse, a private cotnract can’t grant that tax exemption.”
Sure it can, just pass a tax law making it so. Bingo, no need to redefine marriage. Unless of course redefining is the actual goal.
Comment by Hoagie (3259ab) — 3/26/2013 @ 10:10 am
I knew someone would hit on it sooner or later. This, combined with “play nice Jonny, and yes, you MUST like that kid you really dislike, because I said so” is now the norm.
Screw thinking for yourself, deciding one on one if someone merits your time/affection/attention, the gov’t. has decided that for you.
Amy Shulkusky (676892) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:31 amOh, and feets? Sticks & stones. And I’m sure there will be immediate & total acceptance, just like with Civil Rights & Roe vs, Wade.
Seriously, do you even hear yourself? How the hell can you say you are on a team when you adopt and promulgate the poison spewed by your opponents?
Amy Shulkusky (676892) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:35 amJust to clarify, if you would be so kind: if there were two heterosexual individuals, both of whom were totally infertile (and I assume that you will stipulate that total infertility, in good faith), should they or should they not be allowed to marry?
Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/26/2013 @ 6:54 pm
I’ll answer your question very directly Leviticus, and no I will not stipulate their total infertility because it assumes facts not in evidence. Without violating their rights and subjecting them to rigorous and invasive medical procedures, there is no way to determine if a male and female are sterile. Therefore, since I have no way of determining this, of course they should be allowed to marry.
But, since the creation of this world, no chromosomal pairing in humans of YY, or XX has ever produced offspring, and this can be determined by the simple act of answering the question of the sex on the marriage license. Spouse 1 male or female? Spouse 2 male or female?
And obviously since two of the same sex cannot sexually reproduce, I can also deny the ability of same sex couples to marry. You don’t need a doctor or medical tests to determine the sex of humans. Simple sight does the trick. If you have to be a doctor to do this, then I have been a practising MD for over 35 years.
And since there will be no offspring produced in a SSM, the State has no compelling interest in regulating said relationship. Don’t care what you do with or to each other in private, just quit trying to make the State, or me, or anyone else recognize and condone it.
peedoffamerican (b16446) — 3/27/2013 @ 3:32 amAnd the law always assumes children can be the result of heterosexual unions which is why the state has a compelling interest in regulating them.
Oldest U.S. Mom of Twins Gives Birth At 60
peedoffamerican (35b482) — 3/27/2013 @ 3:44 am“Evidence indicates that when marriage is redefined to be primarily about the needs of the adults, and not about having and raising children, marriage itself is seen as largely pointless.”
They don’t have gay marriage in France, which your article starts with. But also, gay marriage is tied in quite closely to gay people raising kids and making families. If other people see marriage as pointless, don’t you see the improvement in letting people who don’t see it as pointless engage in it? You want there to be more married families raising kids? Let gays do that.
But it’s pretty off the rocker to look at what straight people are doing and say it’s the fault of the gays.
ChadP (c770a7) — 3/27/2013 @ 4:30 amTotally remaking society to accommodate the needs and whims of a small minority — to help their self-esteem — is very similar to what’s described accordingly. The phenomenon of compassion for compassion’s sake (which is closely related to political correctness run amok) is very much at the core of the embrace of same-sex marriage, of the ethos of “just because you’re you!”:
^ A lot of the behavior described above is closely related to modern-day socio-economic liberalism.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:24 amAmy Team R’s thinking on gay marriage is indefensible
and Americans are rejecting their intolerance in droves
This is a very stupid and dangerous game Team R is playing.
it’s time Team R found out how much of its electoral future is held hostage by Huckabee Rs what are only on board for to persecute gays, not for to thwart the ascendance of fascism in America
And then maybe Team R can put a plan together for to build a durable coalition.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:25 am409. Hoagie
Then by your standard, Hoagie, childless marriages deserve to be “re-defined” as well.
Total nonsense, of course.
However, I still think that civil unions for gays, having the same civil and legal rights as marriages, is the acceptable solution for all, thus based on the traditional definitions of the descriptive terms used.
I am curious to know if Aphrael would agree.
Perry (23796f) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:26 amBut it’s pretty off the rocker to look at what straight people are doing and say it’s the fault of the gays.
But a high percentage of people who are homosexual (including the judge who decided Proposition 8 in California—based on his flippant attitude about the idea of banning guns, even when he acknowledged that would fly in the face of state law) or bisexual also lean left. So it’s hard to know where one begins and one leaves off. IOW, the agenda of GLBT is necessarily greatly intertwined with a liberal mindset in general. So compassion for compassion’s sake in order to accommodate GLBT is but one more piece added of the dumbed-down, anything-goes socio-cultural puzzle.
^ Knowing the way that human nature works, expanding marriage to symbolically and legally include GLBT is analogous to the reaction evident in most people when some commodity (eg, gasoline, water, food, etc) is in short supply and then when it becomes bountiful. Or it’s similar to grade inflation in a public school. When “As” and “Bs” are handed out with such wild abandon that the honor of being an A-grade student loses its original meaning and value.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:49 amThat makes you a bigoted hohophobe, Perry.
JD (3cbfc7) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:49 amhappyfeet:
Apparently these are happyfeet’s unvarnished thoughts. I consider them slanderous and hateful.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:50 ami give a flip
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:51 am480. Join the club.
I know self-esteem is important but when did it become a zero-sum dealio?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:54 ampeople what are single issue voters based on intolerance of gay people getting married do not a stable political coalition make
and Team R spends an inordinate amount of time energy and money pandering to these ones
they’re not worth it
ain’t no lie h8rs bye bye bye
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:54 amHow the hell can you say you are on a team when you adopt and promulgate the poison spewed by your opponents?
Not sure what makes him tick. He reacts in such an over-the-top way about this controversy it makes me sense that either someone very close to him or that he himself is GLBT (at least when deleting the “L” and the “T”).
Mark (fe3429) — 3/27/2013 @ 6:55 amhappyfeet,
You are hurting yourself far more than you are hurting me.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:11 amHappy, this may hurt your perceptions but it was the democrats in their sneering leering ways – crawled out of the gutter and slimed their way into the chambers and demanded a resolution in California and it FAILED.
Whoops now we are all haters for stating that gee, two guys swapping spit or holding hands or grabbing each others butts is what every parent wants to see in public,in their schools, in their communities, in their churches.
Sorry for the graphic descriptions but its what we are really focused on here and its interesting that hollywood loves them some gay men but rarely if ever shows them intimate, unlike the intolerant hetro’s that are your definitions of haters they shuck clothes to an annoying level in all aspects of our video culture.
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:13 am?
And people think that its still acceptable?
482. “482.people what are single issue voters based on intolerance of gay people getting married”
You presume much grasshopper. The Old Testament is one long battle of The LORD, given name something like Yahweh, to establish among the nations, that He is not their god, and does not suffer fools. Thoth, Set, Horus, Ra, Dagon, Ishtar, Asherah,…, not God.
Moreover, the distinction means Life or Death for the critters.
Yet here we have a popular culture where we are what we say we are. We call ourselves Christian, fine you are an a-hole to say different. We say we Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, etc., all worship the same god in our inimitable ways, fine you are a low-life bigoted mofo to say different.
‘Everything is relative’ absolutely. Well guess what, that isn’t Wisdom, it isn’t true, reliable, or consistent with experience.
I give a phlyin’ ph*ck what Gollum thinks of me.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:16 amand no thank you I’m not a homophobe just pointing out that even twisted sister hollywood wont cross lines because in al that blather – it isnt acceptable. And they have bills to pay.
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:18 amGays need marriage like fish need bicycles.
ropelight (b21268) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:21 amwould you just stop
you want to have a personal argument with me
I don’t want to engage you at all
but to imply I’m in some way trying to hurt you is sillytalk
but I will say this since you insist on continuing your Simon Jester-like obsessiveness with me
there was nothing hateful or slanderous about characterizing the insistence Team R has on excluding gays from civil institutions like marriage as persecution
when you single out a wee small minority for differential treatment, persecution is as fair a descriptor as any
and millions of Americans, especially young people, are of the same mind as me
I don;t understand where you’re going with this.
Do you think we need to adopt a speech code here which places arbitrary boundaries on the manner in which Team R’s gay marriage policies can be described?
If so, would you please take a moment to codify this speech code for so we can all know what the approved manner of speakings are?
I don’t mind bending to some kind of fascist speech code – I imagine I can still make my expressings if I know the rules.
But the rules seem to depend a lot on your mood.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:24 amhappyfeet it’s ok to be sympathetic to gays, you don’t need to be a bitchy queen to show it.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:26 am> now we are all haters for stating that gee, two guys swapping spit or holding hands or grabbing each others butts is what every parent wants to see in public,in their schools, in their communities, in their churches.
EPWJ, in the world I live in, two guys swapping spit or holding hands or grabbing each other’s butts receives *exactly* the same reaction that a guy and a girl swapping spit or holding hands or grabbing each other’s butts would. Some contexts it’s appropriate, some contexts it’s not, but there’s no difference.
I really wonder if this is an age difference, or a where-we-live difference, or what. I’m living in a world where nobody cares.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:31 amthat is true Mr. nk
especially cause
a.) Team R has lost the gay marriage battle already
b.) even if Team R decided today it wanted to start cultivating a mainstream appeal on social issues, and even if these efforts proved successful, our little country is already too screwed for them to have all that much of a salubrious impact
but also
c.) gay people deserve a passionate defense in these matters because the harms done unto them are real and in some cases quantifiable, whereas the harms the gay marriage opponents are fearful of suffering are illusory and unquantifiable
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:32 amok c.) actually belongs under a different bullet point I guess
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:33 amJD @423 – I’ve been here for ten years, so i’m certainly not going to let someone chase me away now, and I’ve known many of the regular commenters for years and have good, or bad, opinions of them based on years of interaction and experience. Someone else’s behavior isn’t going to change that. 🙂
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:35 amdemanded a resolution in California
Speaking of California, the following is a heart-warming story:
^ Along with grade inflation in public schools (if not private ones too) and an increasingly narcissistic society, mixed together with France-like, Mexico-like, Greece-like, Argentina-like politics (with a bit of ancient Greece culture thrown in for good measure), this will not necessarily have a happy ending.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:35 am489. “and millions of Americans, especially young people, are of the same mind as me”
What do young people know?
“I don;t understand where you’re going with this.”
There is a time for every purpose under heaven, a time to plant, a time to harvest, a time to be born, a time to die, a time to make war, a time to make peace.
Now is the time to plant, to die, to make war.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:36 amNow is the time to plant, to die, to make war.
I agree Mr. gulrud but the war is a battle against unholy freedom-raping fascism, not against some fraction of gay people what are of a matrimonial inclination.
And the pouty pouty Huckabees, you do not want these ones in your foxhole in this war.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:38 amPerry @476: it’s a very, very tough question for me.
Civil unions are a great compromise, especially California-style domestic partnerships. They provide the legal protections of marriage and family law, and they let people who really want the word ‘marriage’ to be reserved keep their reservations.
And yet at that point, if all of the legal rights and responsibilities are the same, why make the distinction of calling them separate things? Particularly when *idiomatically*, a couple who are in a civil union are going to describe themselves to their friends and family as being married, and generally speaking their friends and family will accept it as a marriage?
It seems to me that the primary purpose in doing so is to express the notion that same-sex relationships are different from – and inferior to – opposite-sex relationships.
And so, while i’m willing to *tolerate* the compromise position – because pragmatically it makes sense – I don’t particularly like it.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:40 amhollywood loves them some gay men but rarely if ever shows them intimate
I’m living in a world where nobody cares.
It’s interesting that you say that because a few people of strong liberal inclinations who I’ve spoken with over the months, when I mention to them that Barack Obama probably is bisexual, at first become quite indignant and resentful. I retort “why are you reacting that way?! Isn’t the new liberal ethos one that promotes the idea that homosexuality is no big deal and even worthy of our respect, if not admiration?!”
Limousine liberalism (and one does not have to be wealthy to be infected with that particular behavior, or cognitive dissonance) is a fascinating dynamic to behold.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:43 am498. Feets, the neighbors live in the nicest shack in the ‘hood. They do not lock their doors.
I appreciate your concern but things are well in hand hereabouts.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:45 amIt seems to me that the primary purpose in doing so is to express the notion that same-sex relationships are different from – and inferior to – opposite-sex relationships.
It’s interesting that the lexicon makes a distinction between male homosexuals (generally “gay”) and female homosexuals (“lesbian”). Why is that? The very act of identifying homosexuals differently depending on whether they are men or women, in and of itself, is sort of discriminatory and gives a peculiar spin to same-sex behavior.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:47 amhah Mr. gary here is where I’m thinking about moving in a couple years or so
probably just to move there for 8 months or so just to see how i like that part of the country
most of my stuff will go into storage so I doubt I’m a have to lock any doors while I’m there
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:49 ami bet it’s super quiet there and not just at night
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:50 amFrom James Taranto’s column:
Writing in Meridian magazine, Mary Fielding Summerhays makes the case for traditional marriage:
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:50 am499. “It seems to me that the primary purpose in doing so is to express the notion that same-sex relationships are different from – and inferior to – opposite-sex relationships.”
And now, finally, we’ve reached the heart of the matter. The obverse is obviously your position.
“And the disciples turned to the Master and asked ‘Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ He answered, ‘Neither, but that the power of the Lord might be revealed in his life'”.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:51 amOkay, enough is enough.
Mr. Feet, I could care less whether you or like or dislike me. Some people do, and some don’t. I have, for a long time, thought that your silly schtick hid the topics about which you feel strongly.
You might consider abandoning the “archy and mehitable meets Maya Angelou” free verse when you feel that way. But that’s up to you. And like I said before, I am sorry that you had a gay family member who was treated badly. That’s wrong.
What I have tried to insist upon is you be intellectually consistent. I honestly don’t care about gay marriage. But if you feel that government should not be involved in relationships between consenting adults (which is my own position, as I have said repeatedly), then why the bigotry—and it is bigotry—toward plural marriage? Why not shrug your shoulders? It’s because this is personal to you. Fair enough.
I think that the schtick you run allows you to pull a Jon Stewart like “clown nose on, clown nose off” approach (to quote Goldstein). So when you write hateful things (say, about former governors of states) you can scurry behind that clown nose and say you are still a good dude. I don’t think that is a nice thing to do, but who cares, other than me?
Furthermore, I know people here who know you in real life, and they say you are a good fellow. I’ll bet that is true. Ironic part: those people have never met me in real life!
On this particular topic, of single sex marriage, you feel very strongly indeed. I get that. But calling people who disagree with you bigoted is…well, a mirror held up to your own persona. How much better to think of them as misguided, or perhaps not in touch with the world you live in? Yeah, yeah, so what? I like reading this site, and I don’t like to read trolls and nasty stuff. I would much rather read insights by the people I have come to respect on line. That’s me.
My late mother was a wonderful woman who despised the Kennedys. And when Ted Kennedy died of brain cancer, she said some hateful things indeed—while getting very angry when folks on the Left said hateful things about people on the Right who had recently died. I finally got her to see that real truth: that Kennedy’s death meant pain for his family, and he would (smiling here) never see the error of his ways. She started to see the hypocrisy in her actions, and I loved her for it.
Look, I don’t mean to write too much here. But I am dealing with issues in my own life, and I don’t care to be categorized as a bomb thrower online. I have been hoping to get you to not be so nasty to those with whom you disagree…but that is, as always (and I have written this many times), your choice.
This is one of those days I really, really don’t like hanging around here. “So go,” might come the chorus. Fair enough.
No matter what, I wish all of you well. If we all agreed, it would be a boring world indeed. But I don’t think folks who disagree with me are really hateful bigots, and I resent like heck that implication directed toward people I care about.
So peace be upon you, Mr. Feet.
Now I have some truly unpleasant business to attend to. I hope that, during these weird political/social wranglings, we can all tell the people we care about that we care about them. It can be a sad old world.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:53 amhere is where I’m thinking about moving in a couple years or so
Okay, I admit I’m being snarky and snotty right now, but based on your approach to SSM (and off-the-wall writing style in general), I want to say you should consider moving to the Castro District in San Francisco.
Mark (fe3429) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:57 ampeace be upon you too Mr. Jester and I certainly wish you well also and I’m sorry about the unpleasant business
and I definitely regret the distress I cause you
I will stop using you as an example of the tendency some people have of wanting to have arguings with me personally – it’s just that a lot of times you make these whole commentings about me – all that chess club stuff – and how I’m a super shallow stupidhead and et cetera
when really it’s not about me
my commentings, as abrasive as they may strike you?
I assure you they are representative of real world commentings people are making every day as they try to puzzle their way to an understanding of Team R’s intractable intolerance towards gay peoples
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 8:02 am> I get that. But calling people who disagree with you bigoted is…well, a mirror held up to your own persona. How much better to think of them as misguided, or perhaps not in touch with the world you live in?
There’s a relatively famous saying that holds that you should never attribute to malice what you can instead attribute to incompetence. What you are saying here is, I think, in the same spirit as that. The charitable assumption to make about your political opponents is *not* that they are bigoted.
aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/27/2013 @ 8:05 amaphrael I seriously doubt there are more than a handful of bigoty people here, but policies what discriminate against a minority? There are perfectly acceptable words for that. Intolerance is one. Bigotry is another. In the vernacular you can even call it h8.
It is what it is. And pretending like those aren’t the words real people are using in real life when they discuss gay marriagings is stilted and phony.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/27/2013 @ 8:12 amIt’s interesting that the lexicon makes a distinction between male homosexuals (generally “gay”) and female homosexuals (“lesbian”).
Yeah, lesbian is kind of nice. It’s from Sappho, one of the great poets, who lived on the island of Lesbos, but got a bad rep as a man-hater. You invent iambic pentameter, do they call Sappho the innovator? No. You invent subtly ironic poetry, do they call you Sappho the New Archilochos? No. But just Tweet one nasty note because your boyfriend forgot your birthday ….
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/27/2013 @ 8:14 amIt seems to me that the primary purpose in doing so is to express the notion that same-sex relationships are different from – and inferior to – opposite-sex relationships.
This, I do not understand. Why do you equate different with inferior. Different is different. The marriage of a man and a woman is objectively different than a marriage between a man and a man.
JD (3cbfc7) — 3/27/2013 @ 8:43 amGood article:
A Social Experiment Without Science Behind It
It illustrates how SSM advocates, and more generally gay rights advocates, use junk “science” to promote their point of view.
This is the same phenomenon except it’s not clothed in scientific garb.
Did a Gay Activist Lie to the New Jersey Senate?
I would say it’s unbelievable except in this day and age little very little is unbelievable. This person’s testimony may result in a law being passed outlawing gay conversion therapy.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:07 amShorter happyfeet: Republicans must concede the same-sex marriage issue because otherwise it will hurt them at the ballot box.
It’s amazing how rapidly things change, since it was only five years ago that Barack Obama thought it critical that he be opposed to same-sex marriage for the sake of his first presidential run. It was also just five years ago that 7 million Californians voted YES on Prop. 8.
Apparently, there’s been a lot of ‘evolving’ going on over the last half-decade. This, of course, has absolutely NOTHING to do with Judge Walker’s bs ruling in the Prop 8 case; but there you go.
Icy (79d696) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:09 am“489. “and millions of Americans, especially young people, are of the same mind as me””
Those young people, they are the ones what go through indoctrination and enforced tolerance sessions in our education system where speech codes are the norm and speaking out against SSM will get you punished. The brainwashing starts early with young people and the thought police attempt to make it stick, resulting in their belief in all sorts of arrant nonsense, see Obama election victories and global warming.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:10 am“Independent minds are a thing to crush.”
NEA Annual Report 2007
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:12 amMr. daley that is a good point about the brainwashings, but the surge in gay marriage support is reflected across all demographics, including within the Team R rank and file. There’s something more going on here than brainwashings.
People have tidied up their point of view to where they have a new attitude I think.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:18 am510. Hanlon’s razor, a sometime commentor, CK?, alerted us the other day.
Whether to use the English Ockham or Latin Occam, decisions, decisions.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:23 amIt’s amazing how rapidly things change
it really is stunning
tactically right now the gay peoples what want to maybe get married mostly just need to do their best and do everything they can and not worry what Team R’s bitter hearts are gonna say
it just takes some time, you see
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:24 am518. And in less than a generation we’ll know whether its the return of the Dark Age or something less momentous.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:24 amthe falcon cannot hear the falconer Mr. gary
stupid deaf falcon
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:26 am“Mr. daley that is a good point about the brainwashings, but the surge in gay marriage support is reflected across all demographics, including within the Team R rank and file.”
Yes, but somebody keeps bringing up the young people so it is very relevant.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:30 amthe surge in gay marriage support is reflected across all demographics, including within the Team R rank and file. There’s something more going on here than brainwashings.
— Panderings? Politicians abandoning their principles for the sake of ‘being on the right side of history’? Throwing conservatism under the bus for the sake of an (imagined) progressive-lite victory?
Icy (79d696) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:47 amthere’s nothing inherently conservative about opposing the gay marriagings Mr. Icy
there’s like a kabillion conservatives what support gay marriage
Dick Cheney hello?
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:54 amSee, no one seems to have a plan about reversing the brainwashings. That is why I keep believing and saying (to some people’s utter dismay) that the gay marrying ship has sailed and is quite close to the new harbor. The under 30s are loaded , crammed on board and though many olders feel strongly justified about not getting on the boat, it probably won’t affect the boat’s eventual successful dockage.
Unfortunately Team R has been unfairly soiled via the various and sundry brainwashings. I often disagree with Mr. Feet’s language choices and his style of prose. But on this topic I absolutely think he has the reality of the situation pegged.
elissa (a7f236) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:55 amFor my part, I do at least extend to conservatives the courtesy of assuming that they can (and do) think for themselves (except re: Sandra Fluke). So talk of “brainwashing” strikes me as silly and paranoid, not to put too fine a point on it.
Is it “brainwashing” when a teacher tells the straight kids to be nice to the gay kids? Is it “brainwashing” when the reason proffered is “because they are people just like you”? What exactly are they supposed to say? Or not say? How do we reverse this deadly brainwashing epidemic?
Besides not having Obama dances – because that sh*t was one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:15 am“So talk of “brainwashing” strikes me as silly and paranoid, not to put too fine a point on it.”
Leviticus – Brainwashed people do not know they have been brainwashed. You are proof.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:18 amAnyone who says Republicans would benefit from throwing social cons overboard is insane. I’m not mentioning anyone by name.
Gerald A (89ab20) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:21 amassuming that they can (and do) think for themselves (except re: Sandra Fluke)
I would have never found her to be vile if Rush hadnt told me to.
JD (b63a52) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:23 amThe brainwashing starts with the idea that it’s been scientifically demonstrated that people are born homosexual, which is BS. A lot of the other stuff flows from that.
Gerald A (89ab20) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:25 amThe brainwashing was all so obvious with the live action X-Men movies 2000-2006. Hollywood’s gay mafia started with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen and then brought in Kelsey Grammer in X-Men 3: The Last Stand(!) for the coup de grace. And Hugh Jackman? Hugh Jackman? Where do you see a name like that outside a gay porn movie?
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:27 amnobody is throwing social cons overboard they just have to decide if indulging their own arbitrary and silly prejudice is more important than fighting fascism
Mr. A here is how it looks like from here where I sit
Me I have many many times votered for goofass people what do NOT share my belief in personal liberty in lifeydoodle matters and with respect to the gay marriagings and such.
I’m big like that because I heart America more than midget pickles and I’ve been willing to do compromise my principles for the greater good.
But at some point you just begin to realize that this is a one way street. By definition, you see, the intolerant ones are intolerant. They will let fascists rape America senseless and bloody before they will vote for someone who is tolerant of gay marriagings.
With the broad sea change in America’s thinking about the gay marriaging, indulging the intolerant pouty people no longer makes sense.
It’s their turn to do the compromisings for the greater good.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:38 amto
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:41 amdocompromise my principlesAphrael @ 499
You’ve made a very compelling statement on the nomenclature issue of “marriage” or “civil union”, to the extent that I find myself agreeing with your reasoning, and supportive!
Perry (23796f) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:45 amhappyfeet @ 533:
So a parallel step for you, happyfeet, would be to stop referring to Obama and Liberals as “fascists”. You can do that too, yes?
Perry (23796f) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:55 amFirst of all Mr. feet the gay marriage issue being about “tolerance” is a straw man/red herring. Or maybe it’s Poisoning the Well. It’s the standard leftist Orwellian use of words to browbeat people into silence.
But about social cons ignoring these issues to vote for the economic conservative, in fact some of them are not necessarily all that conservative on economic issues.
Gerald A (89ab20) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:57 amYou can do that too, yes?
i can’t Mr. Perry
I’m so sorry
fascism is my nemesis!
you know like how spider-man and the guy with all the robot arms are
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:02 amMr. Feets – If you listen to the Smart People, Team R is already doomed and we’ve been hearing that for years and years. The landslide mid-term election victory, control of 30 governorships, and strong performance in state legislatures are meaningless aberrations. If Team R is already doomed according to our Intellectual Superiors is there really any reason to compromise principles on SSM, late term abortion and illegal immigration amnesty? What kind of bizarro logic is that?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:04 amPerry – when you and yours quit acting like fascists, I suspect Happyfeet will quit noting that.
JD (b63a52) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:05 ami don’t think “tolerance” is a red herring at all Mr. A
me I have many many times tolerated a hardline stance on lifeydoodle issues in my presidential candidates – I suck it up and vote
but the anti-gay ones show no signs of being willing to demonstrate any tolerance at all for candidates what do not toe the line for them
in fact some of them are not necessarily all that conservative on economic issues
then what use are they in the epic battle against fascist oppression? If all they care about is denying marriage to gay people and raising my taxes and spending spending spending then we have no choice but to send these ones to the re-education camps I think.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:07 amMr. daley you do not have to compromise your principles on SSM.
Team R as a party though may want to get that nonsense out of its platform. I think it would be very wise to do so, really, and I see no harm in saying so.
But there’s plenty of room in Huckabee’s lifeboat for absolutely anyone what wants to paddle away with him.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:12 am522. With respect for the falcon who don’t hunt, pigeons eat regular meals.
This last election was ‘the most important of our collective lifetimes’.
This urgency to which you refer is of a bridge on the road not taken.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:13 am542. As JD opined in year’s past, “Huckster is of the Devil”.
An iconic self-appointed spokesdaemon.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:20 amIf the state (via the legislative process) does “not” have the authority to restrict marriage to one man & one woman, then how does the state somehow retain the authority to reject legal polygamous marriages, or incestous marriages, or marriages between an adult & a minor ?
If there’s “equal protection under the law,” then why are polygamists being excluded from protection ?
Elephant Stone (37bb26) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:26 amIt is interesting how proponents of SSM can’t answer that.
Mr. gulrud I agree 100%
what’s at stake in 2016 is a shadow of what was at stake in 2012
game over man game over I guess is how you say it
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:28 am545. If I may be permitted some poetic license, aphrael’s answer was effectively the Dhimmi propaganda arm that arranged this bum rush, find it distasteful and demeaning to wimmen, especially elementary school-aged relatives of the paramour.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:35 amI think this gets back to the false idea that people are born homosexual. People aren’t born polygamists.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:41 amTell me they have any positive intentions;
http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/04/king-spalding-says-yes-to-gitmo-detainees-no-to-congress/
also one of the firms at the forefront of SSM promotion, is keeping an associate of the 9/11 hijackers from being deported.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:52 amOnce upon a time the idea of a college instructor ordering a student to write “Jesus” on a piece of paper, put it on the floor, and stomp on it, would have been unthinkable. Recently not only was it thinkable, but the student was expelled when he refused.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/stomping-on-students-consciences.php
– The problem is not that one instructor did this, the problem is the university backed the guy and expelled the student.
It seems to me that the primary purpose in doing so is to express the notion that same-sex relationships are different from – and inferior to – opposite-sex relationships.Comment by aphrael (c41e1e) — 3/27/2013 @ 7:40 am
– Yep (sort of). The main reason I object to the notion of “same-sex marriage” is that marriage has always been a construct of society between a man and a woman. A man and a woman is different from a man and a man or a woman and a woman. If that is not as self evident as red and green being different colors I can’t help you.
– So, the next question, if one granted the obvious, is how different and in what ways different are the relationships. The man-woman relationship is consistent with biological reality of reproduction, the general idea of being complimentary, and centuries of natural law thinking, on which this country was based.
– Again, differences are so obvious that to deny them leaves me with nothing to say.
– The subquestion is whether the differences are of social consequence. Are the relationships “equivalent” or not, and how so and how not.
– One could, and I would, leave it at this and say the relationships are different, and if society wants to give a name and legal recognition to a same-sex couple let them, just don’t call it what we already call something else.
For many people, gays and straight, that is just fine.
– What aphrael and others in agreement with him force into the debate is the demand that society officially and legally equate a same sex relationship the same as a heterosexual relationship, and any who disagree are subject to legal ramifications for holding their views.
– One of the first being that any organization that disagrees with the new legal status is subject to having their IRS tax exempt status revoked. Hence thousands of religious-based charitable organizations will be faced with the choice of changing their mission or significant downsizing.
– To the secular liberal mindset that is just fine, because they would rather have all societal safety nets in the control of the state, making the public ever more dependent on the state rather than their neighbor. Dependency equals control.
Now, if feets and a whole bunch of other people want to swallow the poison pill of ramifications of enforcing one view of morality over and above the prevailing view of reality…
Go on right ahead
While we are still a country where my thoughts are not illegal, I want people to think clearly and see what is at stake, before I’m Niemollered.
If anyone can give an authoritative fact-based legal analysis of why the above scenario is not so, I’ll be happy to see it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:56 amGeraldA,
If you believe that you merely choose to be hetero and that you’re actually born with equal proclivities toward homosexuality which you simply don’t act upon, then you have different wiring than I do.
I don’t “choose” to be attracted to chicks—it is innate. I imagine it is the same for gays in their preference. I also imagine that there’s a percentage of people (bisexuals) who can fluctuate between the two sexes, but that’s a small minority.
My point is that the state reserves the right to restrict legal marriage, and that most same-sex marriage proponents would agree.
Elephant Stone (37bb26) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:59 amOtherwise, where do same-sex marriage proponents believe the authority to exclude polygamy, incest, and adult/minor marriages comes from ?
BTW, most of you will be happy to know that I don’t think I have any more to say on the subject, unless specific questions are raised.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 11:59 amElephant Stone
Saying people aren’t born gay doesn’t necessarily mean they consciously chose to be that way.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:02 pm“Brainwashed people do not know they have been brainwashed. You are proof.”
– daleyrocks
Are you brainwashed, too?
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:09 pmYou don’t have to answer, obviously. We already know the answer.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:14 pmApparently.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:14 pmMr. Dr. you may be interested in clicking here
(there’s a lot more discussion at the link – I think a lot of your concerns are addressed)
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:16 pmMD – the catholic charities adoption program is a prime example, and ties right in with the Left mandating that religious institutions act outside the tenets of their faith.
JD (3cbfc7) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:20 pm“Saying people aren’t born gay doesn’t necessarily mean they consciously chose to be that way.”
– Gerald A
True. Similarly, saying that homosexuality isn’t genetic doesn’t necessarily mean that people aren’t born gay.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:28 pmsaying that homosexuality isn’t genetic doesn’t necessarily mean that people aren’t born gay.
We have characteristics from birth that aren’t in our DNA? Who determined that? Let me guess: some gay rights group.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:32 pmIs fetal alcohol syndrome genetic? No? Does a child have fetal alcohol syndrome from birth? GAY PROPAGANDA!!!!
Do you think it’s impossible that non-genetic environmental factors (hormone intake, chemical exposures, etc.) might have some impact on where human beings fall on the spectrum of sexuality? From birth?
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:35 pmGerald A: also, there’s been an increasing amount of evidence over the last two decades that there *are* things determined at birth, and inherited from parents, outside of the DNA mechanism. The branch of biology which studies this is referred to as ‘epigenetics’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics provides some information.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:48 pmfeets- the link you provide is in conflict with what I have heard from many sources. just because churches will not be forced to perform SS marriages does not mean there will be no consequences.
The Obama view of religion, as per HHS guidelines, is that religion is what professional religious people have freedom to do and in their services, Joe Christian doesn’t have any religious rights when it comes to how he runs his self-owned business.
See the example by JD.
It is indeed the Gordian knot; do you want to discuss the science, philosophy, and theology about homosexuality, or do you want to discuss law?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:50 pmSimilar to abortion; just because the issue is whether or not one is taking a human life, make every effort to dodge that question and make a decision rest on legal split hairs.
> Once upon a time the idea of a college instructor ordering a student to write “Jesus” on a piece of paper, put it on the floor, and stomp on it, would have been unthinkable.
It should be unthinkable.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:51 pm“Are you brainwashed, too?”
Leviticus – Good question, Grasshopper. The curriculum in K-12 is demonstrably different today than when I was growing up and has had a pronounced leftward tilt for well over 20 years, probably more like well over 30. I’ve seen estimates that 90% of college professors are liberals. That was not the case 30-40 years ago.
I would say I got a much more balanced education than my children.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:53 pmYep. At the very least, any adverse consequences for refusal should be unthinkable.
So I don’t exactly understand the point that was being made, there.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:54 pm“I would say I got a much more balanced education than my children.”
– daleyrocks
You would say that, wouldn’t you? More evidence of your hopelessly brainwashed state – you don’t even think you’ve been brainwashed!
Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:55 pmBut it’s not aphrael.
It was applauded by the university until the governor stepped in.
Such a basic thing should not be dependent upon the active intervention of a state governor.
That it was reveals how incredibly far we have fallen from the main influences of Western Culture.
If Obama was the governor of the state in question, the student would probably still be looking for a new school.
But I have no reason to be concerned.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:56 pmComment by Leviticus (1aca67) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:54 pm
My point, or aphrael’s?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:57 pm“But there’s plenty of room in Huckabee’s lifeboat”
Mr. Feets – I would not climb into a lifeboat with Mr. Huckabee or go anywhere else with him.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 12:58 pm“You would say that, wouldn’t you?”
Leviticus – Yes, because it answered your question. Are you going to keep demanding that people answer questions they’ve already answered again today?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:01 pmFor me, the problem isn’t the opposition to ‘the main influences of Western Culture’; it’s the insufferable and academically inappropriate rudeness. What possible pedagogic purpose could it serve, and couldn’t that purpose be served by something that doesn’t involve forcing a student to show contempt for religious beliefs?
aphrael (b57693) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:01 pm#561
I wasn’t thinking of exposure to something that’s obviously damaging to the fetus.
#562
That’s interesting but I doubt anyone has ever applied that to sexual orientation.
So I stand corrected that not all characteristics from birth are DNA related but I don’t think either of those examples really relate to the people are born gay claim.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:08 pmcouldn’t that purpose be served by something that doesn’t involve forcing a student to show contempt for religious beliefs?
Comment by aphrael (b57693) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:01 pm
Maybe showing contempt for religious belief was the purpose. As you say, what other purpose could there have been?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:18 pmMD, at 574:
In which case – regardless of the religion – it’s inappropriate and rude.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:23 pmGerald A: people are using epigenetic theory as an explanation for the origins of sexual orientation. See http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/ for example.
Also: I found that link with a two-word google search.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:24 pmRude is when you say something to a person that is unkind, or don’t invite someone to a party.. Getting expelled from school is persecution for religious beliefs.
Right here in America.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:26 pmSo lets take an accounting. The payoff for the so-cons, who are generally fiscal cons, is that some of the so-lib fiscal-cons won’t flee in horror from the GOP. The ones that didn’t already flee in horror at the fiscal-lib GOP incumbencies.
Which GOP is the so-cons’ plantation owner.
Where else can the so-cons go? The choice is the outer darkness or…help me out here? The seventh crypt of Hades and its manifest tortures?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:28 pmFWIW, I think that science reporting in the popular culture is exemplified by the treatment of global warming, including epigenetics.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:31 pmDecide what public policy outcome you want, then try to make some science fit around it.
MD: ordering someone to jump up and down on a religious symbol is rude. *That* is something an educator – or really, anyone in a position of power over someone else – should never do.
The decision to expel the student almost certainly came from a mindless application of obedience-to-authority principles combined with a bureaucratic unwillingness to look back at the reasonableness of the authority’s action.
Neither the decision to expel NOR the original demand from the instructor should have happened.
But for me, the thing is that the bad-decision-making-of-stupid-bureaucrats is a normal everyday thing that happens in education, government, and large businesses *all of the time*. It sucks, but if I got outraged every time I saw it, i’d be exhausted from outrage. On the other hand, the initial demand from an instructor that his student visibly disrespect religion? That’s outrageous and offensive whether or not it leads to subsequent bureaucratic stupidity.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:33 pmMD in Philly – i’d note that my original introduction to epigenetics came from a book on how complicated math is now increasingly important to biology, not from the popular press. The possibility that homosexuality can be explained by epigenetics is something that is not just the popular political theory of the day.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:34 pmThat said, I suspect that science reporting in the popular press is worse than legal reporting in the popular press, and legal reporting in the popular press is atrocious.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:35 pm“My point, or aphrael’s?”
– MD in Philly
I was agreeing with aphrael’s comment and not fully understanding why you brought up the professor in the first place.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:46 pmMr. Dr. I think I just have a much more glass half full take on the whole gay marriage thing, really.
Hope for the best and plan for the worst is never a bad idea though.
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:49 pmI never said they did have gay marriage in France, did I? It’s bizarre you’d suggest I would think they have gay marriage in France since on an earlier comment I posted a link to an article about massive protests against legalizing gay marriage just a couple of days ago.
BBC: Clashes, riot police, at French anti-gay marriage protest
That protest was 3 days ago. Thanks for the news they don’t have gay marriage in France, but I’m way ahead of you, Chad.
The point of the article is that what’s going on France is indicative of the broader social trends in Europe where some countries have legalized gay marriage. And it’s leading to people a) abandon marriage and b) see no point in opposing gay marriage now that the institution has been stripped of any real meaning.
It is disingenuous to argue that gay marriage is tied to raising kids and making families when the entire argument for gay marriage is that it is “irrational” to believe marriage is about procreation and raising kids.
The plaintiffs so don’t bring up how closely tied gay marriage is to raising kids when the prop 8 plaintiffs have already destroyed that approach.
Redefining marriage so that it’s not about raising kids but about societal recognition and validation of the adult relationship (again, that was one of the arguments the plaintiffs made in the prop 8 case, Walker accepted, and why he ruled denying the use of the term “marriage” to same sex couples could only be based upon irrational bigotry against gays) leads to fewer people getting married. Again, from one of the article on France, an expert interviewed discusses modern French attitudes toward marriage:
This is what happens, and has happened all over Europe when marriage is no longer seen as a necessary prerequisite to raising a family. Which is why it doesn’t matter what gay people do in terms of raising or adopting children, when gay marriage only becomes possible after marriage is redefined so it is no longer about that.
Read the part I bolded. The fact is that across Europe, not just in France, having children outside of marriage is seen as just as valid a “lifestyle choice” as getting married. As a matter of fact, it’s more common now to have children outside of marriage then to wait until after marriage.
In France, as in other European countries some of which have legalized gay marriage, there is no difference under the law between the two. France stopped recognizing the marital status of the parents on birth certificates over 30 years ago.
If the only reason for marriage is social recognition of the relationship, most people don’t see why gay couples shouldn’t have that. But then most people think that’s a silly and unnecessary reason to formalize the relationship and deal with the attendant legal entanglements when unmarried cohabitation is just as socially acceptable.
Look at the age group that overwhelmingly support gay marriage. 18-30 year olds, correct? That’s also the age group in which single motherhood is now exploding. The two attitudes toward marriage go hand in hand.
Of course you have to mischaracterize what I’ve said like that. Because I never said that. I said gay marriage is first a symptom, then a cause, of social trends that propogate the notion that marriage is silly, old-fashioned, and in the words of French socialist pol Segolene Royal, the current French President’s former main squeeze and baby momma, a “bourgeois institution.”
I believe it was you, Chad, who pointed out that there aren’t enough gays in society to legalize gay marriage. It turns out the demographic group among straight people most likely to help bring that about have adopted the above European attitudes toward marriage.
To some up that attitude, if no marriage at all is preferable to marriage then why not gay marriage.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:57 pm#576
I should have done that two word search. I see there is a study which suggests the theoretical possibility that homosexuality is from epigenetics, although as yet no empirical correlation has been shown.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:59 pmRight. But … we don’t actually understand what causes homosexuality in general. I don’t think we even have a good model for what causes homosexuality in animals, although we’ve observed its existence … and we can perform experiments on them which we can’t perform on humans.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:01 pmThat’s unclear at best.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:06 pmBy the way, Chad, you do realize the vast majority of kids aren’t raised by gays?
If legalizing gay marriage requires the government adopting a new definition of marriage that guarantees a decline in marriage among straights, who do have and raise the vast majority of kids, why would I sign on for that if the goal is more married couples raising kids and not less?
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:09 pmBut … we don’t actually understand what causes homosexuality in general.
Comment by aphrael (24797a) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:01 pm
OK, a condensation of the argument from the top:
A: You hold that we do not know what causes homosexuality, but whatever it is, it is as normal as heterosexuality.
B: Since homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, any differential treatment of 2 homosexuals as different from 2 heterosexuals is a violation of the principles we live by in the US.
C: The desire for polygamy, whatever causes it, is not normal because it involves more than 2 people (which we agree is normal, though hetero or homo makes no difference).
D: Since the desire for polygamy is not normal, there will never be justification to change the definition of marriage to include polygamy.
– So, you are asking the court to assume the truth of statements A and C without justification in order to support legal outcomes B and D.
– Though it is recognized someone else could beg the question and say that wanting more than 1 lifelong partner is as normal as heterosexuality, and to exclude polygamy would be discriminatory.
– So, the result is to give legal protection to an opinion that is not universally as accepted as true, but once made legal, the truth doesn’t matter anymore.
Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/27/2013 @ 1:46 pm
I brought it up in the first place to show a blatant example of anti-Christian bigotry, so though you think my concerns are of one who is paranoid, at least you see there are example of people out to get us.
Do you believe anyone anywhere in the US would have tried that with “Mohammed”?
Our host periodically needs to argue that words mean something. My request is that the meaning of the word marriage not be changed, and let gays do whatever they want as long as they do not demand that I approve.
I guess if that makes me a hating religious fanatic extremist bigot, I plead guilty as charged.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:45 pmWe have? I’ve personally observed homosexual behavior in animals, but not homosexuality. For instance in Africa a cape buffalo bull is about the smallest animal that can fend off lions on their own and survive. The bulls are a lot larger than cows, which need the protection of the herd, and usually it’s the mature dominant bulls that are large and strong enough defend themselves (although if they’re dealing with young inexperienced lions the odds of smaller bulls and even cows successfully goes way up). But almost never without suffering serious to grave injuries.
Lower ranking bulls will take advantage of the situation and mount the injured bull. But then that’s a dominance display. When one male animal mounts another that’s definitely homosexual in nature, but if the point of the dominance display is to ultimately rise in status within the herd to have greater access to females when they come into estrus I think it could hardly confirm the existence of homosexuality.
I’ve seen behaviors as the above offered as proof of homosexuality, but then “homosexuality” as an inherent, unalterable sexual orientation is really a human concept and when you get down to it is only a modern modern western concept.
The idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle is really the outlier in most cultures and for most of human history.
Some cultures still don’t have a word for homosexuality because it simply doesn’t exist.
The Atlantic: Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist
What I find interesting about your assertion, aphrael, that homosexuality exists among nature is that if anyone were to be aware of that it would be the Aka. They live as hunter gatherers. Observing animals is important to me because I am a hunter, so I have to understand animal behavior. But I’ve hunted in Africa with people like the Aka who still do hunt to survive, and one individual will know far more about animal behavior than an entire university department. Not every individual as in many of these hunter gatherer societies individuals specialize and some can’t hunt worth a damn.
The point being, if they observed it nature they would understand the concept and at least have a term for it.
Do you think that might be because only the western researchers who view homosexuality as a lifestyle are viewing this animal behavior through narrow cultural prism?
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/27/2013 @ 2:47 pmI probably should refine my point and say that it’s homosexual in appearance to westerners when one male animal mounts another, but not homosexual in nature when it’s part of a dominance display. When I’ve hunted in Africa the locals (not the Aka but members other tribes) didn’t see that as sexual in nature. They understood exactly what was going on in terms of establishing rank within the social structure of the herd.
Of course, most African tribes don’t have cultures where homosexuality is accepted because they simply never developed the concept. In many cultures premarital sex is the norm; girls have to prove their fertility if they want to get married. So since the overriding cultural view of sex is for procreation then they wouldn’t look at the behaviors these animals engage in and think what they’re doing is about sex. It just doesn’t fit their concept of what sex is.
Some of them are aware that others engage in homosexual acts. For instance if they’ve been to cities or towns. In the part of Africa the Aka and Ngandu live in the Africans use French slang to refer to it; I forget the term but it translates roughly into “pushing on the bottom.” Because of course they don’t have their own words to name it. And they don’t see the point, and they can’t really explain it to the other members of their tribe.
I do think at some point, though, if they observed the animals were getting pleasure from these acts they would have made the connection that it’s sexual in nature.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/27/2013 @ 3:34 pm“Do you believe anyone anywhere in the US would have tried that with “Mohammed”?”
– MD in Philly
You mean like Aaron Walker?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/27/2013 @ 3:42 pmAnyway, I understand your point MD, and of course do not think that you are a “hating religious fanatic extremist bigot” or a bigot/fanatic/extremist of any sort.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/27/2013 @ 3:44 pmI would have written “Jews” and if questioned about it considered whether to say “Why not?” or cup my hand behind my ear and say “Eh!”
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/27/2013 @ 3:47 pmWhoah there nk, don’t let Milhouse catch you talkin’ like that now…
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/27/2013 @ 3:51 pmI was not a fan of what Aaron did, but he did invite, not order, and no stomping was called for…
“Thanks for your support”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 4:09 pm(That is an old and not very classy cultural reference).
I looked up the instructor (and he is listed as such, not professor) at FAU. He is Deandre Poole, PhD from Howard University, which leads to the question:
Q. What did the PhD in Intercultural Communication say to the fat, black woman?
A. Welcome to McDonald’s, may I take your order?
I know the politics of institutions and not only universities (MD you likely know them, too, in hospitals and group practices). This instructor likely thought he was protected by his academic peers (witness FAU’s retaliation against the student) and he likely would have gotten away with it except that there was a governor with much more important political concerns.
nk (c5b7ef) — 3/27/2013 @ 4:19 pmYes, nk. I heard also that he is an official of the county dem party.
Reminds me of another story, more entertaining.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/27/2013 @ 4:36 pmYears ago Christie Todd-Whitmann, then Gov. of NJ, was in an unmarked state patrol car being driven from one function to another. Some car roars by doing at least 20mph over the highway limit. She tells the trooper to “go get him”. The trooper resists, saying protocol doesn’t allow him to, she says, “I’m the gov., do it!”
So he puts on the lights, gives chase, and catches the driver and pulls him over. Approaching the car, the driver opens his window and says, “You don’t know who I work for”.
The trooper replies, “You don’t know who I work for.”
feets – you ig the ROOT. If married = stability = good economy, then WHY would you mess with that? So cons start from that – that the ROOT controls for outcome. If you tear it out, what have you left?
Amy Shulkusky (676892) — 3/27/2013 @ 9:33 pmBut at some point you just begin to realize that this is a one way street. By definition, you see, the intolerant ones are intolerant.
Look in the mirror, happyfeet. You’ve been caught slamming people who’d like to have more than one marital partner — and polygamy would fulfill the needs of a greater number of humans, and male nature in particular (which tends to be innately promiscuous and non-monogamous), than SSM does. And, again, you have on more than a few occasions used “gay” pejoratively in various posts.
Speaking of the two-faced nature of people (which is best exemplified by “limousine liberalism”), I observe disgusting behavior like the following and wonder how many folks on the left are less bothered by such behavior because it emanates from a family caught up in leftism (Sean Penn and his ilk are drenched in leftism, drenched in liberalism in an uber-blue state). IOW, it’s okay to be a bigot and racist, but it’s NOT okay to lean right.
^ Nothing more contemptible than a bigoted leftist. That’s because the only good stereotype I associate with liberals is their being supposedly (supposedly) more tolerant and open-minded than the average person is, or more than rightists are.
Mark (c480bd) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:22 pmIs the strong cultural focus on sex as a reproductive tool the reason masturbation and homosexual practices seem to be virtually unknown among the Aka and Ngandu?
That’s interesting. It perhaps points in the direction of human behavior, sexual or otherwise, being greatly influenced by cultural standards and tradition. But that’s not exactly surprising since American culture is very different — vastly different — today than it was 50 years ago. Or a time when Hollywood ostracized a famous actress for having a child out of wedlock. Nowadays, Hollywood just about mandates that an unmarried actress have a child, because she’ll look so hip and liberated.
As for homosexuality and the issue of nature or nurture (or culture), the amount of bisexuality (or the “B” in “GLBT”) is more common than I assumed several years ago. IOW, there apparently is more free choice and free will (and, in turn, the matter of poor choices, poor decisions) than many liberals want to acknowledge. That could be the reason that many people seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of bisexuality, or get skittish when “bisexual” is part of a conversation, compared with discussions where only “gay” or “lesbian” is involved.
Mark (c480bd) — 3/27/2013 @ 10:42 pmthere’s nothing inherently conservative about opposing the gay marriagings Mr. Icy
— I only speak of the merits of the case, Mr. feets.
Icy (12c6ee) — 3/28/2013 @ 12:04 pmi don’t understand the case stuff Mr. Icy
i think the trend towards acceptance of gay marriage is something what will continue apart from anything the silly supreme court monkeys do
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/28/2013 @ 3:02 pmFreedom in the 50 States
But you have your homosexual marriage, so that’s what counts, right?
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 4:54 pmNJRob: I live in NY because I moved here so my husband could enroll in a PhD program that he’d been admitted to.
I’m coming to enjoy NYC life, but I didn’t move here for homosexual marriages; I moved here to support my husband in his educational endeavors. (At not inconsiderable cost to me, I might add).
aphrael (b57693) — 3/28/2013 @ 4:57 pmThat said, I used to live in California, which I quite enjoyed and which I (to some degree) still consider home; and California is just above NY on that site’s list. Which suggests that perhaps the things I want in a home, and the things the people who maintain that list care about, aren’t the same.
aphrael (b57693) — 3/28/2013 @ 4:59 pmGarbage. You’ll be going after religious institutions within 10 years claiming the same BS you’re pulling right now. This is the same line Clinton pulled in the 1990’s when there was talk of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman, but the Congress settled on DOMA. That will be enough they said.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 5:26 pmSo you don’t mind living in a socialist state as long as it’s your kind of state. That’s where conservatives and liberals fundamentally disagree and will always disagree.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 5:36 pmI think a nice “F*ck off” is warranted at this point, but aphrael’s too nice to say it. So I will:
F*ck off.
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/28/2013 @ 5:40 pmAphrael – actually, it seems to be a pretty comprehensive metric that they use to evaluate each state.
JD (b63a52) — 3/28/2013 @ 5:44 pmI’m not going after religious institutions in ten years gee whiz wally stop giving me the bizness
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:10 pmI’m not going after religious institutions in ten years
Yes, well, if nothing else the SSM movement has significantly enhanced the respectability of slippery slope arguments.
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:20 pmHappy feet – you may not, but history has shown that is a natural next step.
JD (b63a52) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:24 pmLike they used to say on Max Headroom, ’20 minutes into the future;
http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/europe/
narciso (3fec35) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:28 pmi think what’s more to the point is that the ascendance of gay marriage is perforce coinciding with a certain realization among evangelicals that they don’t have a lot of juice in America anymores
they had a good run
but they’ve done a lot of damage to the party they leeched onto for the ride
I have no idea how this is all gonna get resolved, but for damn sure gay marriage is the least of these losers’ problems
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:29 pmIn the state of MA, if you are a girl in the 6th grade
and you object to a boy who likes to think of himself as a girl using your restroom
you and your parents are the ones who need to change your opinions
and if you are in kindergarten
and the teacher wants to talk about how good it is to have a family with 2 mommies or two daddies
what your parents don’t know won’t hurt them
and if they do know and ask that you conveniently miss that lesson
your parents will get ignored
and in trouble if they try to object
oh yes they will
so much for letting people live and let live
all opinions are allowed, as long as they are permitted opinions
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:30 pmbut for damn sure gay marriage is the least of these losers’ problems
Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:29 pm
Well feets, we agree on that
and in due time
it will be the least of your problems too
homosexuality was not the primary concern at the sacking of Rome
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:34 pmMr. JD I’m not sure about all the going after what will happen or not happen
I need to think on that
if politics is becoming a more or less completely useless vehicle for the achieving of religious goals I’m not sure what the equal and opposite effect of this will be
plus the economic calamity what is approaching is gonna be a huge factor as well
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:38 pmyes Mr. Dr. the problem pie is getting bigger and bigger
golly wally that sure is a lot of harangue
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:40 pmHappyfeet – Canada offers us a blueprint as to what comes next.
JD (b63a52) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:42 pmI’m the first one to agree that not all of fascism is gonna be pleasant
but oppressed religious people is how we started America to begin with
maybe some of them ones might come in handy down the road
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/28/2013 @ 6:47 pmNJRob, every so often, I have the opportunity to talk with deeply closeted gay men from small towns in the south. Often those conversations are about what it’s like to be a deeply closeted gay man in the south; my role in the conversation is generally to be a sympathetic ear, someone to whom my interlocutor can say things he feels he can’t say to the people around him.
When I understood less, I’d often ask: why don’t you move?
Sometimes the ansers I got back were about responsibility – responsibility to a business, to family, to children – but often it was something else. Men would talk about how much they loved the countryside they grew up in, how deeply attached they felt to the land, about the closeness to their friends, about their love for all the great and wonderful things about southern culture; about how friendly and supportive and wonderful (except for this one small flaw) people were, and how much (aside from the travails of being a closeted gay man in the south) they really loved being where they were. Because – despite the fact that the politics pained them and the fact that in very fundamental ways they were and always would be outsiders because of what they felt they had to keep secret about themselves – where they were was *home*.
The thing is, when we love a place – when that place is truly home to us, when pieces of it have settled into our souls like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle – it transcends politics. Politics is, in a sense, secondary to the things that truly make us love a place.
When Proposition 8 passed, when the voters of my state voted to derecognize gay marriage, and I was overcome with a wave of despair (it was the greatest shaking my faith in the democratic process has *ever* received), my response was *not* to think about moving to a place where I could get married; it was to feel a great sadness that the people of my home felt the way they obviously did, coupled with a recognition that California *was* home, and this wasn’t going to change that. Because that’s what home *is*.
All of which has made the last year and a half very odd for me. It’s been nineteen months since I moved out of California. I still have deep and strong ties to it; it’s still reasonable for me to call it home. Perhaps it always will be.
And yet over time I find bits and pieces of New York settling in to me; i’m falling in love with the place and it’s becoming home.
But it’s not the politics. I don’t understand New York politics. Hell, i’m a licensed lawyer in this state and in a lot of ways I don’t understand New York law; i’m constantly finding that things just don’t work here the way I expect them to, because it’s not California and either California is wierd or New York is wierd or both, but California’s what I understand and here I feel like i’m constantly having to translate. The politics and law of New York, I do not love, and I doubt I ever will.
But … the beauty of the lights reflecting off of the Hudson. The unbelievable cold of the wind as I walk home down the empty but still brightly lit city streets at 3am. The energy and excitement of being surrounded by people. The joy I find in the love I feel for the friends I am making. The indescribable qualities of being in a place where i’m surrounded by people from hundreds of cultures, and knowing that for all that we are very different, the ways in which we are the same outnumber and are stronger than the differences. The beauty of morningside park at 1am, covered in snow. The ease of the subway and not having to drive home after a night out. The bar I go to every monday night. The incredible variety of food, and the fact that I can get anything ordered at any time of day or night. All of these things tug at me, and settle into me, and create a sense of home.
Because these things: the people, the culture, the landscape – they transcend politics. Politics is a *tool* for making the world better; but the experience of life, and the joy of that experience, and the connections we build with the people around us, and the joy in those connections – those are the truly important things, and politics is secondary to them.
Is this a particularly *liberal* thing, the tendency for the love of home to be more important than politics? I don’t think so; I think it’s a *human* thing.
aphrael (24797a) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:20 pmThat was a great comment.
JD (b63a52) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:25 pmThey go after them now for daring to teach the Bible and how engaging in homosexual acts is sinful. Once you get a Constitutional right to sinful behavior, you think they’re going to back off? Yeah, right.
But it’s what you desire.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:41 pmyou’re kinda stepping on a moment here
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:46 pmoof dah – aphrael, where to begin.
what you are wanting is acceptance and the only place you will find it is between you and your loved one, not through legislation, not through perceived equal status victories but in your own heart – hell – believe meI was floored when my mother in lawsent me an xmas card, just addressed to me.
society is never going to accept you – but you are in good company – its not ever going to happen, nothing on this earth will make it so and so what? go one carry on and be happy. But my advice my real strong advice is to drop it – this agenda is very intrusive to everyone and the pushback on limiting behavior will be swift ans severe.
Thois decade long post reagan Clinton exercise in adjusting society is running to the end of its coursde. I dont want gays to start being banned from teaching, adoption, etc – but this is creating an atmosphere where real rights are going to be infringed on, dont push the populace too far – this country isnt going to stand it.
right or wrong it how they roll
have a good easter and I would just quit worrying of having this cloud – enjoy life – enjoy your family and move on
EPWJ (016f5f) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:48 pmThank you for sharing. I don’t know exactly what it has to do with the conversation, but thank you.
I grew up in NYC and I understand the allure to your new home as well as to the bright lights and also being amongst so many unique people. I still enjoy going to vist, but I am no longer that same person. As I’ve aged the things I enjoyed in my youth seem unimportant as my values and seeing my family being taught tradition and responsibility. All I see in the northeast is a constant drumbeat against my values and an attack on my faith.
So I’m very similar to your “closeted” friend. I have family and friends here that I do not want to leave. I’ve grown up in the community and I’m a part of it as well. But deep down, this is no longer my home.
Perhaps a realignment is inevitable. But the divides in our nation are real and it seems ever increasing.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:49 pmwhen compared to my values*
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:49 pm==The thing is, when we love a place – when that place is truly home to us, when pieces of it have settled into our souls like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle – it transcends politics. Politics is, in a sense, secondary to the things that truly make us love a place.==
Aphrael, quite unintentionally and having nothing whatsoever to do with teh original intent of your comment, you have also just described the feelings of many of us who live in Chicago. The city’s broke and to our conservative eyes the liberal politics suck. A few ethnic neighborhoods are worse than a war zone and police have given up there. Unions rule, Dem politicians need not even pretend to be competent, and they can get re-elected while under federal indictment. Outsiders draw conclusions and like to mock Chicago and Chicagoans and say that we deserve it.
Still, apart from raw politics, on most every level Chicago is one of the truly greatest and most beautiful and culturally rich and livable and friendly cities on planet earth. The lakefront, the institutions, the food, the neighborhoods and architecture are simply incomparable. I’ve lived elsewhere for short stints but this is home.
I hope you don’t mind that I “borrowed” the spirit of your essay to make a similar point about my place.
elissa (45bd58) — 3/28/2013 @ 7:49 pmElissa: of course I don’t mind. You love your home; how can I complain about that?
aphrael (24797a) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:03 pmFor myself, places are where I did things at the time with different groups of friends.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:04 pmNone of the places are the same.
Few of the people still live there (wherever “there” is).
Where ever I might have called home at one time or another doesn’t exist anymore.
I’ve lived in Philadelphia longer than everywhere else combined, in our current home longer than any other one location.
It’s not home, just where we live.
aphrael, They weren’t voting to derecognize gay marriage. I think you should understand that the problem was they had never voted to recognize it. The Kali voters approved prop 8 because they were angry and thought the only way they could stop the elitists from imposing gay marriage on them was to amend the state constitution.
Which should be, I think, a warning to gay marriage advocates who want the supremes to hand them a win.
In any case I don’t think you should draw sweeping conclusions about how the people of your home state obviously felt. I don’t think the factors at work made it so obvious. Certainly you can’t conclude they bear any animus toward you personally.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:27 pmthe supremes are irrelevant on this issue in the medium term not even the long term Mr. 57
and don’t think those berobed whores don’t know it
who’s hoping they get handed something by the perv court are the anti-gay people
they want a tasty Grievance
they want the court to make a decision they can use to whip up some anti-gay fundraisings and such
but it’s all ephemera
there was a book about ephemera once what was real popular
it was called Goned Wif Da Wind and everyone read it at least once, or possibly less
it was about how the Old South fell and then everyone had to rebuild best they could from the rubbles
they even made a movie about it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:40 pmIt’s a fact, Doc. You can never go home again. It just isn’t there anymore.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:42 pmI am sick and tired of you anti-religious bigots calling anyone who supports marriage anti-gay. A marriage is between a man and a woman and there’s been plenty of compelling reasons explained why here that have to do with secular beliefs as well as religious ones. But you’ve learned leftist tactics to isolate and stigmatize the opposing belief systems as illegitimate so they cannot even be discussed reasonably. After all, who wants to talk to a bigot.
So you’re the real bigot here. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:49 pmyou have bad reading skills if you don’t mind my saying Mr. NJ
it might just be the lateness of the hour there in NJ
I didn’t say the anti-gay marriage kids wanted a tasty Grievance – the anti-gay marriage kids want the berobed whores to take their side
what I said was the anti-gay people were craving a tasty Grievance
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:53 pmBecause these things: the people, the culture, the landscape – they transcend politics.
I’ve often mused that politics/government is like the parents (ie, the decisionmakers in the public sector) and demographics are like the kids (ie, the people of a community). So if the “kids” of a family are naturally skilled or gifted, self-reliable and self-controlled, even if the “parents” are screwballs (ie, typically left-leaning politicians/government), the “family” will somehow pull through and do well, in spite of itself.
But if the “kids” are average to mediocre, and aren’t prone to succeeding in life — meaning they’re the opposite of self-starters — watch out! There’s danger lurking up ahead! Throw in crappy “parents,” namely a socialistic/corrupt public sector, and you’ll be facing the worst of both worlds. That “family” will be the notoriously dysfunctional household down the street, where the cops are always being called, and odd visitors show up at late hours of the night.
BTW, I think liberals’ tolerance and idealism should be tested by requiring them to move to Detroit, Jersey City, south-central LA, southside Chicago, or some of the unhinged sections of Mexico or South Africa.
Mark (212a14) — 3/28/2013 @ 8:58 pmNo, you have the problem happyboy. You keep calling people who respect the tradition of marriage anti-gay. There are many logical reasons to support marriage and you choose to ignore all of them and claim it’s bigotry. You’ve done it over and over again over the course of the past week and change. Since you never differentiate, it’s clear you mean anyone that supports marriage being between man and a woman is anti-gay.
You are a bigot and it’s as clear as day. I’m just hoping everyone on here sees you for your true colors.
I can respect Aphrael’s point of view even if I disagree with it. I will never respect or compromise with you or your ilk. You’re nothing more than an Alinskyite.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:01 pmI am sick and tired of you anti-religious bigots calling anyone who supports marriage anti-gay.
Moreover, why is little sympathy and support directed at bisexuals?! Such people deserve to be allowed to have both a husband and a wife. In effect, anti-polygamists are anti-bisexual.
Mark (212a14) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:01 pmChange Jersey City to Camden and you got a deal. They will never practice what they preach though.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:02 pmi just differentiated
i should get a ribbon
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:03 pmThere is no such thing as gay marriage so there cannot be such a thing as anti-gay marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Matrimony is the union of a man as husband and wife. You cannot just destroy the meaning of words and not expect a backlash.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony
If you want homosexual unions, have at it.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:06 pmThere is no such thing as gay marriage so there cannot be such a thing as anti-gay marriage.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Matrimony is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. You cannot just destroy the meaning of words and not expect a backlash.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony
If you want homosexual unions, have at it.
Fixed*
Now it’s time for sleep.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:08 pmI can’t destroy the meaning of words but luckily the meaning of the word bigotry is still very much intact
and yes it is indeed bigotry to advocate the exclusion of wee small historically-despised minorities from social institutions like marriage
I didn’t write the dictionary I don’t know what to tell you
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:09 pmYou are a bigot and it’s as clear as day.
But, ironically enough, not in the way you assume. Happyfeet in various postings of his going back months has been known to use the word “gay” in a negative, condescending manner.
Mark (212a14) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:09 pmyears Mr. Mark
it’s been effing years
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:11 pm“there was a book about ephemera once what was real popular”
Mr. Feets – They make wonderful things for skin rashes these days. You don’t even have to read a book to find out about them.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:12 pmthank you Mr. daley!
the heartbreak of ephemera? It’s goned wif da wind!
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:14 pmMr. daley did you see #630?
read that and back up to Mr. aphrael’s one too
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:16 pmMr. Feets – How much of that there bible thumping is going on at the Supreme Court this week or is church and state separate?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:17 pmwhich where bible thumping?
I didn’t even bring up the bibles and the thumpings I’m not crazy you know
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:18 pmmommy all the kids at school were making fun of me they said I was a bigot why they say that mommy
Sweetie that’s cause me and your dad advocate the exclusion of wee small historically-despised minorities from social institutions like marriage, and when you grow up you will too, sweetie.
The hell I will and I need you and dad to knock it the eff off you’re ruining my life.
Well ok sweetie if you really feel that strongly about it I’ll have a talk with your dad.
Thanks mom!
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:20 pmMr. Feets – I thought Mr. Aphrael’s #627 was beautiful, but as for myself growing up outside New York City and living there after college, I can no longer stand the place and feel like an alien when I visit family in the area. The Chicago area is very different.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:21 pm“which where bible thumping?”
Mr. Feets – In the argumentations, you silly goose, since you said it’s all 700 Club type nonsense.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:23 pmi love both of them, NYC and Chicago both
but man they both like my monies in a way that’s not quite decent Mr. daley
New Yorkers, on the other hand, are passive weenie proto-fascists who got all the american knocked out of them in a terrorist attack a decade or so ago I think
more and more they creep me out
Chicago people are just nice and all the ones on Michigan Avenue are beautiful. Like how the people are in Chelsea, but the Chicago ones you can take home to mom and dad.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:25 pm700 Club type nonsense
I’m so stealing that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:26 pmMr. Feets – I stole it from you. I don’t know where you got the “anti-gay” nonsense. We are all God’s children. God doesn’t teach us to hate God’s children.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:31 pmNYC people are very high maintenance.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:32 pmI try not to be, but that’s the California hippie in me. You can take me out of California, but you’ll never take California out of me entirely. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:32 pmred and yellow black n white and gay as kansas they are precious in his sight jesus loves the lil children of the whirl
let’s do a round Mr. daley ok I’ll go first then you join in
red and yellow black n white and gay as kansas they are precious in his…
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:34 pmI would say we should shoot for 1000 comments, but . . .
Patterico (2efd47) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:35 pm. . . but we seem far short of that goal.
Patterico (2efd47) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:36 pmDon’t we?
Patterico (2efd47) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:36 pm🙂
Patterico (2efd47) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:36 pmthe next comment is the number of the beast
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:44 pmoh my goodness now look what I gone n done
I’m a go thump thump
brb
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:45 pmWhy, Mr. Feets? Why is it “indeed bigotry?”
Not everyone is a Kardashian or an Octomom, able to have all the kids they want outside of marriage because people are willing to pay to look at their badonkadonk or give them a porn contract.
And really I think the Kardashian thing is a special case because if she wasn’t OJ Simpson’s lawyer’s daughter she’d be working in a sleazy strip club where half the girls have whoopie cakes at least as nice if not better than her’s. Collecting food stamps and on Medicaid or enrolled in the s-chip program like the rest of them to support their 3 kids by two different daddies one of whom is in prison at any one time.
Why is it bigotry to suspect that maybe marriage exists for a reason, and the above is what happens when you forget the reason?
And another thing:
Seriously dude? It’s only bigotry that can explain why someone might be opposed to redefining marriage to include gay marriage?
But no one is going to go after religion, certainly not you, for, uhh, advocating the exclusion of a small historically despised minority from a social institution like marriage. Certainly not you, Mr. Feets, who was taught not to speak out against such bigotry. Certainly not the people who believe Judge Walker’s ruling that only an irrational hatred based on some stone age superstition could explain the rabid unhinged attitude of people who believe marriage exists to promote responsible procreation and child rearing.
Which ironically we’re getting less and less of as gay marriage becomes more and more thinkable, primarily to the 20-somethings that don’t see why they should wait to get married to have kids.
Yes, I’m totally convinced that you, the spokesman of for the “it is indeed bigotry to advocate the exclusion of wee small historically-despised minorities from social institutions like marriage” will fight to the death to defend the right of the main source of the bigotry you speak of.
So you won’t be going after religious institutions that spew what you consider bigotry in 10 years.
Does that mean you plan on going after them in five years, Mr. feets, or waiting at least 15 or 20?
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:45 pmThey tell us what we must eat, how much electricity we can have, because evil carbon, which doctor you can have, and how long you can see him, and now who must be married, who will be banished;
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/same-sex-marriage-is-not-the-last-frontier.php
narciso (3fec35) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:49 pmMr. 57 the marriage what exists for a reason still exists even after all those gay people have gotten married in 9 states and counting
the marriage what exists for a reason will go on and on like celine dion’s heart I promise
I’m not going after them now. I don’t think catholic charities should have to give babies to gay people. How is that even remotely my problem?
I could give a rat’s ass.
Kids are just for rich people and food stampers anymore anyway.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 9:50 pmWhat if the marriage that exists for a reason is now going on and on like Whitney Houston’s heart?
David “no labels” Frum, house conservative for the liberal media:
Straight marriage is the real issue
Is it rank bigotry to suggest that if gay marriage has become more acceptable, it’s because changing attitudes toward marriage as well as gays may be involved?
If that’s the case why should I believe the “marriage what exists for a reason” that’s now hanging by a thread will go on once it’s accepted as a matter of US policy that the “reason” for that kind of marriage is just irrational hate?
Thank you, Judge Walker.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:12 pmthis is getting confuzzling
whichever marriage becomes the norm I’m still buying a gift for both kinds and good ones too
mostly I buy off the registry but nobody ever puts swarovski on the registry so sometimes you just have to say screw the registry I love you guys
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:15 pmIt doesn’t mean anything then, and that is their victory, for if the family cannot be defined, then the state becomes the family.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:21 pmI always put Swarovski on the registry, Mr. feets.
http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/products/rifle-scopes
It’s the most romantic gift there is.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:24 pmDNC Video: “The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To”
Just koinkydink, narciso.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:27 pmwow you really do learn something every day especially on thursdays in late march at the patterico blog place on the internet on your computer
they make rifle scopes who effing knew
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:27 pmThey are in Rhode Island, how long will Governor Chafee, will let that pass.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:34 pmSweetie that’s cause me and your dad advocate the exclusion of wee small historically-despised minorities
Mormons and polygamy?! Your mama is a bigot!
Mark (212a14) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:38 pmwhere was pervy judge boi when politicians were “falling over themselves” to support fascist socialized health cares I wonder
it’s a fair question I don’t care who you are
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:40 pmSwarovski ever made anything besides rifle scopes? Well that and binos and spotting scopes too.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:46 pmyou should check out their pretty flowers and their dazzling earrings dude
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:48 pmAmong women without college degrees, and of all races, unwed motherhood has become the norm.
We’re well on the way to — or I should say slouching towards — Gomorrah. And apparently soon to be more decadent than even ancient Greece.
Mark (212a14) — 3/28/2013 @ 10:59 pmomg I just called the threadkiller
now I have to call him back and tell him not to come after all
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/28/2013 @ 11:03 pmMy baby is an Obama democrat. All she wants for her birthday is a double barrel 12 guage shotgun cuz Sloe Joe Biden sez to shoot through the front door or blindly off the back porch to scare away intruders.
What do I need with the pretty flowers and their dazzling earrings?
Really she don’t need a scope for that but it just looks slight more right bolted onto the ventilated rib than the earrings would. Not by much, granted.
But I have to defer to you on fashion. Just like I must defer to Vice President Hair Plugs on the defensive use of the shotgun.
Steve57 (be3310) — 3/28/2013 @ 11:05 pmI think Jeremy Clarkson had a better understanding of how to handled Morgan;
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/epic-dana-loesch-schools-piers-morgan-and-van-jones-on-gun-rights-in-america-video/
narciso (3fec35) — 3/28/2013 @ 11:12 pmSorry Patterico, but I don’t think we’re going to make 1000 commments.
On a different note, what do you think it is about us psychologically that makes us desire to reach those nice round numbers?
NJRob (fe68e7) — 3/29/2013 @ 9:41 amThanks for any other magnificent article. The place else could anybody get that type of info in such an ideal way of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the look for such info.
best (920f90) — 3/31/2013 @ 6:35 amExcellent website. Lots of useful information here. I am sending it to a few buddies ans additionally sharing in delicious. And of course, thank you in your effort!
see the kinky chicks we have live on cam right now! (4833e0) — 4/3/2013 @ 11:48 amPretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to say that I get in fact loved account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing for your augment and even I achievement you get entry to consistently rapidly.
per (3cefee) — 4/5/2013 @ 3:21 pmI am really impressed with your writing abilities and also with the layout to your blog. Is this a paid subject matter or did you modify it yourself? Anyway stay up the nice high quality writing, it’s uncommon to look a great weblog like this one nowadays..
The Best Photo Software (a79ed5) — 4/8/2013 @ 12:32 pmWhy I’m opposed to gay marriage reason #36587 (all falling under the heading of “that way lies insanity):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/344861/ca-legislation-would-require-insurance-gay-infertility-wesley-j-smith
This is what “marriage equality” looks like.
Coming soon, a law that makes noting the fact that of course gay couples can’t procreate as hate speech. Because that’ll hurt Heather-with-two-mommies’ feelings.
Just as soon as we fire the Catholic chaplain at GWU for being Catholic.
http://news.yahoo.com/students-try-banish-catholic-chaplain-campus-anti-gay-122022298.html
Aren’t you all just feeling the libertarian goodness of all this “marriage equality” crap?
Steve57 (be3310) — 4/9/2013 @ 2:44 pmI mean, seriously, gay marriage is all about keeping the government out of marriage? Can anyone actually say that with a straight face?
Steve57 (be3310) — 4/9/2013 @ 2:47 pmSteve57, Swarovski crystal.
SPQR (768505) — 4/9/2013 @ 2:54 pmhello!,I like your writing very much! share we keep up a correspondence more about your article on AOL? I need an expert in this area to solve my problem. Maybe that’s you! Having a look ahead to look you.
home (2a9dc3) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:12 amMuy bueno. Me gusta mucho el modo en que se expone. Un abrazo!
Pilar Martinez (06604e) — 4/14/2013 @ 3:53 pmI like the valuable information you supply on your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and take a look at once more here frequently. I am slightly certain I will learn many new stuff right right here! Best of luck for the following!
per (e81de7) — 4/24/2013 @ 5:10 amHappyfeet, but one can see that marriage has little enough to do with sexual preference and more about optimizing the effects of the natural differences between men and women, for purposes of an ordered society.
It can’t be bigotry to prevent marriage between same sex couples any more that it is to prevent legal marriage to more than one person. Marriage is a particular THING and you have to change its purpose in the most fundamental way to incorporate same sex unions into old law designed for something else.
Marriage isn’t just some recognition of a relationship with someone else, its a constraint on what men and women do in a state of nature – produce new people.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:03 ammarriage is a multifaceted thing as it stands now already
and it’s very very very malleable as you can see from looking at all the different marriagings it encompasses
and it’s definitely bigotry to treat minorities differently
textbook bigotry is what that is
which is to say marriage has been a bigoted institution from its inception
and there’s not a goddamn thing sacred or holy about it to where we can’t rectify that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:30 amBut it’s not treating minorities differently.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:32 amNo one really wants gun control, or same sex marriage or amnesty, but that’s all that’s been on the agenda, for the last four months, meanwhile Boston was getting ready to become Beslan, or Madrid
narciso (3fec35) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:33 amor London,
gay marriage treats minorities differently than they’ve been treated
it treats them like they’re worthy of inclusion, not exclusion
and that is where I will stand
hang the potatoes
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:35 amThread resurrection, yay!
And it sure ties in with the two sorority potty-mouth posts. You know the words I mean! Who wants to do a “brides wear white” rant?
nk (875f57) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:40 amyou’ll find me quite insensible to logic and reason on this issue
to me the acceptance of gay marriage what we’re seeing, it represents nothing less than a vestige of an American can-do attitude what has become quite a shriveled and sickly thing since the fascists have ascended
but this – we can do this, people are saying
and good for them – there’s hope in that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:41 amAnd holy and sacred is the least of it. Marriage is a practical thing. The law is about and has always revolved around directing the impact on society that biology, making of new people, has. You can’t make it about NOT that or apply old law about that to new relationships that are not about that without changing it into something completely unrecognizable and diminishing its reason for being at all.
You don’t HAVE to make new people but you have to manage put up a try at least once to seal a marriage; or if you are disgruntled this has not occurred you can get out of it, anyway.
As much as it can be managed, children should be with their parents, and all benefit from its constrictions and its rewards. Because with the pairing comes issues of property,inheritance, protection of a woman with a limited fecundity and expiration date, children provided for and educated by the family, assurance of paternity for the male, limited competition, undivided loyalty, all that business. All of it related to what men and women in a state of nature do and the need to contstrain the results so that we end up with fewer unsupported children without parents.
The law is built up around this. It’s what its for. It’s what its about. It’s not about romance or hospital visits.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:45 amWhat is it that they get out of it, anyway? Why should society reward the monogamy of same-sex couples? Thats not what marriage is. You have to make marriage something else to do it.
Epecially when they are NOT excluded and CAN enter into opposite sex unions, and get all the preferments for all the same reason as anybody else.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:49 amsi se puede
gay marriage is a reasonable accommodation for that minority of a minority what choose to order their lives in accordance with that template
and the world will go on
we can do this
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:52 amAnd many major proponents of same-sex marriage not only want some kind of new arrangement where sexual monogamy is not a point of marriage law., and many admit a desire to destroy marriage altogether. Like this one:
http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2013/04/gay-marriage-activist-institution-of.html
The things proposed, such as “I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally” is disaster, a recipe for total social breakdown.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:54 amComments by SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:03 am
It can’t be bigotry to prevent marriage between same sex couples any more that it is to prevent legal marriage to more than one person.
I agree, but some do not, such as aphrael, and I’ve tried to read closely to understand their apparent reasoning.
The argument that aphrael has made is that since homosexual attraction is as natural as heterosexual attraction, to prohibit same sex marriage is discriminatory.
But polygamy is not claimed to be as natural as monogamous heterosexuality, so does not warrant equal protection.
I have posted that before with a request for correction or clarification if I am wrong.
I think this is why the goal has been for SSM and not civil unions, because the gay community wants it written in law that being gay is “just as normal” as being straight. If people agree with that and want it in law then a majority of people can legislate that. Just asking for clarity.
Marriage is a particular THING and you have to change its purpose in the most fundamental way to incorporate same sex unions into old law designed for something else.
Marriage isn’t just some recognition of a relationship with someone else, its a constraint on what men and women do in a state of nature – produce new people.
Again I agree, but a major argument of some seems to be that since not all heterosexual marriages produce children, you can’t base marriage on a couple having children. I think that argument is an example of “hard cases make bad law”. I think trying to identify something by treating the exception as the norm is a mistake.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:56 amgay marriage is not going to cause the breakdown of society
I promise
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:59 amI say marriage is still necessary for ordered liberty, to equate the types of relationships and their consequences for society is ludicrous.
Since Gay people are not excluded from the right to marry, so long as there is no fraud or refusal of the partner: it’s there for them for the same reasons it is for anyone else, how is it they are discriminated against arbitrarily?
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:00 am“I have three kids who have five parents, …
Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 6:54 am
Knowing how children learn to play the parents against each other to get what they want, 2 trying to have a united front is hard enough. Seeing a child play five parents against each other like a groucho skit sounds like it would be hilarious, except it isn’t funny.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:00 am706. I’m all for killing the pain of being a man.
I quit routinely visiting Insty after the goofy interests multiplied, the nano rage and the immortality by 2050.
Right.
Accomodating a half-dozen world views other than my own is on the list of ‘nice to haves’.
A cure for prickly heat comes first tho.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:03 am“since not all heterosexual marriages produce children, you can’t base marriage on a couple having children.”
This is the most fatuous dishonest argument anyone ever made.
Infertile marriages are nothing new, and everyone knows that even women who are able to bear children eventually won’t be.
Marriage isnt about making sure any given couple MUST or will have children.
It’s about making sure any that happen to be, are born in a legitimate marriage, where they can ideally be provided for and educated with the least burden to the rest of us; loved, socialized, with parents devoted to their care.
Because the alternative, multiple or serial pairings in a state of nature lead to conflict borne of competition and divided loyalty, disorder, chaos, misery.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:06 amSarahW- just to be clear, I was voicing an argument that others have made that I disagree with.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:09 amLet’s not tear down one of the few institutions, that still works, okay.
narciso (3fec35) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:13 amyou’ll find me quite insensible to logic and reason on this issue
si se puede
But then you’ve retreated from the barricades of the legal argument and are in the bunker of the “let the legislative process of each individual state decide” argument. The other side can say the exact same thing and put SSM in the same category as large sugary drinks and recreational marijuana. That is what the fight over Prop 8 and DOMA is about — whether homosexuals are entitled to have society state a reasonably strong reason to treat differently them differently from heterosexuals.
nk (875f57) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:17 amum.
if anyone asks about gay marriage mark me down as “pro”
but yes for the most part I’ve retreated behind such barricades as I’ve been able to find
the fascists have ascended and Team R has devolved
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:27 am712. “the world will go on”
In fact, it most certainly will not. Anyone with the barest patina of sophistication can see it will end, and badly.
We are nearer the end than when we began.
This week a Star-Burst galaxy was discovered 14 Billion years out, i.e., 880 Million years after the Beginning. QED the end of existence itself is guaranteed, the density of matter found will cause it to collapse on itself.
It has been estimated the average span of a species reaching our level of development at 3000 years.
To reach another such system in our galaxy would require all the energy our planet produces beamed by maser on the sails of a vessel for hundreds of generations before reaching the destination.
There is nothing beyond this World that is within her grasp.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:29 amOh, MD in Philly, that was very very clear to me. Sorry I did not make it clear I understood that.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:33 amwe should endeavour to undiscover this star-burst galaxy post-haste I think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:34 amHappyfeet, Team R is getting on the same-sex marriage bandwagon.
I’m an unlikely recalcitrant because, well, I understand where the law comes from and why it is arranged the way it is and I hate to see people refuse to even admit that the whole thing rearranges if you alter that. I see trouble if you try to take law designed for one thing and apply it to another, if that difference is unacknowledged as being remotely relevant.
I think most people know it does change everything, but won’t admit it for one reason or another.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:36 amNo prob, SarahW.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:36 am“the world will go on”
In fact, it most certainly will not. Anyone with the barest patina of sophistication can see it will end, and badly.
So why bother shaving?
nk (875f57) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:37 amAnd maybe Elvis left that building about 40 years ago, really.
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:38 amI’m not saying you’re wrong that there will be challenges presented – but we can and should work them out
everything is going to be just fine
except for the impending implosion of all matter
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:41 am723. The argument from our cosmic insignificance is just an analogy. A case easier made than one from genetics.
Lemee frame another, closer to the target. The cheetah once ranged across Asia. It now, as a species, presents virtually no genetic variability.
All its individuals are genetically one individual. As a result it is not fecund, its future is extinction as it evidently has been for tens of millenia, reduced repeatedly to a few mating pairs a points.
It is now a prisoner of its genes. And so are we, tho a proof is more difficult.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/24/2013 @ 7:57 amwho can take a rainbow and wrap it in a sigh is a query I’ve heard from Mr. buttons and it’s apt here I think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/24/2013 @ 8:18 amInbred populations become infertile. Greeks are a good example, me included. That’s a good argument for the irrationality of miscegenation laws. You don’t need strict scrutiny there, they don’t pass rational basis.
nk (875f57) — 4/24/2013 @ 8:28 amHe may be a wonderful fellow and all but not one thing Mr. Buttons has ever posted here has made any sense at all. It’s a weakness in his overall communication style and strategy I think.
elissa (7f24c1) — 4/24/2013 @ 8:30 amI know it is a matter or no importance for many and some here, but as a ‘practical matter’ SSM is just another inexorable step toward the death of mainline Protestantism in the West.
In Catholicism the kergyma of the faith depends both on Scripture and Tradition. In Protestantism the sole authority resides on Sripture rightly interpreted, the legacy of Luther, et al.
The outcome of ignoring the plain sense of that authority at one point is to put all of its import into doubt.
But if that expression is hidebound and dated, you say, where is our loss?
The Methodist church was set up to de-emphasize doctrine as a divisive factor. Today in MN it no longer boasts a seminary and just uses the UCC rather than school its aspirants to the pulpit in Chicago.
The last argument at convention against ordaining the gay proud was that the practice foundered on a morals clause. Obviously, if they’re already teaching Allah is the same God as the Father, this tack is exhausted.
Soon Oregon, e.g., will be arresting ministers who refuse to preform single-sex weddings and we’re off to the races.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/24/2013 @ 9:38 amkerygma
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/24/2013 @ 9:40 amOn further review, there is no end to the problems:
http://www.sondrakistan.com/2013/04/22/todays-lympians-5/
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/24/2013 @ 9:22 pm