A Fine Argument for Gay Marriage, but a Flawed Legal Opinion
If, in his opinion overturning California’s Proposition 8, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker were making an argument for gay marriage to the elected members of a state legislature, the first 60-odd pages of his opinion would be a fine contribution to the debate.
In those pages, he summarizes the benefits of marriage, how the institution promotes social stability and personal happiness (among other things), and how extending those benefits to same-sex couples would most assuredly benefit gay people. Indeed, Dale Carpenter, Earl R. Larson professor of civil rights and civil liberties law at the University of Minnesota, called the opinion overall “a pretty good compendium of a policy brief for SSM.”
Walker’s ruling, however, is not a policy brief, but a judicial decision striking down a popular provision in the California Constitution stipulating that the state only recognize unions between one man and one woman as “marriages.” With his decision, the judge prevented the people from settling the controversial issue of how states could recognize same-sex couples and personally assuming the responsibility for determining how the state may regulate the unions it recognizes as married.
To be sure, he makes a good case for gay marriage, but a lousy one for usurping the power from the people to decide this issue. In this sense, his ruling becomes a political boon for the GOP — as it can tie his decision to the increasing sense that our governing bodies (e.g., Congress and the various bureaucracies it has created) are disregarding the popular will as they make laws and set policy.
Last month in the New York Times, Jonathan Rauch, perhaps the most articulate advocate of same-sex marriage, saw the arguments for maintaining the “ban” in the context of the people reaching a consensus in settling a controversial issue:
The argument for upholding California’s gay marriage ban has merit — not because the policy is fair or wise (it isn’t) but because it represents a reasonable judgment that the people of California are entitled to make. Barring gay marriage but providing civil unions is not the balance I would choose, but it is a defensible balance to strike, one that arguably takes “a cautious approach to making such a significant change to the institution of marriage” (as the lawyers defending Proposition 8 write in one of their briefs) while going a long way toward meeting gay couples’ needs.
Judge Walker’s decision, should it survive appeal, effectively prevents the people of California from balancing the competing interests of those who see marriage as an institution reserved for different-sex couples and those, including yours truly, who believe the state should recognize same-sex unions. While voters approved a measure providing that the state recognize only marriages between individuals of different sexes, they haven’t objected to the state’s domestic partnership program.
Indeed, as I wrote in these pages last May when the California state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, “the very language of the [court's] ruling indicates a strong affirmation of this policy which grants same-sex couples the same privileges as married different-sex couples.” A balance had been struck. Now, with the stroke of his pen, Walker overturns that balance.
Whereas he often makes a strong argument for gay marriage, his constitutional reasoning is particularly sloppy. He reminds us that the Due Process Clause “protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property,” but fails to show how Proposition 8 deprives any individual of his life, liberty, or property. Instead, he makes an incredible leap from that reading of the Constitution to a list of court decisions finding a “fundamental right to marry under” that clause. He did not cite the debates from the 39th Congress which passed the Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification.
Instead of relying on the plain meaning of the Constitution, he dismisses what, for as long as we have recorded evidence of marriage, has been a defining aspect of the institution — sexual difference:
The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry.
Yes, but throughout that evolution, marriage has indeed remained a gendered institution. While legislatures gradually removed statutes which privileged one sex over another, they, on the whole, failed to remove the stipulation that partners be of different sexes.
In making his equal protection argument, Judge Walker is equally dismissive of sexual difference:
The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.
Antiquated and discredited notions of gender?
If I had a dog in the race, so to speak, I would exclude myself from making a judgement for ethical and moral reasons. But we are talking about the judicial system where ethics and morality have been lost on so many appointees.
Oh yes, as expected the “judicial activism” canard. Sort of the ‘golden oldie?’ But what is ‘judicial activism’ according to you right wing bigots who don’t get their own way? Judicial activism is any judge who dares hand down a decision they don’t like.
During the trial, all of which is available (transcripts, everything) the arguments of the defendants were eviscerated because they were nonsense in terms of law. The reasons the bigots are against are against gay marriage is this:
A. The Bible says it’s bad.
B. I think gays are icky, I don’t know why, I just do.
C. Think of the children — which is then conveniently dropped when mention of childless marriages is made.
Also, “the will of the people” ends where the Constitution begins. This is what judges are for. It’s refreshing to see that our system is working just fine. The arguments against gay marriage are puerile nonsense. This was proven by the fact that the attorney’s for Prop 8’s defenders only called 2 witnesses & provided virtually no evidence or argument for their position. I’m actually embarrassed for you. If there is any place to direct your anger it should be at those that were defending (if you want to call it that) your position. The judge made a decision based on the evidence provided. That’s the way it works.
The only thing unconstitutional is this Judges ruling. The Judge should be tried for Treason aganist these United States.
You Praetorian must be a Marxist to support this Judge.
Or maybe he or she is just a gay person that doesn’t want their love of another human adult to be treated or thought of any differently that yours.
Once gay relationships are perceived as equal, we will have less bullying of gay kids, less harassment, and less murder.
Lame. Under the law all are egual. Why should an 80 year old lady beaten be treated under the law one way, while your gay friends are treated another way?
The majority rules, not 1% of the population because they like to have sex with donkeys, or dogs, or sheep, etc…
Thanks Nope, but I’m not Gay. I have a girlfriend. We plan on getting married someday when we are done with college and can afford it. We don’t want to end up like Bristol Palin, that pillar of conservative family values. However, we have lot’s of LGBT friends and have way more fun with them than some of our straight friends! I know a lesbian couple who just had their third child, proof that the heterosexual unit is NOT a prerequisite for procreation. If you need sperm you can, as they did, just go and buy it. These days it’s true that women need men about as much as a fish needs a bicycle. In fact there is quite the lesbian baby boom going on right now. Lot’s of gay men adopting too.
The pro Prop 8 side have no clue as to how they and their arguments have been totally eviscerated. Judge Waters decision is a TKO. It was a blistering repudiation aimed at those who attack the Constitution and the protection it offers to We the People (that includes even the icky gays they don’t like). They just don’t know that they have been knocked out. They’ll figure it out soon though. If we read through the testimony of the case we conclude that the reason the defense lost was because their arguments were ultimately rooted in moral disapproval. That moral disapproval is rooted in religious beliefs. The United States a nation of law not of theocracy.
Moral disapproval as a vehicle to prohibit one group of Americans the same rights another group has is unconstitutional, plain and simple. If the pro Prop. 8 side has a problem with the way our nation and our Constitution works then I would suggest they purchase a one way ticket to Iran. There, I’m told religion and government are doing great.
The Judge would do well in Iran. This Judge’s ruling is unconstitutional, and it is not about morality.
Your hate for America is showing, and your lack of understanding in this very importnat matter shows.
Marriage ain’t a symbol of love nor is love a prerequisite for marriage. The two do not go hand in hand. And if their love mattered so much they wouldn’t toss into the nest of vipers that is the court of public opinion.
As for your comments on bullying, harassment, and murder how about stop acting like gays are the only targets? Straight men and women get those things daily. I’m straight as a ruler yet I got bullied, harassed, and I’m sure more than a few people want both my heads on a stick.
Forgive me of this but I’m not a fan of thought police. To act as if gays have more of a right to go unbullied, unharassed, and un…murdered than well everybody is just showing favoritism which *dramatic gasp* is frowned on when marriage is kept to one man and one woman.
To judge based on FEELINGS is thought policing. Judge the act and the circumstances only.
To Praetorian,
If EVERY single Californian (adult) has a “right” to marry someone of the opposite sex, and NO Californian has a “right” to marry someone of the same sex, then there simply is no 14th amendment argument. What is so difficult to understand?
You really do not have a clue about the Constitution, do you? Prove it in comment after comment anyway.
‘the will of the people” ends where the Constitution begins. This is what judges are for.
This is utter nonsense. That most certainly is not what judges are for. A federal district judge’s function in this (or any other case) was to determine whether a state law, Prop 8, violated existing and superceding federal law. NOT whether it violated the Constitution. That is reserved to the SCOTUS.
Praetorian — I disagree with the reasons you suggest for people opposing same sex marriage. I think the primary consideration is that by accepting “gay marriage” society is severing the connection between marriage (the new kind) and its traditional function as a central building block for building families. With the introduction of gay marriage, marriage is essentially about “couples”. (The ultimate victory of Hollywood over religion!) Why does society even care about couples (gay or otherwise)? Society does however have an interest in stable family units where children are involved.
Now I know that there are many childless couples, but it is not necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate them. I also know that many gay couples adopt (or use artificial insemination to have kids). But these situations are exceptional to our historical understanding of marriage and its integral relationship to procreation. In other words, if you change the definition of something to accommodate all sorts of aberrations, then ultimately you change the essence of the thing. By accepting gay marriage, marriage becomes something profoundly different from what it was. I think that one social ramification of this is that a bit down the line people will cease to even bother getting married. What’s the point if it no longer carries value as a long-standing tradition. And – sorry – but a heterosexual “unit” still is a prerequisite of procreation. Two lesbians may raise children together, but they do not “procreate.”
On the “rights” side of things, it is the case that gays have not as individuals been discriminated against to the extent that they are as free as anyone to marry someone of the opposite sex. The issue of same sex marriage introduces the question of whether or not “relationships” have rights. And while you are busy challenging others about their bigotry, you might think about what your own remark about Bristol Palin says about your own tolerance for unwed mothers.
just want to say that you are very eloquent and seem to so easily put into words my thoughts and feelings on this matter. kudos to you
Well said.
Another question I have is if we are going to define a marriage as a relationship between two consenting adults are we ready to allow a brother to marry his sister? How about a father marrying his daughter? No matter where we draw the line someone will be left out.
What about polygamy? Many learned people will tell you that one of the big issues that our society faces is having our children basically being raised by strangers. With both parents working to make ends meet children are spending more time in the care of others or just being left alone. Maybe in a polygamist relationship there might actually be some parents around to raise their children.
MaryLS wonderful charitable and measured response. Well done.
MaryLS: do you really want to revert to what marriage was initially? You certainly imply that you want the “traditional” type of marriage, so am I correct to assume you’d be happy as your husband’s property, arranged into a relationship to increase wealth, which really, is what “traditional” marriage was all about. Perhaps you need to realize the origins of marriage, learn how “traditional” marriage has evolved over time, and learn to put your bigotry behind you. God bless.
Someone once said that elections have consequences! In that election there was a question on the ballot that asked if MARRIAGE should be between a man and a woman. The majority said YES, so it became law.
So now a rogue judge wants to throw the law out because of his sexual preference and the activist GLAD component pushing their agenda. Nothing I hate more is legislating from the bench! I’m in MA and I know first hand about legislating from the bench!
Just yesterday they were discussing this ruling on a radio show and a gay man called in and said he was disgusted with the activists in GLAD. He doesn’t agree with their agenda or the decision in CA.
Praetorian ~
What’s best for the children is absolutely more important than what’s best for marriage-minded homosexuals. I spent 20 years teaching many children who resided with a homosexual parent and his/her partner. Every single one of those kids, without exception, was an emotional basket case, poor student, and angry at the homosexual parent for not behaving like the heterosexual parents of the other children. The “researchers” who claim that children raised by homosexual partners grow up to be just fine are lying like rugs!
Marriage is a civil contract regulated by the State. It is NOT a constitutional right. The homosexual judge who issued this week’s opinion violated his obligation to recuse himself just as if he were asked to rule on a case involving a corporation in which he held stock or a case involving one of his family members.
If the people of a State feel that homosexuals, like first cousins and prepubescent children, should not be issued a marriage license, that is the business of that State, and the Federal courts have absolutely NO business intervening. There is no 14th Amendment issue in this situation, regardless of the opinions of the Federal bench!
It’s rulings like this that are going to motivate most States to simply disown the Federal government and dare the President to do something about it.
Although I am in the traditional-marriage-plus-civil-unions camp and would strongly oppose an attempt to forbid civil unions, gay marriage is not a core issue for me. I am content to abide by the decision of the voters in my state (so far efforts to let them vote on the issue have been stymied). I accept that current demographic trends, at least among whites, suggest that gay marriage eventually will receive overall majority support, but IMO the matter doesn’t warrant ‘standing athwart history yelling “Stop!”‘.
However, Walker’s ruling is a core issue with me: yet another example of flagrant overreaching by an illegitimate ruling class.
…suggest that gay marriage eventually will receive overall majority support…
When the “will of the people” accepts your position…we all will. The point is that the people of California said NO twice, yet the “ruling” class over ruled them…that is wrong and dangerous.
Actually the majority has the right to vote, have their vote heeded and not be overturned by anyone. If it happens here…it could happen with the presidency in the future.
I don’t care if the issue is gay or a certain type building…if the majority of people vote no…it should be no..
RDB, I salute the principled and civil manner in which you’ve discussed the ruling. I’m not at all sure I’d do as well were I in your position.
Nunya, ??.
Though not a terribly popular reason anymore, I’ll give my take on overturning Prop 8 which came as absolutely no surprise. I do not accept the idea of same sex marriage, and it based solely for religious reasons. I am certainly not ashamed to say that.
Marriage was a religious institution long before it was co-opted by the state and federal government. Where in our Constitution is marriage a right?
The vote was cast far and square – the majority won. If voter’s rights are to mean anything, now would be the time. Otherwise, once again with the help of the Left, the law is an ass (no pun intended).
Majority rule cannot always rule the day. In the old south, racism ruled and I am sure that many of the unfair laws that were status quo were widely popular. On a philosophical basis, I believe that same sex relationships are fundamentally different than heterosexual ones. However, also realize that separate is not always equal and same sex unions are not respected. If civil unions will give spousal rights that are equivalent to traditional marriage then I say fine. My gut tells me that such unions will be second class union that will not carry the same protections as tradironal marriage.
Eli – your opinions seem to indicate your only argument is one of semantics; which if true, comes across as petty. Still, I applaud your nonchalance on the subject as it’s light-years ahead of many others who post on this site.
Respect is earned by your actions, not granted by the courts. Homosexual marriages may be forced upon the States by the Federal courts, but the courts will never force the majority of Americans to “respect” homosexuals because they contracted marriages.
Heterosexual people were okay with the Supreme Court defining consensual sex as part of the right to privacy. Sex is supposed to be something done privately. We were okay with homosexuals not being prosecuted for doing things that we were doing, and we were tired of having laws on the books that criminalized our own sexual activities.
Heterosexual people can certainly “respect” the decision of a homosexual couple to use powers of attorney, joint ownership agreements, adoption, and wills to attain the same civil benefits as heterosexual couples, but the consequences of raising a child in a homosexual relationship are a major roadblock to getting the approval of the heterosexual majority to agree to homosexual marriages, which would create legal difficulties for the protection of these children by the State.
The heterosexual majority is far more concerned with the welfare of children than the emotional satisfaction of adults, sexual preferences aside. That is why homosexuals are fighting an ultimately losing battle to gain permission to contract marriages.
Tex Taylor is right, marriage was, prior to the mid 1800s mostly a religious institution. But let’s be totally clear about the history of marriage. The Catholic Church actually had formalized rights to sanctify same-sex relationships (those darned Greeks and Romans who ran things back then you know) before a formal liturgy for straight marriage. Back at the beginning of marriage (you know, traditional marriage) women were property, and in biblical times, polygamy was common and accepted.
So Tex, even the “religious” definition of marriage has changed much over time, so it’s that whole institution that’s under-girded society for millenia thing after all.
Then, people started getting divorces and annulments, and some of the wealthier noble women wanted their share, and the Church decided it wanted no part of having to divide up property, so the Church itself gave over the control of marriage to the government. All they wanted to do was have weddings and the nice receptions that followed.
So here’s the rub in all this. Once the church turned over marriage to the government, it became a civil issue. But people, through the government, still kept piling benefits on married people…legal, property, tax, and all sorts of other benefits. So it became, like it or not Tex, a civil institution to which a large portion of government-funded and mandated benefits accrue.
The founders, though struggling withe issue of equality for all themselves, we smart enough to know that America should move towards that very ideal. They wrote a Constitution that says, in civil matters, everyone gets treated equally. To make sure of that, they didn’t form a democracy, the gave us a democratic republic. In our form of government, the majority rules, but they can never take away equal rights from the minority…that’s in the Constitution. That’s why there are checks and balances and an independent judiciary.
So the question is Tex, how would you feel if we voted to outlaw your particular religion? You’d scream bloody murder, and pull out your copy of the Constitution and start quoting. This sense of entitlement just amazes me. Just because you are in the majority does not give you the right to vote on my rights. That attitude is as un-American as it gets, and flies in the face of what the founders intended. As my grandfather would say, “your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose.” You don’t get to vote in a law that says otherwise, and unless your only motivation is hate, why would you want to?
It’s really sad how little of history and civics people bother to understand these days.
Quite the contrary. I would have no need to pull out the Constitution, for my “religion” which you don’t even accurately describe is not ordained by the Constitution, but by God. You couldn’t take it away from me by law, fiat or otherwise no matter how hard you tried.
I have no idea what sense of entitlement you feel I addressed, as you have the same rights as I do. Assuming you are a man, like me you can marry any woman you choose as long as she is single. This isn’t an issue of “rights.” It’s an issue of definition and your compulsion to force me to accept as the norm what I consider a perversion.
But the Constitution doesn’t just apply to the minority – it applies to the majority too. Try to remember that next time you use that specious analogy.
Sure we do. That is the purpose of “VOTING” on Prop 8.
What’s worse is our loss of right and wrong. And if you really want to talk history of acceptance of homosexuality as a norm, you might want to reread some history where you’ll find destruction soon followed.
Tex, BJohnM, just ripped you a new one, sort like Judge Waters ripped the defense a new one. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about in terms of what purpose our Constitution serves. Just like you people twist and distort biblical passages to suit your own prejudices, you do the same with the Constitution. The Constitution is there to protect the minority. Majorities don’t need protecting.
History will pass your demographic by that is for sure. The nation will move forward with or without you in order to form a more perfect union. Your only investment in this is to, as Judge Waters wrote, “advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.” They’re not. You can’t handle that. Tough.
Praetorian, the most apropos named poster on this board, venal and corrupt.
BJohnM pasted the standard M.O. as attested to from his about box. I looked. Both of you need some new material. Yawn.
Your arguments are usually so vacuous I generally pass them by as your at best a moral relativist, more commonly a troll. But since this was addressed specifically to me, I’ll respond.
Just as your name suggests, your ilk has come and gone with for 2,000+ years. If you honestly thought “my type” was just going to pass on bye, we wouldn’t even rate an idle threat. You’re a coward and a mouth. You’ll rush the doors of the Mormon Church with threat, but wouldn’t step foot in Oakland or Compton to voice your displeasure. Got a problem with my viewpoint, take it up with Dear Leader Obama and your spiritual adviser Rev. Wright. On this one issue, we all agree.
The Constitution was not written simply for the protection of the minority dummy. It’s equally applicable to all – and you don’t rate anything more than that.
Dear Praetorian,
The ‘audience’ here suffers many comments from those who wade in further than their ability; whatever that deficit may be.
Someone wise once said; “It is better to remain silent and presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”.
I am trying to gently tell you, with all due respect; you are in over your head; and, on so many levels. Speaking with humility and respect is a reliable sign of wisdom and authority. Try it out next time. And, with the addict-esque frequency of your comments; there will be a next time. ‘We’ will thank you for the favor; and, you will be doing yourself a service as well.
I often tell ‘my kids’ (I’m a parent and a teacher), “It’s not what you’re saying, it’s how you’re saying it”. Even your good points (and you do have them) are lost in ‘how’ you speak.
Try less sarcasm, anger, judgmental shots, arrogant superiority, and obvious immaturity.
On the other hand; deliberate insult, however misinformed; may be your only goal. If so, never mind. The willfully blind and deaf can not learn.
Which makes one wonder what ‘a guy like you is doing in a place like this’. If you were receptive to the opportunity to learn, it would be found at some point within your comments. If you were simply curious about what those ‘right-wing bigots’ were up to, you could resist the frequent urge to CORRECT our ignorances.
It could be that your only objective is to attack that which you oppose; and sadly for reasons that are rooted in a limited and distorted understanding of your ‘enemy’.
If indeed you are merely a mindless antagonist, I bid you farewell. But; in parting, I must caution you to ‘consider your ways’.
You said, “Majorities don’t need protecting.” – Have you not been observing the news of late? ! ! !
When, as is the case today; the voice of the ‘majority’ is being repeatedly ignored, overruled, and spit upon with overt disdain (by those who ‘rule’ us, when their solemn duty is to serve us); WHO can the majority turn to for the protection they most certainly ‘NEED’?
When the world is standing on it’s head; it’s important to keep yours.
In the words of Bette Davis; “Buckle your seat-belts; It’s gonna be a bumpy ride”.
Even ‘your side’ is victim to this once stealth enemy. I say ‘once’ because ‘they’ are so emboldened that they don’t even bother with disguises anymore.
Actually, the Church exchanged jurisdiction over divorces for the privilege of naming its own bishops. That is, to settle the question which was infuriating kings and nobles and frustrating clerics, namely, who gets to choose the bishops and primates of the various Catholic kingdoms, the Church and the various kings agreed that the Church would give up divorces and exclusive criminal jurisdiction over its clergy for common law crimes and the kings would give up trying to name their own bishops. Noblewomen of various kingdoms, etc already had protections in divorce, as they were legally entitled to the return of their dower property upon divorce.
But the legal issues really don’t relate to any significant degree with most of these things. First legal issue, not that it seems to have been raised in this case, is that the Constitution grants no authority over subject of marriage to the federal government. Contra that, the claim is made that it is an enforcement of rights issue via the 14th Amendment. The difficulty with that counter-argument is simply that no cogent claim of right has been raised to date warranting a court’s enforcement of a constitutional right to preferring men to women or vice versa as one’s sexual partner(s). Which brings up the second legal issue, that of the California law not have a “rational basis” – more properly, it is labeled “rational relationship” – to a legitimate state interest in the law’s object. The trial judge here completely ignored this – admitedly over-simplied, but it’s a comment – rationale: (1) the state has a fundamental interest in maintaining stability in society; (2) heterosexual marriage has been historically one of the basic foundations of that stability – yes, I know that the Ancient Greeks encouraged male homosexuality, but they were not life-time relationships as the men were expected to marry women and have children – as it conserves capital, provides substantial protections for pregnant women and children and has been the optimal method of adequately socializing children for life in whatever society they found themselves born into; (3) limiting marriage to heterosexual couples supports marriage as a social institution, as same-sex marriages are inherently incapable of producing children; (4) hence, there is a rational basis for the law. Especially in view of the fact that the law created a quasi-contractual relationship for folks who desire a legal ratification of their long-term same-sex relationship, together with whatever legal benefits that ratification provides, indistinguishable from that of marriage. The judge simply wanted to validate his own prejudices, not engage in judicial activity of any sort.
“I do not accept the idea of same sex marriage, and it based solely for religious reasons. I am certainly not ashamed to say that.”
You should be ashamed. Keep your superstitions out of the lives of others. If you are going to vote on something, do it based on logic and reasoning, not becasue you think an invisible, mythical creature wants you to vote that way.
That is a rude and arrogant attitude. You took an oath to defend the Constitution. If you cannot accept people’s right to live according to beliefs that you disagree with, you need to tell your CO that you are morally unfit for the service and get out!
You cannot truly defend that which you deeply disrespect.
Your comment is wrong on so many levels. I respect my country and my constitution. I do not respect a person who allows their superstitions to effect my life. If you vote based on your belief in a fictional character then you are effecting me in a large way.
-There may be nothing more arrogant than someone telling another person “why” they should serve.
-Of course I accept people’s right to believe. That is the true spirit of America. Where do you get off saying that I would have it any other way? You should be aware that I also have the right to denegrate you or anyone else for such asanine beliefs, and I will do so my whole life.
-You throw the word “respect” around. It is not respect that we should talk about. We should tolerate beliefs. That means to simply put up with them. Respecting something means to hold it up to some kind of reverence. I don’t expect you to do that with my beliefs, and I won’t be doing it with yours.
Just get the government out of the marriage business. You don’t need a license to have children, you shouldn’t need one to get married.
And really, this country had far urgent issues to worry about.
I’d like to see two classes of marriage license. The first would be a Filial Marriage license (Class F) that would be a legal declaration of affection between one (or more) sentient beings. This is essentially the status of the marriage license as a result of this ruling. The second class would be a Biological Marriage license (Class B). To qualify a man and woman would have to produce DNA showing that they are the genetic parents of their offspring. This would benefit the children of the marriage (and society) by publicly documenting their lineage for medical and inheritance purposes. The judge’s ruling denies any biological significance to the marriage law and this would correct that deficiency. If society has no material interest in procreation why do we have an Endangered Species Act?
A few points. First, when the California Supreme Court found a marriage definition enacted by the state legislature to be inconsistent with the California Constitution, it did so based on having found an implicit right to marriage in the California Constitution. Proposition 8 thereafter passed, and amended the California Constitution to insert substantially the same definition adopted by the legislature. Holding that the constitutional amendment adopted via Proposition 8 took precedence over its previously expressed interpretation, the California Supreme Court upheld the Proposition 8 amendment; it did not say anything at all about the U.S. Constitution, since no issue under it was before the Court.
I have no idea what the 9th Circuit may do on appeal. However, the proponents of Proposition 8 may well have some problems.
First, the proponents provided an extensive list of witnesses they intended to call. Judge Walker proposed to have the proceeding televised, which caused some concern about calling most of the Proposition 8 proponents’ witnesses; the Supreme Court slapped him down and the proceeding was not televised. Despite the elimination of this concern, most were not called to testify and those few who were found by the trial judge either to have testified outside the parameters of their expertise or to have been less than credible. The opponents of Proposition 8 called lots of witnesses, whose testimony the judge found credible and upon which he relied. In short, the proponents may well have made a serious tactical mistake and, since they made it rather than the judge, they can’t say much about it on appeal. Appellate courts, which can read but can’t hear or see witnesses’ trial testimony, normally give substantial weight the trial judge’s findings of fact.
Second, the recent ruling by a federal district court in Massachusetts, holding the Defense of Marriage Act’s recognition only of marriages between one man and one woman unconstitutional may carry a bit of weight even though it is not binding in the 9th Circuit. That case cites the Supreme Court’s now venerable decision rejecting as violative of the 14th Amendment state bans on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court’s decision is, of course, binding on the 9th Circuit. The parallels between homosexual marriage and interracial marriage may take a bit of fancy footwork to overcome.
Third, the following statement by Governor Schwarzenegger indicates that the proponents are unlikely to have his weight, such as it may be, or that of the state, behind them:
I wish the proponents of Proposition 8 well, but think they will have rather an uphill battle on their hands.
“The parallels between homosexual marriage and interracial marriage may take a bit of fancy footwork to overcome.” What parallels?
Interacial marriage is between one man and one woman, over the age of consent, and not a direct blood relative, where the skin color of the one male and one female are of a different color. Because of the color of a person’s skin, they were treated differently under the law. This, of course, is unconstitutional.
One man marrying another man (or woman to woman) is NOT the same thing. A homosexual male could marry any woman over the age of consent, and not a blood relative, who would say yes. Therefore no discrimination was happening.
The parallel is that the definition you give, was not the case when interracial marriage was before the courts.
At that time, the conservative would have included “of the same race”…. or maybe even “of the same species”, as many Christians than hung on to the Biblical prohibition against bestiality (Blacks being a different species). Of course it was all rubbish, to the point where even you can state that interracial marriage is the norm. But have a sense of history!
The VAST MAJORITY of people in many states found it disgusting! They were wrong. Civil rights are not at all dependent on the whim of the majority — to think they should be is undemocratic and unAmerican.
“Conservatives” were not in political control of the South. If you look at history, you will read that it was Democrats that were in charge during slavery. If you look at history, you will Christians as leaders of the Abolitionist movement. If you look at history, it was Democrats that were the members of the KKK.
If you look at history, it was Democrats in charge during Jim Crow. If you look at history, it was Democrats in Virginia that passed the unconstitutional law that a black and a white of the opposite sex could not marry. If you look at history, you will find that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for Civil rights laws than Democrats.
Read your history and maybe you will have a sense of it yourself.
If anybody thought blacks were a different “species” it was the Democrats who passed these laws and certainly not Christians. That point you tried to make about Christians and conservatives is simply ridiculous.
Your final point about “civil rights are not at all dependent on the majority” is a rather weak straw man arguement. Did I even mention anything remotely about that in my post?? So your commenting about that is completely off-point; nice try though.
What is noticeably lacking from your response, is any mention of one man and one woman marrying. Homosexuals are asking for new special rights, it is that simple. Please present an argument that a homosexual male could not marry a woman over the age of consent, that was not a blood relative, that would agree? It is not up to the judiciary to grant special rights. It is up to the legislature.
If your point is that anyone in love should be able to marry anyone they want, then please tell us how polygamy or polyamory would not be constitutional as well?
I think folks – we are in many ways – missing the point. The challenge with the gay marriage debate is not just that we don’t agree on the issue – we don’t even agree on the nature of the disagreement. Let me take a stab at this if I may.
Premise: A “marriage” is a formalized union (religious or civil) between one man and one woman. This is neither good nor bad – nor is it a statement of policy. I neither support nor oppose this. It is simply the historical definition of the term “marriage” in the English language.
This is in no way a “rights” issue. Gays have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else. A gay man can marry any woman that will have him. His rights are not infringed. It is not that he is prohibited from marrying – it is that he chooses not to marry – given the existing definition of the term “marriage”.
So… the issue is not whether or not gays are “permitted” to marry (they have exactly the same marriage rights as everyone else). The issue is whether or not we (as a society) choose to redefine the term “marriage” to include relationships it did not previously include. Are homosexual relationships so directly analogous to traditional marriages that we make the collective decision to define them with the same term?
Perhaps most importantly (here comes the key) do we then create enforcement mechanisms to compel people who disagree with this new, governmentally mandated definition (currently the majority of Americans) to accept it? For example: Must any clergy who perform marriages – now perform “all” marriages?
This is not a “rights” issue. It is never been a rights issue. Gays may do whatever they wish. They may enter into relationships with anyone they wish. They can call their relationship a marriage if they wish. None of this is the issue. The gay marriage issue is about formally compelling others to accept homosexual relationships as marriages with the force of law. This is the core of the debate. The gay marriage debate is about compulsory public acceptance.
Your right to live as you choose and do what you wish does not automatically trump my right to disagree.
Your close, but not quite there. Gay “marriage” is a sham, a tool of the left to undermine a western tradition. The left cannot win without destroying institutions like church, education , and marriage. Theyve already destroyed education by dumbing down deveiency. Theyve attacked the church using Islam and “churches” like the United Church of Christ and the Unitarians that have a humanist(eg statist) agenda. Thye are now attacking marriage by trying to treat homosexual behavior as normal. Whats next-treating pedophelia as “normal”?
You’re wrong there. Gay marriage is simply a way for gay people to publicly share their love in the same way that their straight counterparts do. We all grow up on the same earth, and many gay people yearn for the same things that straight people do. It shouldn’t be called anything different.
Herein lies the interesting little rub in this whole debate. You insist that “it shouldn’t be called anything different” when it is in fact not remotely the same thing. That does not make it wrong, and it certainly shouldn’t be illegal – but a traditional marriage and a homosexual partnership are not the same thing. And… even given that – I don’t care if YOU call it a marriage. Heck, I don’t care if you call it a pastrami sandwich on rye. I make no demands on you at all. The issue is what You demand of Me. I believe that this new age attempt to redefine marriage to mean any pairing of any individuals under any circumstances is simply not true. Your belief that Bob and Bruce can be married does not trump my belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So… (again, from my original post) the key issue is the Gay Marriage lobby’s attempt to IMPOSE this new definition on the rest of us. This is not about rights at all – it is about compulsory public endorsement.
So… do what you want – none of my business at all. But, don’t expect me not to chuckle under my breath a little when two guys in dresses show up to the justice of the peace and DO NOT expect me to teach my kids that this is normal.
This no doubt will drama some criticism, but whatever. Here is my two cents…
I think the major issue with recognition of same sex marriage has to do with protections married folk get just by getting married. There are all kinds of horror stories involving partners being denied access to a dying loved, inheritence disputes…. And the list goes on. A same sex couple has to jump through all kinds of legal hoops and carry all kinds of documentation to ensure that they have the same protections a married couple enjoys just by obtaining a marriage license.
I get that marriage and kids are closely linked. I know same sex couples who are raising kids. While there family units are not orthodox, they still have families. I now same sex couples who own property. I now couples who have been together for over 20 years. While I do not profess to understand it, it seems that something needs to be in place to protect what they have built. In my observations, gay people just want equal protection, not special protections.
“This is not a “rights” issue. It is never been a rights issue. ”
Agreed. No one has a “right” to marry, not even heterosexuals.
Before you are married civilly, you need to secure a marriage license from the state where the ceremony is performed.
By definition, any act that requires a license, (i.e.: permission from the government), is NOT a right.
Furthermore, you cannot MAKE marriage a “right”.
Rights accrue only to individuals, and an individual’s decision to marry is predicated on, (at the least), the acquiescence of another individual.
Now the problem with this Court’s decision is that the Federal government has absolutely no Power granted to it ANYWHERE to define or regulate Marriage.
That is left to the states.
All that the Fed can do is “recognize” or “refuse to recognize” marriages performed under states’ constitutions.
The Court’s decision arrogates and usurps a Power to define for the States what the states have decided for themselves…as the 9th Circuits District for Arizona did in granting an injunction against SB 1070.
“to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it”
So, having exhausted the legal system, the will of the people shall not stand, according to one, unelected and unaccountable judge.
In my opinion, there is not much to like here. The gay marriage advocates are wrong for trampling on what is basically a question of religion. The anti gay-marriage crowd are at least partially driven by bigotry. The judge thinks he should overrule the will of the people. The legislature won’t impeach said judge for his imperial overreach.
There won’t be any winners here, but this cannot stand.
But there are winners DIVORCE ATTORNEYS.
If marriage is soley a religious issue, then perhaps the state should stay out of it all together. Let the churches decide who get married then. I have a problem with this argument and others like it because it is like having your cake and eating it to. If you are going to argue that the state should not trample on a religious institution, then the state should not support one either.
Sounds kind of like Prop 187 being overturned against the will of the people…. imagine how much better off that State would be in financially had that been upheld… Activist Judges are a huge problem. Maybe tar and feather futures would be a good investment in this economic environment.
Good for him writing a nice essay.
Too bad he didn’t actually read the Constitution or the Defense of Marriage Act.
This decision goes beyond the issue of marriage…this decision attacks the proposition/referendum system in the state. The proposition system was put in place to pass legislation the politicians are too timid to propose or vote on. It appears now any referendum approved by the voters of the state can now simply be overturned by a non-elected judge. I fear most voters now will ask themselves, “why vote for this…it’s only going to be overturned in the courts”.
Ponder this…
If I marry my best friend (we are both straight) I have money, they have benefits, who’s to stop us. We can just say we love each other.
We no longer have to be straight, do we have to be gay? Do we have to prove it. How?
I’m failing to see the reason you’re arguing this. Hell, you don’t have to be straight to be married — right now, you just have to find a willing opposite-sex partner. (The slang term is “beard.”) So yeah, if you want to marry your friend — and thereby assume responsibility for new debts, have to go through an expensive court proceeding to split up, and so on — then I’d imagine you could.
So?
I wish religious political conservatives (who, by definition are not conservatives at all) would just bury that tired cliche of heterosexual marriage being the, “bedrock of society.” It reminds me of Bedrock, the home of the Flintstones. Cavemen stick together, I suppose.
Yabba Dabba Dooooooo!!
From the intellectual depth of,
Snort…
Tex;
I imagine that Praetorian may be basing his assumptions about heterosexual marriages from his own,(failed?),model…
…or that of his progenitors,(I hesitate to use the word “parents” as this might not be applicable in his case, and I have no way of knowing for sure one way or the other).
The judge also made it clear that the states do not have the right to govern themselves. Oh how that poor 10th amendment suffers.
Not so fast-it goes next to the 9th circus, which is full of anti-american comies like Stephen Reinhart. And dont forgrt, on the Texas sodomy case, Anthony kennedy went with the left in 5-4 decision. And right now , you have four complete and total idiots on the Supreme Court. Only hope is that Dumbama gets totally routed in Nov, the senate goes to the GOP and the Lindsay Gramnastys of the world dont dsuck up to Dumbamas next USSC appointment. Then in 2012-throw out dumbama(and dont vote for Hilldebeast-shes a Soros buttkisser also) and get rid of Sutar or Ginspuke off the USSC and replace them with decent judges.
darth – actually the Lawrence -vs- Texas sodomy case was 6-3. Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia (who famously warned in his dissent that “gasp!,… legal sodomy might even lead to gays teaching in the public schools.) dissented whereas O’Connor and Kennedy joined the correct side of history.
Mr. Blatt, I believe, is right on all counts. I am on record on these very pages taking a pretty strong and vocal stance on the underlying core issue. I can find no persuasive argument to deny…or even a reason to attempt to deny…gays from entering the institution of marriage…and to have the absolute right to call themselves “married”.
Nobody owns that word. As a sacrament within some religions, those religions may set their own boundaries for their flock, but the state cannot state a legitimate state interest, in my legal opinion, that would withstand fair and honest scrutiny.
I also think that anyone inclined to pick on these folks, is on the wrong side of the moral fence. It’s high time that men and women of honor stand up and say so. I fully respect the faith-based friends I have here on these pages and elsewhere, but…confining this issue to its “state action” implications…I find no legal, moral, or basic decency reasoning in the least bit persuasive.
Having said that, it is not the place of a single judge sitting in the fiefdom of his own mind, no matter how well intentioned, to arrogate to himself the right to fully agree with me on every single underlying issue…and unilaterally overturn the voted upon will of the people.
The place to change this issue is in people’s hearts and votes. If it is properly brought to a vote, then we must change their minds there. The problem with this ruling…that agrees with my viewpoint at 100% on the mark, is that I don’t get to just wipe away the referendum, even though I believe completely in the righteousness of my position.
We are in a real mess in this land of ours, based upon the abject disregard we have for our system of justice and based upon the abject disregard it has for us these days. We have an issue in Arizona where the people are seeking protection and finding instead a slap in the face…our own justice department is taking a stand against its own citizens, in favor of non-citizens…because of a human political football …crossing our borders as if they did not exist. Flaunting our laws as if they did not exist. Trampling the will of the people, as if they did not exist.
This is not just a slippery slope, it is stomping on an avalanche and thumbing our noses at the danger below. Whatever one feels about “anchor babies” or “undocumented workers” and who gets the short end of the stick and who is innocent…if we don’t respect the systems and processes that structure an orderly society, if we can just forum shop our way to the “result” we want…then I have a suggestion.
Let’s turn this economy around today. Effective immediately, let’s eliminate every Congressman, every Senator, all their staff, all the pages, all the buildings, all the phones, faxes, mountains of paper, the grandiose halls, the chambers, the jets, junkets and all the rest of the foofah that goes into modern American legislation. Billions…if not TRILLIONS of dollars…goes away. And we let the judges legislate from the bench and any and every issue they would like.
Since they are doing this anyway…let’s bypass the middlemen. Since our government doesn’t think it’s very important to obtain the consent of the governed anyway, since they seem to have little or no interest in the will of the people…why pay trillions out of our pockets for the charade?
Problem solved. We already have judges acting as lords in their fiefdoms. We already have a government that ignores its own citizens and enacts whatever it wants, in thousands of pages of bait and switch, hide the salami…it’s not a tax, until we get to court then it’s a tax, blather. Let’s save the time, effort and money and just go straight to the Lord of the Courthouse and be done with the silly notion that anyone with a firing synapse believes that these legislators even READ the damn thing in the first place. Much less, that we believe the whopper that they are telling us that it stands for or that there is any benefit in it for anyone except them…and the sheep who line up to vote for them. (or at least stand outside the polling booth shouting racial slurs and swinging a billy club for them)
We are no longer a self-governing nation of citizens. We aren’t even a governed nation of citizens. We are ruled. And, quite frankly…being a citizen doesn’t confer on us any more rights or privileges than a non-citizen. Sometimes less.
Gays…even “married” gays…are so far down the list of things that ought to frighten us or bother us…they shouldn’t even show up on our radar. I believe they ought to have their rights protected, because they are lawful citizens here and are our brothers and sisters. But first, we have to figure out if we have a republic or a democracy worth saving. If not, then their rights are as moot as the rest of ours.
cfb,
You’re generally one of the best and deepest ‘posters on this board’. But on this account, I am not buying that you “fully respect your faith-based friends”, because your faith based friends most certainly do believe that the word marriage is owned – and defined strictly by our Creator.
And from that, I hope you do understand that we “the faith based folk” believe there are God’s laws and then there are man’s laws – and the ultimate law is not endowed by a government of men, but by the Maker of men.
If basic theology is not enough to convince you that the “joining” of a heterosexual couple is far more moral or decent, dare I say “sacrosanct” than that of a homosexual couple, then surely natural law must?
If not, then we sliding down the slippery slope of decadence faster than even I believed.
Let’s start out with the linguistic rule that one cannot cheat and redefine the accepted semantic meaning of a term without violating the rule contradiction. So 2 plus 2 equals 4. 2 plus 3 equals 5. 5 equals marriage. 4 equals pairiage. if 4 plus 5 still equals 9 ( a sexual monopoly limited to two persons) no matter how you cut it, the problem is solved. I suspect the demand by gays to cheat the terms–2 plus 2 equals 5– has nothing to do with equal rights, identities, or gay relationships, but expropriating ancillary meanings like “legitimacy” and “moral” and to impose them on people who with hold such meanings in an act of progressive triumphalism.
Everywhere pundits talk about the will of the people as far as gay parriage, but if it was left up to the people there would still be “seperate but equal schools”, laws against interracial marriage and the nondesegregation of the military. The purpose of law, especially Constitutional law,is to protect the rights of the minorities not the majorities. It doesn’t really matter what the people think when it is a question of law. The right to marry is a human and civil right. It is a slippery slope when society decides that someone is less of a human being than someone else. Be very careful what you do here, it really can come back to bite you on the butt.
Then why have a plebescite every two and four years? Why vote when an unelected judge can do what he/she pleases? In fact why have a constitutional republic if judges who you agree with can determine everything about society? We have never had a majority rule you moron-we have a constitutional republic.
Law is about protecting all rights-NOT JUST MINORITIES. Geez did you even go to high school. Or are you just parroting what the left tells you?
And this is the money quote: “It doesn’t really matter what the people think when it is a question of law.” Stolen right out of Alynsky’s book, eh? Go live in Cuba dude because you don’t deserve to live here.
Tell me comrade, is pedophilia a civil right as well? Will you support NAMBLA bid to get their civil rights heard in court?
Actually my quote about protecting the rights of minorities comes right out of the book the Majesty of the Law by Sandra Day O’Connor, maybe you have heard of her. Considering I am also a graduate of a prestigious law school I have studied quite extensively constitutional law and theory, it might do you some good to actually study constitutional law, its aegisis and its purpose yourself.
The fact that society has a tendency to discriminate is one of the reasons we have a little thing called checks and balances. The job of the judicidary is to make sure that the majority do NOT discriminate against the minority. It is a little thing called judicial review.
To also extrapolate that because someone respects the right of two ADULTS to form a loving relationship to mean that anyone is also in favor of pedophilia only shows just how much education society needs in respecting human sexuality differnces.
So tell me, considering that Vice President Dick Cheney believes in gay marriage do you also think he is a follower of Alinsky or a supporter of pedophilia as you just accused me. You embarrass yourself.
Your comment show great ignorance… for someone who supposedly graduated of a prestigious law school I have studied quite extensively constitutional law and theory your understanding of law is a joke…
First yes your argument completely supports pedophilia. This is found simply in the statement here.
“someone respects the right of two ADULTS to form a loving relationship” as some who supposedly knows about law you should be the first to understand that “adult” is a legal definition… one that in many places is defined as being 12 years old.
You also make the mistake of writing “two adults”… why only two? Why not 100? Their is not more reason it be two or one hundred adults… this is once again a classic problem with these arguments. I highly doubt you’ve spent anytime doing law. Next is the fact that just you ever think current marriage law is in fact illegal as well?
If your going to bang the equal rights drum you must understand that that maybe not mean adding more ppl to the current set of “rights” but removing those “rights”.
This is the problem with poorly educated ppl. The argument for gay marriage in race term is basically saying “We blacks want to be allowed to marry white ppl, however we still support the ban on white from marrying asians.”
This is fundamentally the argument being made by gay marriage supporters. It is not an equal rights argument but an argument that “we are a special race/group that deserves special treatment solely because we demand it”. It is a flawed argument based solely is hate, bigotry, and in some cases even racism.
Those who oppose gay marriage oppose it due to the simple fact that the overwhelming of the majority(95%+) who support it are either completely ignorant of reality or hateful, bigoted, racists.
“Considering I am also a graduate of a prestigious law school I have studied quite extensively constitutional law and theory, it might do you some good to actually study constitutional law, its aegisis and its purpose yourself. ”
ARE you now?
Then what kind of “Right” is it that requires a government-issued license before the exercise thereof?
Hmmmm?
“The right to marry is a human and civil right.”
I’ve just definitively proven that there is no such “civil right” to marriage.
Can you define for me what the heck a “human right” is and where it can be found in the US Constitution, since you’re apparently a Constitutional scholar and all…
With thinking and debating skills as poor as yours, I wouldn’t vouch myself as a graduate of any kind of law school, let alone a “prestigious” one.
You look all the more the fool when you step on your own crank, see?
“Tell me comrade, is pedophilia a civil right as well? Will you support NAMBLA bid to get their civil rights heard in court?”
That’s the real goal of this entire exercise, and I suspect that you know this as well.
Homosexuals, by definition, cannot procreate, so to survive, the community must recruit new members.
The Gay marriage drive is being pushed in order to normalize homosexuality from being a moral deviancy to a pre-1973 DSM-III mental illness to now just another lifestyle.(Funny how they try mightily to avoid the “Scylla and Charybdis” of “Heredity or Environment” in homosexuality, eh?).
All this to ease the path and silence any objections to homosexuals working openly among the youth and in the schools.
Nothing that homosexual “culture” likes better than the fresh young ones…and no better place for them to harvest such than in the formative teen years, (when kids are confused and insecure enough already).
“Teacher Bob” will be RIGHT THERE to help “Little Billy” discover his TRUE self in this difficult and vulnerable period of his life.
Don’t be fooled by these dupes, symps and fellow-travelers…legally protected pedophilia is exactly where this is going and is exactly what this is about.
If you want to catch a predator, you keep a close eye upon their prey…they’re never far off.
And they’re always, ALWAYS trying to get nearer to that which they crave.
Usually, the main libertarian issue with pedophilia is that we presume (with pretty good reason) that there is a least age below which you can’t give “informed consent” to have sex. So if you’re suggesting that we think it’s acceptable for gay men to have sex with children who are old enough to be adults, then, yeah, I suppose so.
The notion that gays must “recruit” other gays is so peculiarly wrong and peculiarly intractable that it’s very hard to argue about. The facts are that there’s very little evidence for anyone becoming preferentially gay by choice or recruitment, and just about as little evidence for the notion that anyone but a very few are absolutely 100 percent straight or gay. (Hints: gay men who marry and have children, straight men in prisons, homosexual experimentation in adolescence.)
“The notion that gays must “recruit” other gays is so peculiarly wrong and peculiarly intractable that it’s very hard to argue about. The facts are that there’s very little evidence for anyone becoming preferentially gay by choice or recruitment, and just about as little evidence for the notion that anyone but a very few are absolutely 100 percent straight or gay. (Hints: gay men who marry and have children, straight men in prisons, homosexual experimentation in adolescence.)”
Thats a very ignorant view of science. Being gay is a lifestyle and choice no different then say being catholic(in fact they are almost exactly the same).
While i don’t believe what Bilgeman says is correct about the majority of gay I do know from facts that it is correct in a large enough section of gays(aka militant gays and yes their are a huge number of these) that it is very much a danger.
Never has they been proven a genetic link to being gay… expect of course under the same science one is born to be a christian. The argument that gays are somehow a “race” is retarded and to even suggest as much is tantamount to saying blacks aren’t even human.
“The notion that gays must “recruit” other gays is so peculiarly wrong and peculiarly intractable that it’s very hard to argue about.”
Then how is it that they have not become extinct eons ago?
Genetic reproduction being a bit problematic for true homosexuals and all.
The homosexuals on this board should think back to their own first homosexual experiences…what age were they and was their partner older than themselves…and by how much older.
Following might occur one of those “uncomfortable silences”.
“The facts are that there’s very little evidence for anyone becoming preferentially gay by choice or recruitment, and just about as little evidence for the notion that anyone but a very few are absolutely 100 percent straight or gay.”
Uh-huh…and had you been raised in Japan from your infancy or childhood, you would be for all intents and purposes, Japanese.
Thanks for bringing up the “percentage of gayness” aspect. I suspect that you are absolutely correct in this, and everyone has, to some degree or another varying predispositions.
But this is what gives the lie to “Gay Cult-ure”. Because it is “Coming Out” that is celebrated, whereas “Turning Straight”, if it’s even mentioned at all, is dismissed as not “real”…or treated much like a fundamentalist Muslim views an apostate of Islam.
IOTW, the “Gay Cult-ure” and it’s allies have tried very hard, and with no little success, to convince everyone that “Coming Out” is a “one-way street”.
And this notion is preposterous on its face.
But if recruiting new bed-mates is part of the agenda, then entrapping people in your cult and imprisoning them there is going to be SOP, ain’t it?
This reeks of tyranny, and does not bode well for my best-case scenario of living out my normal life expectancy without widespread civil unrest in the U.S.
Judge Walker is a homosexual. Why is this not mentioned every time this ruling is mentioned by the media. If a white judge made a ruling concerning blacks it would be the ONLY topic the media would discuss. So, a homosexual makes a ruling about heterosexual marriage and we do not hear a word. (And, my first post was deleted by PJM.)
Why isn’t it mentioned? You are insinuating bias, no? Surely even you can understand that a heterosexual judge would be open to the same charge in this instance? Are we to agree that the practicing Catholics on SCUTUS should recuse themselves from all abortion cases? And Thomas, any case touching on race, he’s out too? Had he been around, his vote on Loving v. Texas would have been void? “Sorry Clarence, we know you want to marry that white woman, so no vote for you.” Likely, the only acceptable arbiter in your view would be the majikal man in the sky.
Edit. *SCOTUS*; Loving v. *Virginia*…it’s been a long day what with all these red herrings to rebut!
By theway-read this juges words carefully-he basically is calling all married couples “homophobic” and thats his justification for his “ruling”. I think its just a gay activist judge sticking his thumb in the eyes of Americans, just like the Moslems in NYC with there mosque at Ground Zero.
The powerful have already changed the definition of marriage and Prop 8 was a response in protest. Now the judicial system is telling us why they have the power to change the definition and meaning of words, pretending that it is the opponents who are unconstitutional and words and their meanings can change at a whim.
That is not compelling to me that is deceit. Their weapons were already loaded before we even had time to know we were under assault. We are left with nothing but defense because they were clever not because they are right.
Lynn,
You’re really serving nobody by flinging around your war metaphors. Nobody is under assault. Nobody is using weapons. Nobody is on the defense.
This is all about basic human rights. The Constitution makes very clear that congress shall make no laws that undermine the equality of all citizens, and the Declaration of Independence states that all citizens are granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody should ever have their basic rights put to vote. Nobody should have their rights be given and taken by the whim of the majority. If allowed this to be so, imagine what kind of rights could be stripped from you should the majority one day disagree with your lifestyle or individual choices?
Nobody is changing the Constitutional definition of marriage here. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent federal or state governments from accepting a new perspective on marriage. All that is being changed is how the law views marriage, just as how it had been changed in the past to allow blacks to marry whites.
Would you really venture to argue that the definition of marriage should not have been reinterpreted then? So then why should it not be reinterpreted now? Because you disagree? Because of tradition? Because you think it’s icky? Because the Bible tells you so?
Apologies, but none of those reasons are compelling enough to deny an entire segment of American society the same rights that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution guarantee. Simply stated, either you are for the Freedom upon which America was founded, or you are not.
A new perspective on marriage? Wrong. It is a redefinition. It is changing the meaning of a word to suit people who are not included by definition. Don’t manipulate me, I have been around too long to fall for it. The “root” definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman who become husband and wife.
The judge and others don’t like the definition, so are using their power to force us to change the definition to finish what was started by the powerful. This deceitful because now you have cleverly made the argument that something is taken away from you when in fact it was never yours to begin with. There is no such thing as marriage uniting a man and man to become husband and husband, or a woman and a woman to become wife and wife. It was plainly rediculous when the courts scramble to accomodate your selfish needs by relegating a man and a woman to A. and B., already taking away their title of husband and wife because you had started the mission to take honor away from a instituition that has built this country. A. and B. just that dilution shows their disrespect.
You even went so far as imply that the word itself has a character of superiority. That is absurd and would be as if the judge were taking nature to court because it unfairly developed and grew mankind by the union of a man and woman. Unconstitutional! As we go along we are seeing clearly that the powerful took it into their own hands to manipulate and redefine the word marriage itself and now they are using the judicial and legislative branch to finish their deceitful actions.
Prop 8 is a defensive measure in reaction to the assualt by those who pretend that the “word marriage” and it’s definition is “no big deal” or “we are deprived of happiness and fulfillment”, when in fact they know very well it is a big deal and it is not guarantee of anything. Even the framers of the Constitution knew that they could only offer the freedom to “pursue happiness” and not to guarantee happiness. The word marriage doesn’t guarantee anything or deprive anyone by it’s definition. It gives a name and it gives a definition of a union and of an instituion of a man and a woman.
This is a group of narcissistic powerful people who want what they can’t have and will go to any and all lengths to take and redefine what is not theirs to take. They covet the union that has built the nations and want to wipe the definition completely away, erased and scrubbed, making believe that the union of a man and woman is nothing special, nothing unique, replaceable, and pushed to the background becoming an adjective no longer the root of the meaning and the root of our civilization that has grown the human tree.
Don’t play games with me, I know it is more important to take away the definition, change the meaning of the word, and pretend it should be all inclusive when in fact by it’s definition is is exclusive to a man and a woman. Get out the eraser! We don’t like it’s definition, we will change it and we will force you to accept that change.
P.S. Give back the rainbow and give back the word gay. You have received enough “special treatment” and now your greedy and your self absorption is showing the lengths you will go to in order to get your way. Nothing is being taken away from you, it is you who are taking.
your post script is so telling; the envy you feel toward gay folk is palpable. A complaint for taking hostage of the word ‘gay?’ Really? That’s pathetic.
Yes, I want the word gay back and also want the rainbow back. You’ve taken enough and still aren’t satisfied, now want the very word that defines the union of a man and woman becoming husband and wife relegating the relatioship to an adjective so that it becomes “gender nuetral” and you are not offended, asserting it’s definition conveys superiority. You came through the back door and began to change it, and now proclaim the secondary definition given to ‘same sex’ couples implies superiority of the first. Of course it does and that was the plan. The cart came before the horse, and a thief come through the back door while no one was looking. Now you can demand the word be given gender neutrality, demanding the legislature and the judicial system acquiesce to you demands. It’s deceit and it’s manipulation and your a thief. When Prop 8 sought to take back what was stolen the roles were reversed and it enabled you to pretend someone is taking marriage away from you rather than the truth. It wasn’t yours to take.
Narcissists take and take leaving little behind. Your disregard for marriage and you disregard for the honor the title of husband and wife brings to the word shows how little you think of anyone but yourself and what you want and how you will use the power you have to manipulate words bending them to your will for no other reason than you want to and will take away from someone else to get what you want.
Give back the word gay, give back the rainbow and give back the word marriage. They are not yours to bend, manipulate, and make crooked. It is the powerful forcing us to to their will because they say we must.
Don’t try to manipulate me. I have been around too long to fall for your pretense. This is not about reinterpretation of the word marriage, this is erasing the definition, changing the root to accommodate those who are not included by the very definition of the word. Your disrespect for the union of a man and woman shows more and more each day. Relegating a man and woman to A. and B., taking the honor away from their title husband and wife shows how little you think of the relationship that has built the nations.
You have been coddled enough and given enough special treatment. Your narcissism and self absorption has turned the corner and now the powerful and their supporters have decided to take what is not theirs to take. They are putting this important institution and the relationship it defines, man and woman, husband and wife and pushing it back and away, to become an adjective rather than the root meaning of the word, so that you can have it just because you want to have it.
Pretending that marriage is a guarantee of happiness or fulfillment is absolutely false and pretending that the definition implies superiority is absolutely false. This is just more manipulation by the powerful. Prop. 8 was in response to an assault by those who by deceit had already started the process of removing the definition of the word marriage, and now the legislative and judicial branch are attempting to finish it. Expect your attempt to destroy the roots of the tree that has built the nations to be challenged by those who don’t take kindly to the powerful disregard for marriage with the word becoming their plaything to be diluted, changed, and “reinterpreted” at a whim, just because they want to.
Since marriage is a “constitutional right” now, I think we all should move to the next phase of legal marriage right for incest and polygamy. Only bigotry would keep us all from supporting the right to marriage for these lawful citizens.
Ah, but therein lies the difference. In Equal Protection constitutional law regarding the infringement upon rights by the state regarding Incest and Polygamy, a rational (actually, compelling) interest can be identified for the prohibitions of such.
Incest – birth defects and their attendent costs on society;
Polygamy (as historically practiced, not Bill’s family on “Big Love”) – coercion (lack of consent), treating wives as property, and often inbreading (see Incest, above). Although if all plural marriages were like Bill’s, I would consider granting the point; that is, why should I care if consenting adults choose plural marriage without coercion and with no detriment to civil society?
With SSM, the trial record from Prop H8 shows beyond a shaddow of a doubt that the only basis for infringing upon the rights of gays to marry is moral disapproval. Sorry, not compelling – not even rational.
When are people going to say, “enough” to all this nonsense? Same-Sex Marriage is an oxymoron. People have forgotten the historical purpose (and expectation) for marriage. Marriage was not institutionalized for the purpose of recognizing and financially subsidizing “love and affection” between two people. Marriage was and (and still is) for the purpose of encouraging biological reproduction and the creation of an entirely new family. All homosexual pairings are biologically incapable of producing new human beings from their own bodies and thus increasing new members of society. It is the production of healthy well-adjusted new members of society that is the benefit to society–not “celebrating and recognizing “affection” between two people. It is a huge stretch to say “stable” relations between any two people is some kind of benefit to society. If it was only about “affectionate relationships” why limit the number to only two people of any gender? There is a biological reason for two people in marriage and that the people be a male and a female! Sexual reproduction takes place between one male and one female–only. That is the problem with the whole concept that marriage primarily about “love.” Love and affection makes it easier for a mating pair to stay together to raise the young, but ultimately, the one male and one female rule is based upon the biology of reproduction and creating a stable family–that is the benefit that society subsidizes–new citizens. Homosexuals want the social benefits FROM society that marriage brings without producing the benefits to society that heterosexual marriages do. Marriage are, and should remain, for heterosexual couples which, in most cases, have the potential to create new human beings. Not all heterosexual couples can have children, which is why in many societies, along with failure to consummate, infertility was a basis for annulment/divorce in many societies, but typically, this is not known from the start. However, in homosexual relations there is absolutely no chance the pair can produce children, so why waste community’s resources subsidizing a biological dead end where there is no chance children will result? On the other hand, why shouldn’t a set of people have the rights to form some kind of legally recognized domestic partnership for financial purposes, just as they can form a business partnership? But, in that case, why should it be limited to people with sexual relationships? Why not siblings, cousins, or a people who have no surviving family?
You don’t understand the concept of a Republic do you? Or understand the concept of “certain inalienable rights.” Or the concept of three branches of government. Or the concept of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Or the concept of even a 99% majority not being able to make laws that are unconstitutional.
For all your alleged love of the Constitution and the American model of government, you right-wingers don’t understand either very well and you are sure willing to ignore them both when it suits your Christo-fascist needs.
I’m not certain, Michael C., to whom you address your comments, but “certain inalienable rights” does not expressedly include same-sex marriage. Yes, I am aware that the natural rights philosophy upon which our political system is based holds that there are more natural and inalienable rights than those enumerated in the federal Constitution. But, there has yet to be published a coherent and legally valid explication for the existance of a Constitutionally-protected right to marry for heterosexual let alone homosexual people. The “equal protection” argument fails on its face: everyone is legally entitled to the same rights under the existing marriage laws of California: homosexuals as well as heterosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex. What must be found is a right which enables persons of the same sex to marry. Since it is not explicit in the Constitution – Federal in this instance since the case was heard in Federal court – the legal and logical development of a right to same-sex marriage must be set out clearly, plainly and in a logically consistent and legally valid way. I have not seen it yet.
Oh, by the way: I’m Buddhist and a mini-archist libertarian, not “Chriso-fascist”. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who have no other defense for their position.
Uhm, I don’t know. The US is based on the approach that whatever is NOT prohibited is allowed, not the euro idea that whatever is not allowed is prohibited.
I am right wing enough, and find the idea of sex between men to be nauseating. But where in the Constitution does it say that an aversion to gays or the religious condemnation of gays 2000 years ago is a basis to deny two adults the right to marry?
One person here says there is no Equal Protection issue, since the gays have the same right any anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex: but what is the basis for restricting the right to marry in that fashion (other than religious or simply a group dislike of gay marriage?).
Your big assumption is your belief that your idea of marriage and the right to marriage is somehow correct with the Platonic essence of marriage which carries over down through the centuries. Most don’t agree that marriage meaning two or some other number of people living together because they are in love, and enjoy each other sexually. Of course heteros can use sex for something that gays cannot — making a new human being, which biologically and survival of the fittest-wise, is the only reason why there hetero-sex, with homo-sex being the aberration not the norm biologically. Right, I don’t want Gays discriminated against or treated like second class citizens. But if marriage is the product of biology, and the need of the species to preserve itself, the right to procreate (aka the right to marry) is qualitatively different that the right to live with someone you love. But of course, no one in our country says gays can’t live with whoever they want, or have sex with whoever they want. No one is stopping them. But Gays want to stop Heteros from thinking children are special products of marriage and need to be protected by the traditional institution. These are the real anti children bigots.
Edmund Burke: I gather from your comment that you believe Plato philosophy is relevant to a discussion of whether there is a right to marry a same-sex partner and whether there is a rational basis upon which the state may refuse to recognize such relationships as “marriages”? While the Greeks were the authors of democracy, their political philosophies were – for the most part – antithetical to the political philosophy upon which the U.S. was founded. Plato, particularly, espoused a class of “philosopher-kings”, educated, wise and all-powerful, as the best system of government. Sounds rather like the system being imposed upon the nation by the present Congress and Administration, rather than the inalienable natural rights philosophy of the Founding Fathers. So, I doubt that Plato – or any ancient authority – is of any use in this/these discussions.
After failing on the ballot three times previously, Ohio voters finally approved casino gambling. Gay-rights activists should take note and continue taking the issue to the voters, as eventually the voters will tire of the issue and approve it. Then the lame argument of judicial activism will finally be extinguished on this issue.
And with this decision, it seems the prop 8 proponents’ arguments are tired and dated. People no longer are shocked at the idea of gay marriage, having seen no ill effects from legal gay marriage in MA, IA, NH et al and, not to mention now in Mexico and Espana and Portugal and so many other countries. While gay marriage bans still win at the ballot box, the margins are growing smaller and the generational factor looms large. Attitudes are shifting and no shrieking fear-mongering machine will stop it.
It’s only a matter of time; gay marriage will be lawful throughout the entire United States of America.
Again, since evolutionary biology is the basis for supporting gay marriage, then we should support marriage right for bisexual folks as well. In other words, all forms of polygamy should be legal. I don’t see any basis for denying marriage right to incestuous relationships. Going further than that, evolution tells us that we are simply an evolved animal. So what is the big deal about an animal (ie human) marrying another animal?
Because animals can not be U.S. CITIZENS and do not pay TAXES. Otherwise you might have a point. But you don’t.
So I assume you support marriage right for polygamists of all variations and incestual relationships. At least you are intellectually honest! There is nothing special about homosexual marriage that it should be extended to them alone. Anyway, according to “science”, humans are simply an animal in a long evolution process. What is so special about humans that they should have more rights than other animals? And what harm to society if a person wants to marry his or her dog?
On this point though, the science notwithstanding, Judge Walker might have a case had enough states ratified the Equal Rights Amendment to include it in the Constitution.
Indeed.
It would not threaten our Constitution if, a month after the ERA goes into effect, a judge rules that the ERA forbids states from denying marriage licenses to same sex couples.
Marriage has three fundamental elements–
1) the number of participants
2) the gender of participants
3) the “nature” or type of participants, i.e. human, animal, vegetable, mineral, etc.
It is the combination of 2 persons of opposite gender that meets the traditional definition of the word.
When you argue that one of these three elements needs to be changed, you are opening the door to change the others as well, and in so doing, you are simply deleting the word from the language, as it will soon have no meaning at all. Why not have 3 persons marry? Why not 33? Why not have two persons of the same gender, as our good judge has bench-legislated? Why not have two persons, a dog and a sports car all become a happy family? Why not marry your softball team? One of them has health care, after all, and the others would then be ‘spouses’ who would benefit from discounted coverage. The more people of either gender in a marriage, the greater the economic benefit, and that’s not a specious argument, so why not more than two? Think about it. If they are all married to each other, the estate tax (coming to a theatre near you in 2011) will not apply when one dies. A marriage is an economic unit, after all.
The pursuit of gay marriage is not a desperate attempt by a persecuted minority to achieve ‘normal’ status. It is, rather, a deliberate thumb in the eye to thousands of years of essentially religious tradition, a determination that those who USED to be ‘normal’ now be FORCED to accept what they do not wish to accept, and in that word ‘force’ is a real threat, making criminals out of those who have a genuine moral opposition to such a thing.
I am also amused by the typical “fascist” attitude of some gay-marriage supporters. Anyone opposes gay marriage is Christo-fascist. Yet I don’t see the same outrage when the radical Islamists are hanging/flogging gay people openly.
I asked someone who argued for gay marriage recently, ‘what about those who want marriage to be more than two people?” and the URGENT, instant response was “well nobody’s asking for that!”
THe next day, I saw a news report on a group of poly-amourists who were petitioning for the definition of marriage to be broadened to include more than two people.
the next day.
It’s only a matter of time before someone sues for the right to marry his dog, because they clearly love each other and isn’t that what matters? LOVE? You’re so cruel to say no to LOVE!
And the poly-amourists have not dispersed, only gone quiet. Maybe after the appeal is upheld by the supreme court and two people of the same gender can finally, without remaining doubt, call themselves ‘married’, the polys will be back with lawyers to enforce their own demands.
And the bestialists. Cuz you can’t argue with love.
Wow, another post shot down because I dared to point out that in Britain a law has already been proposed to stop Christians and Jews in their respective houses of worship for daring to read their Holy Scriptures.
Marriage is not the end game.
Agreed. From whence comes the government to decide what constitutes marriage?
Let that remain in the power of the people.
So government in granting certain tax and many other civil liberties depending on what IT decides marriage has taken that liberty away and now we are squabbling over the scraps.
What do those of you who support and promote marriage for homosexuals have to say to those of us whom you have offended deeply who stand for traditional marriage? If you do not believe in traditional marriage and condemn those of us who do as bigots, does that give you the right to offend us? What if people who do not believe in homosexuality choose to offend you by condemning marriage between people who practice homosexuality? Is that ok with you? Further, when a man and a woman come together they have the ability to procreate and those of us who believe in traditional marriage believe that life is sacred and most precious above all things. We believe union between a man and a woman and the ability to procreate is worthy of honor. This is the foundation of marriage. It is not just a celebration of love. What thing of equal or greater value to procreation do homosexuals provide by coming together? Why do you want to honor yourselves in the same fashion when no such thing exists?
Here’s the problem. Everyone has a self-serving definition of marriage, and the definitions don’t match up. If at one time when child mortality was above 50%, the state perceived that it had an interest in encouraging couples to have large families to keep the farms going, the ranks of the army full and the state strong, then certainly the State had an interest in promoting families, which required a male and female couple at the family’s head since, then, there was really no other way to get kids.
Today, we have gone the other way and the West in many locales is heading toward demographic extinction, and no one seems to care. The Gay Marriage people respond to the fact that the safety and protection of the Children is the key driving force behind Marriage and the Family, and why the state has an interest in this, by saying, well some people marry but don’t want kids. A non-sequitor to me. It is like saying that fishing from a sea borne ship has nothing to do with catching fish because sometimes ships go out and don’t catch fish, or try to fish and catch nothing. I don’t get it. But take children out of marriage and it cannot be good for the children, or the state, and it was fatuous for Judge Walker to discuss the issue and not mention this fact. Also, if marriage has nothing to do with children and making a family, I see men in losing all interest in it. The declining interest in Heterosexual marriage will certainly continue to decline, and gays have no real social reason for marrying anyway, if they don’t want children since I know that for many gay men, monogamy has no real attraction for them. Men are biologically driven to quantity not quality, unlike women. So if we kill marriage domestically by ignoring its historical meaning, foreign countries and religions who are not so “advanced” will think us much easier pickings and war is much more likely. Will gay marriage make war more likely? I am not sure but the logical argument can be made. But what interest would the state have in that? Sheesh.
“But take children out of marriage and it cannot be good for the children, or the state, and it was fatuous for Judge Walker to discuss the issue and not mention this fact.”
Read again. One of the findings of fact was that permitting SSM would bring more children INTO married families, not out, and be beneficial overall to the state. Unless you believe that SSM would inexplicably lead to an increase in out of wedlock births or single parent, heterosexual families, etc. The facts show those are increasing just dandy all on their own before gay marriage and in FACT from studies of 6 years in MA, that SSM has not increased family dissolution one bit. Finally, it would seem that from your comments that you would logically oppose gay adoption. Men and women who every day give of their love and money to raise the children that no one else gives a d*mn about!
And interesting issue is whether the judge should have recused himself for being “gay.” I’ve noticed when that issue is brought up, it seems to engender furious protests, from people in favor of the decision, for assuming that one’s material interests or situational bias precludes a deliberative legal decision based on the law. On the other hand, I’ve notice the same people making that protest usually hold the opinion that the courts require “wise Latinas” and specific genders for judges in order to make informed legal decisions, because of their unique situational cultural perspectives. If gender is no longer going to be deciding for marriage, I eagerly await the Supreme Court revisiting an 80s decision that exempted females from draft registration–leaving it to males to unequally suffer death and the loss of liberty and life. Deferring to congressional power to raise armies, the court exempted women with a carnage ceiling. Curiously, our first trans-sexual President Obama promised to get the girls registered for Selective Service, but the progressive ladies don’t seem to be pushing the issue–bad feminist faith? Could it be the end of the first black post-racial but white trans-sexual president?
Good point!
So, if being gay is an issue for the judge, wouldn’t a straight judge have the same issue?
The straight judge would simply be deciding the case at hand. The homosexual judge is deciding political correctness. The agenda is to move the homosexual cause forward. As I stated above (and in comments that were deleted/censored by the moderator) the end game is to stop Christians and Jews from reading their own Holy Scriptures in their respective houses of worship. In fact, for other homosexuals the end game is even more diabolical. If I say more my comment will be deleted/censored.
It’s a sad day when a straight man cannot even discuss this subject without fear of censorship. Discrimination?
“The straight judge would simply be deciding the case at hand. The homosexual judge is deciding political correctness. The agenda is to move the homosexual cause forward.”
Sad that you cannot see the tautology of your statements. Did you ever take a high school or university class in logic?
And sorry, but your 1st ammendment rights can only be violated by the state. Here you are bound by the whims of the “terms of service” and the caparices of the site owner.
queer,
You are the one lacking in logic. Your tu quoque arguements are illogical.
Also, I never even infered my 1st ammendment rights had been violated. I simply was pointing out that it is hard to discuss any topic if one participant is being moderated/censored while the other participant is free to attack at will. The censored comments were base on fact while your earlier comments were pure speculation.
As mentioned above in my reply, I assume that gay marriage supporters would support all variations of polygamy. Since there is nothing special about homosexual marriage that it should be extended to them alone. Moreover, according to “science”, human is simply an animal in a long evolution process. What is so special about humans that they should have more rights than other animals? And what harm to society if a person wants to marry his or her dog?
Okay, I’ll bite. What is the issue with polygamy? After all, the majority of humans right now live in places where it’s more or less acceptable, and it’s even been considered acceptable by most of our cultural ancestors (read the old Testament sometime.)
The people who suggest it’s “unnatural” or otherwise unacceptable to humans in general need to get out more.
Charlie,
That ‘s cool! All types of polygamy: 2 women/1man, 2men/3 women etc… are welcomed. BTW, who care about the “antiquated religious” stuffs? For example, Islam allows polygamy even for girls of younger age compared to Western standard. Islam also allows the excecution of homosexuals. If acceptable culture norm is your standard, then you are also comfortable with the killing of homosexuals in Islamic countries! Again, let ‘s follow “science” and allow humans to marry other animals as well. What is the harm to society? Can we agree?
The judge’s argument about the benefits of marriage is nonsense when applied to same sex marriage. In effect, he tries to pull a slight of hand trick to confuse the issue.
Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the individuals and to society at large. In fact, traditional marriage is the building block of a strong and cohesive society.
What the judge has done is to take the term marriage, strip the traditional meaning from it, and then say if we apply the mere term “marriage” – without the traditional meaning – then the term itself will bring benefit to society and to gays. The term “marriage” itself is not magical. Marriage has no meaning outside of its traditional meaning. The benefits of “marriage” do not spring form the term but from the traditional concept of marriage.
Marriage only brings stability and happiness if it is treated as a sacred institution. A society with a 50% or more divorce rate does not treat marriage as sacred or even serious. Thus a society with a 50% or more divorce rate will not experience stability or any of the benefits of a traditional marriage. It is not a coincidence that as divorce rates have went up societal cohesion and stability have went down. The acceptance of same sex marriage will not benefit society. It will only further weaken traditional marriage. You cannot call a cactus an apple tree and expect to get apples from it just because you changed the name.
This is simply another attempt by a radical leftist whacko judge trying to impose his own personal whims on the public in defiance of the constitution. “Gay marriage” provides an inferior environment for raising children and is not marriage in any way shape or form.
Homosexuals Win a Battle But not the War
Once again, a federal court has overturned, if not spat upon, the will of the people.
As in Massachusetts last month where another federal judge threw out key provisions of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, saying “that it is unconstitutional to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman,” California’s Proposition 8 was struck down by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughan Walker on the same grounds.
Prop 8, passed on November 4th, 2008 by a vote of 52.5% to 47.5% in one of the most liberal states in the nation, read simply, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
That date, of course, will live in infamy as the date on which Barack Hussein Obama was elected president of the United States. Californians helped elect him, apparently oblivious of the fact he forcefully opposed DOMA, the federal version of Prop 8.
Inconsistently, the pro-gay president has also said he does not support same-sex marriage.
So, the battle lines have been re-drawn just as they were before and after the Proposition 8 vote, and battle lines are not an exaggeration.
Back in 2008, the campaign by homosexuals to defeat the ballot measure was marked by threats of violence against its backers and, following passage, homosexuals launched a nationwide, virtual rampage in protest.
Their targets were primarily Catholics and Catholic churches and Mormons and their Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When those efforts at intimidation and calls for a reversal failed, gays took to the courts as they always do to nullify the majority opinion.
(For more details on the events before and after November 4th, 2008, see “The Gay Battle against the Will of the People Parts One and Two,” http://tiny.cc/fvcwu and http://tiny.cc/6kgns)
That battle was re-joined before and during the California case, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, and the decision was a foregone conclusion.
Governor Arnold refused to defend his own state’s law, the suit was filed in San Francisco which voted down the proposition 3 to 1, and Judge Walker agreed to have the proceedings put on YouTube against the recommendation of the U.S. Supreme Court. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1828)
The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to impose gay marriage on the states is absurd. The people here lecturing conservatives about the Constitution are full of it. There is no way the four conservative justices on the Supreme Court will sign on to this notion. So the question will be whether Justice Kennedy feels like imposing gay marriage on the country.
This is the sort of issue that most certainly should be left up to the states. California, left to itself, likely would approve gay marriage in the next five years.
Liberals should be careful what they wish for. This decision, coupled with the Arizona decision and the efforts by NYC elites to impose a mosque near Ground Zero, are forceful reminders that the public must turn out in droves in November to take back control of their lives from the anti-democratic elites.
If we are to believe the constitution was designed with foresight through the amendment process to allow for the eventual condonement of SSM in our society, then we may as well throw it out and let the pseudo-enlightened homosexuals show us how to properly construct a founding document. Homosexual acts were considered at best worthy of punishment along the lines of castration (suggested by Jefferson) and life imprisonment, and at worst were made a capital offense at the time it was constructed with no indication whatsoever of leanings in support of or the eventual societal approval of homosexuality.
This debate is frustrating – in that we are not even brushing up against the real point. This is Orwellian. I know that term is overused – but this is truly Orwellian – perhaps more so than any other political issue of our time. This is an attempt to create “NewSpeak”. The Gay Marriage issue is an attempt to re-write the language so as to make opposition to the new orthodoxy impossible.
When I am asked if gays should be “allowed” to marry – I say absolutely! Gays should have the same marriage rights as anyone else. A gay man should be allowed to marry any woman who will have him.
“Wait a moment” my questioner might ask. “I am asking if you would allow a gay man to marry his male partner.”
Me: “Nothing a gay man could or would do with his male partner could be defined as marriage. This is not a function of what I would or would not allow. This is a simple function of the meaning of the word married. It is like asking if I would “allow” an armadillo to fly. Whether or not I would allow it is irrelevant. Nothing an armadillo can or would do can be considered flight and nothing a gay couple can or would do can be considered marriage.
This is neither good or bad, right or wrong – it is a simple function of the definition of the word. At no time in history, in no culture in the world have homosexual couples been considered “married”. At no time in history, in no culture in the world have homosexual pairings been considered directly analogous to marriages. Again – this is neither good nor bad, right or wrong. It simply isn’t what the word means.
The gay marriage debate is not about anyone’s rights. It is an attempt to take two types of relationships – that are vastly different – and write the ability to discuss the differences between these two types of relationships out of the language. This is a demand to say that two vastly different things are identical. Again – this is Orwellian NewSpeak – it is an attempt to write the ability to disagree out of the language.
Amen!
Why does the “tolerant” left that celebrates diversity reveal it’s cowardly hypocrisy and shallowness by attacking Bristol Palin ?
IF I were gay; and, I were ‘religious’; and, my religion’s doctrine forbid homosexuality; I would choose to be celibate. This is the only choice for one who insists upon sincerity – of self and others.
IF I were gay; and, I subscribed to no religion whatsoever; and, I wanted to marry my one true love; my right to do so should be respected by man’s laws no less than any other citizen. This is guaranteed by our own cherished “Separation of Church and State”.
If those who believe in “Freedom of Religion” want to protect their own right to practice their religion of choice; then it follows, that they should acknowledge that this same ‘freedom’ applies to those who’s right it is to choose no religion. Any other claim is tainted with hypocritical judgement at worst; and/or, an irresponsible knowledge of their own religious doctrine, and how & why it differs from man’s laws at best.
1 – The will of the people should trump attempted legislation from the bench. BUT, when I consider the evident lack of wisdom in a populace that could elect B.H. Obama; I am compelled to wonder about a point that once seemed so very clear.
2 – When soberly considered; ‘Separation of Church and State’; would mean that any ‘Church’ doctrine should not dictate State or Federal Laws.
3 – Also requiring sober consideration; ‘Freedom of Religion’ also means protecting the rights of those who choose not to be religious.
Note to those who consider themselves conservative or libertarian by whatever degree: Remember the simple advice given to all new parents;
‘pick your battles’. We do ourselves no favors when we weaken the bite of pure righteousness by wielding it irresponsibly.
Practice wise discernment when faced with diversions. There are more important; and far more worthy causes which require our diligence.
Man’s faithfulness to ‘God’ can and should never be forced. Any attempt is always counterproductive and contrary to God’s laws.
Religious faithfulness, of any worth, is sought, found and sincerely practiced by the soul who chooses it willingly.
“IF I were gay; and, I subscribed to no religion whatsoever; and, I wanted to marry my one true love; my right to do so should be respected by man’s laws no less than any other citizen.”
Sigh…another one.
What “right” to marriage do you THINK that you have, under civil OR canon law?
As a homosexual OR a heterosexual?
Faiths don’t just perform the ceremony upon demand, y’know. There are standards and obligations that must be met or the priest,rabbi, vicar or ayatollah tells you to take a hike.
The state requires that you secure a license before the Justice of the Peace shall officiate. You don’t buy the license, the chapel stays closed.
A right is not a right when you require a license to exercise it. It is a privilege.
You are suffering from a common malady…what you want you think of as a “right”.
No such right exists.
Dear Bilgeman,
You seem to be stuck on the word ‘rights’. If we are talking ‘inalienable rights’; we can agree that they may not be taken away or transferred. Does that not apply to all citizens? And, if not, who decides the exceptions?
Why, exactly, should a homosexual be denied by the State to marry? No ‘religion’ need participate.
No, oliver, it is not I who am “stuck on rights”, but rather you and your allies.
You constantly misapply the term to denote what you covet.
It sounds like you have convinced yourselves, and each other…and even some of the more weak-minded, but the facts are what they are.
There is NO “right”, civil, canonical, legal, “human” or indivisible, to marry.
And saying so will not make it so, no matter how often it is repeated.
Marriage is a construct of Man.
“Why, exactly, should a homosexual be denied by the State to marry?”
Because it is the will of the People, as expressed through the democratic process, that they be so denied.
That’s how we make the laws in America, (theoretically), the People decide.
That’s the way democracy works, if you don’t like it, then make arrangements to live somewhere else. No one is stopping you.
In California, they have so decided, their State Supreme Court has affirmed their decision.
And while you are free to lobby to change the law, you should not be free to disobey it while doing so.
The anti-8 people have supported this lawsuit which has enlisted the Federal judiciary in not only delegitimizing the government of the sovereign State of California,(and it’s not like they needed any help, from what I understand), but also to disenfranchise the citizens of California of their votes.
Pay heed to my warning. You have doubled down on a losing hand. When you lose at the SCOTUS level,(and you will),…what then?
What will you have accomplished for your efforts?
Not only will you not be able to compel other people to call your living arrangements “marriage”, but you will also have alienated far more people than you needed to by this childish tantrum and its appeal to tyranny.
You may very well lose what little you think you have already gained.
Oliver,
This may be a cliche, but I couldn’t find “separation of church and state” in the constitution or the declaration of independence. It seems that your interpretation of that phrase means that the state or gov can dictate laws against individual religious belief, ie forcing the people against the teaching of their religion. For example, communist countries dictate that you cannot believe in any religion. Atheism is the only “religion” allowed. That ‘s why I think it is fascist to resort to this blatant overruling of the popular vote. Personally I don’t understand why the gay people cannot settle for civil union with its full legal protection if that ‘s what they are after. It looks to me that they don’t show any respect for the “traditionalists” or the majority in this case. They have become so “self righteous” that they are willing to resort to such a blatant disregard for the constitutional democratic process.
I don’t know why you have to bring up religion in this discussion at all. You can make a case for marriage without resorting to religion. Even communist (or atheistic) countries make allowance for marriage! I personally don’t care about religion in this discussion. I am simply amused by the “fascist” attitude of some of the gay marriage supporters. I also observe that by their own logic the gay marriage supporters would support marriage right for polyamory or bestial relationships.
Dear LAI,
I honestly cannot tell if you are deliberately confused, or if you are sincerely asking me to clarify that which was already clearly offered.
If your interest is pure, I will suggest that you re-read each statement slowly; while praying for the gift of discernment. From that springboard, you should read a bit of scripture; while humbly praying for enlightenment. God says, “Knock, and the door will be opened. Seek, and you shall find.” It’s a partnership. Every healthy relationship requires a daily conscience effort.
You said that my ‘interpretation’ of “Separation of Church and State” included ‘dictates’ and ‘forcing’. In fact, I advanced the exact opposite.
Consider it this way; if the State should not force you to abandon your choice of religion, then it follows that it should not force you to choose a religion. And, if you do not choose a religion, then you should not be ‘forced’ to adhere to a religions doctrine. Therefore, you should not be ‘forced’ to obey ‘Church’ laws. HOWEVER, obviously you remain obligated to obey ‘State’ laws. The laws of Church are observed FREELY; while the laws of State must be observed by all. And, those State laws must also serve and protect all equally. Therefore, while practicing homosexuality disobeys Church laws; it should not break State Law. In my opinion, those who would have State Law enforce private morality, are misguided at best; and, dangerously dictatorial at worst.
Why does ‘it’ bother you so much? No one is advocating “forcing the people against the teaching of their religion”. What I do advocate is non-judgemental tolerance and respect for all. If God respects ‘free will’; shouldn’t we?
“No one is advocating “forcing the people against the teaching of their religion”.”
This is a flat-out lie on your part, whether you are the author or are simply repeating what you’ve been told, it is a lie nevertheless.
YOU are demanding that EVERYONE call it “marriage”, under the threat of government sanction if they do not.
It is not marriage, it is sinful and frankly it is blasphemous.
You are apparently unhappy and not content with civil unions, because the real aim is to destroy the moral underpinnings of our society so that we degenerate to something you imagine that you will prefer, so only “marriage” will suffice for that agenda.
What you are worshiping I call Anathema.
And I will NOT bow down before your false idol.
Reply to Oliver:
First, “separation of church and state” is not found in the U.S. Constitution. The current understanding of the phrase, which appeared in a letter Jefferson wrote to some Baptists, is a recent invention of the Supreme Court that did not come about until the 20th century.
Second, you do not advocate the separation of church and state. You advocate the separation of the state from God and moral law.
Third, no one advocates the unity of church and state. Even Scripture teaches in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that church and state should be separate.
A reliance on a moral law given by God is not the same as the “separation of church and state.” A church, as indicated by Jefferson in the original letter, is an ecclesiastical institution. Notice that Jefferson did not say a separation from God and state or from religion and state.
Scripture portrays government in two ways. A government that honors God and respects moral law is a tree, which provides shelter and sustenance for the land. A government that rejects God and his moral law is portrayed as a beast. The beast has power (ferocity) but no conscience or morality). Which would you rather live under.
When a government rejects the a higher standard of morality, it becomes its own standard of morality.
You are suffering from a common malady…what you want you think of as a “right”.
——————————————————————————-
I think this is a great observation. There is a reason that most countries in the world and across the ages don’t have women in the fighting force. Now we have integrated women into the military but at least we still have separate showers. There is a reason that has nothing to do with “religious bigotry”. But it is the “absolute right” of the gay people to serve openly in the military and share the same showers! This cause is so obviously righteous that any means is justified.
Women are integrated into the American military? Really? But the current female gender percentages in the armed forces are air force 19%, navy 10%, army 9%, marine’s 6%. After forty years of voluntary sexual integration and the women’s liberation movement it can safely be said that all the kowtowing efforts to sexually integrate the American armed forces have failed miserably on the equal opportunity basis. Ditto for male dominated law enforcement, in case you’re wondering. For all the feminine mystique Patricia Ireland talk about equal opportunity to achieve equality of conditions between the sexes, when it comes to the military Barbie and Rhonda do not seem interested in humping the bush or the Hindu Kush. Sand bagging it, Sha-ron-ron just wants to have fun in the sun with poolside room service swimming on daddy’s tax free municipal-bond income while letting the young trailer trash trolls, 18 year old male economic zeros, do all the dirty work. Perhaps the feminist’s predicted progressive end of history and the last Barbie Doll was too optimistic? Yes? But in the current equally unforeseen over seas contingency operations against 7th century man made natural disasters by officially unmentionable “radical” Muslims on jihad again, the American males killed in action ratio to females is roughly 50:1. (One can just imagine the Patricia Ireland hue and cry, if the mother mortality ratio from hospital child birthing still exhibited those similar 19th century pre-germ theory death rates, or the matriculation ratio from American law schools was still 50:1 in favor of the boys, but I digress. The matriculation ratio is 1:1. At least the current progressive New York abortion to live birth rate is 1.2, below the replacement rate, which means if it we’re not for the rest of the backwards retrograde red state baby making country and poorly performing urban liberal arts schools New York progressives wouldn’t exist in fifty years.) I guess you’re satisfied with tokens.
Gee I hate it when some AH judge tries to change the meanings of everyday words. From now on we’ll have to prefix the word “real” to marriage when referring to a man/woman marriage. What a catastrophy!
I like what Mr. Blatt has written here and agree with much of it, but where I differ with this point of view is in the conservative tendency to forget, at inconvenient moments, that the judicial is 1 of 3 equal branches of government, and that rulings like this are indeed a way of checking the power of the legislative branch (if the prop. process even qualifies as legislative). Such an aversion to judicial activism seems to only arise when that activism goes against conservative interests, so I’m having a hard time believing it’s a principled position and not merely a partisan one.
“(if the prop. process even qualifies as legislative).”
Under the California referendum system, it is a constitutional change, which is what Prop. 8 did, amending the California Constitution.
Did you even READ Blatt’s article that you claim to agree with?
“Walker’s ruling, however, is not a policy brief, but a judicial decision striking down a popular provision in the California Constitution stipulating that the state only recognize unions between one man and one woman as “marriages.”"-BDB
There is no higher governmental authority than the will of the people, which is why the California Supreme Court couldn’t and didn’t try to block Prop. 8.
“…I’m having a hard time believing it’s a principled position and not merely a partisan one.”
As you wish, but again, did you read Blatt’s article?
“To be sure, he makes a good case for gay marriage, but a lousy one for usurping the power from the people to decide this issue. In this sense, his ruling becomes a political boon for the GOP — as it can tie his decision to the increasing sense that our governing bodies (e.g., Congress and the various bureaucracies it has created) are disregarding the popular will as they make laws and set policy.”-BDB
Setting aside the particulars and details of this case, having the lowest form of Federal Court judge overruling the will of the people of an entire sovereign state wouldn’t be cause for principled objection?
Ted Olson, attorney for the gay rights advocacy group had just spoken on Fox News, specifically Chris Wallace’s program.
Ted Olson said, and I quote, ‘We don’t have time for the people to decide on this matter’.
Where do we live, *ucking Russia!?
Ted, the PEOPLE did decide.. in November 2008, in an election!
The trampling of the legal system and rewriting it (‘thank you’ Vaughn Walker) to please the overwhelming minority or group(s) who incessantly scream ‘victim’ ‘racist’ ad infinitum loudest.. gets their way?
This approach, result is no different than the spoiled kid in the grocery store screaming for a candy bar after being told numerous times ‘No it’ll spoil your dinner’ and in the end the parent caves.
We are truly a Banana Republic. Considering the vast majority of oafs as CiC the latter 20th Century-Present it’s not all that surprising. Though disappointing all the same.
First, let me say that Dan Blatt is a friend. We both started blogging at about the same time, and we will link to each others blogs when something appears that strikes our fancy.
Though Dan and I both agree with Dale Carpenters recent review of the ruling a The Volokh Conspiracy, I disagree with Dan’s analysis. In his PJ Media piece, he writes:
On page 68, line 36, Walker begins to describe, complimented by various law citations to back him, the benefits of life, liberty, and property that are denied to couples who are not allowed to marry, including benefits of tax policy, immigration and citizenship, inheritance rules, and social benefits.
Line 37 shows that the law recognizes economic benefit of married over non-married couples.
Line 38: psychological.
Line 39: increase in wealth potential.
There is always the argument that gays can get married, just not to each other; therefore, they don’t lose these benefits listed above if Prop 8 stays intact. Big problem with that argument. I haven’t scoured the literature documenting the fight for interracial marriage, but I would be willing to bet that was a point the opponents tried to make there too. How does this sound? “Blacks have the legal opportunity to marry, they can’t marry each other”. Just doesn’t come off well in that context. It doesn’t come off well here either.
First, just because the judge doesn’t cite any deliberations from that time period doesn’t mean he didn’t look at it. Maybe there wasn’t anything useful one way or the other. Of course, there may very well be something in the debate of the time that could have supported the defendants, but, Dan didn’t reveal what it could be. Plus, the judge lays out a trail of case ruling that supports his conclusion. Now, as we have recently seen in Citizen United and 2nd amendment, the Roberts led Supreme Court is not afraid to step back and erase legislative and even judicial precedent, and go back to a more origionalist interpretation of the Constitution and amendments. BUT, and this is a big but, each time they have done so, it was to restore the rights of a group that had been usurped by the legislature and the courts. If they were to decide against the judge in this case, they would be restricting a right (remember, both defendant and plaintiff agrees that marriage is a right in this ruling) to a group. This would go against the tendency of this court.
If you look at issues concerning law cases, and you find that one of the litigants failed to bring up something that you think would have helped their case, you have to consider two main possibilities:
(1) The evidence you would like to use to help your case could too easily help the opposing side even more. Consider all the witnesses the proponents of Prop 8 had originally line up to testify on their behalf. In this case, the Prop 8 proponents originally had slated to call six witnesses, but only called two. The stated reason for dropping the four was that they feared material harm if they testified, due to the fact that the trial would be broadcast live. But the motion to broadcast was struck down, and yet, they still didn’t testify.
(2) The lawyers for the defense got “sloppy” and missed this opportune piece of evidence; they simply didn’t do their homework. Which brings me to the question – since Dan brought it up, why didn’t he go into detail and cite the items in the Congressional record that would have helped the defense. Does he know of something that would have helped the Prop 8 proponents?
Finally, he makes a point that Judge Walker did not bring up “sex differences” in his conclusion.
He responds:
He’s comparing apples and oranges, and taking the “antiquated and discredited notions of gender” line completely out of context (oh no, not that again). The judge outlines how changes in the historic role of women in society has changed from being subservient, and role specific, to that of a more equal footing of the male in modern society. The judge demonstrates that gender roles of men and women within the bond of marriage can no longer be used as justification for limiting marriage to one of each sex.
Tell me, exactly how would biological differences of any kind help the pro-Prop 8 case? How could one make this argument in court? Dan certainly has no’t made a convincing rational for it’s inclusion in the case via this post. Gender, or sexual differences, as he defines them (or does he?), is a spurious issue. On the ERA, there s a reason why the states did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment – it was tacitly understood that the term “all men are created equal” in modern included women, therefore the amendment to bring equality to women was, ultimately, not necessary.
Note: Dan’s blog is Gay Patriot. Please visit the site for more dialogue on this subject. I’m at Sonicfrog.net.
Mike Alexander aka Sonicfrog.
Let us step back here.
History shows that the historic role of women was subservient and role specific in 1869 (a year after the 14th was ratified). Note that Walker stated that gender roles “may no longer be used“, not :may not be used” or “may not have been used in 1868, and may not be used now.”
Does this mean gender roles could have been used in 1869 to uphold policies identical to Proposition 8? Does this mean that constitutionality of policies change over time due to changing social conditions without an intervening constitutional amendment?
Sonicfrog,
Thank you for your detailed comment.
Though I vehemently disagree with your drawing similarities and the hypothetical scenario of ‘Blacks have the legal opportunity to marry, though not to eachother’ in regards to homosexual couples wishing to marry.
Race and sexual preferences is a poor example. Though this is all too often used as ‘ammunition’ for the gay rights cause. The 2 are universally different.
BTW, the minority population who voted in the November 2008 Prop 8 matter were OVERWHELMINGLY anti-same sex marriage as compared to Caucasians.
You too Sonicfrog need to rewire your thinking and get away from the racial comparisons, similarities as well.
For you too sound like a 1960′s reactionary.. not much different than the ’68 Sociology Professor’ you poke fun of in your comment.
So here is a question. Is the issue here with the word marriage? Would we be having this debate if the term was civil union and that gave the same benefits of a traditional marriage to gays? I’m trying to get my head around this one and see the other side here.
If the Good Lord intended same sex marriages he would have created Adam and Steve or Eve and Eva. As for being called a “right wing bigot” I always find it amusing to be called names by those that are so tolerant.
On the ERA, there s a reason why the states did not ratify the Equal Rights Amendment – it was tacitly understood that the term “all men are created equal” in modern included women, therefore the amendment to bring equality to women was, ultimately, not necessary.
That is not true.
Read Rostker v. Goldberg and Michael M. v. Superior Court . In particular, the criminal statute that Michael M. upheld was an exercise in invidious sex (and sexual orientation!) discrimination in criminal law.
Would we be having this debate if the term was civil union and that gave the same benefits of a traditional marriage to gays?
We are having this issue because some people claim that domestic partnerships demean them and rob them of social meaning. (Nevermind the fact that San Francisco, hardly an anti-homosexual city, offered domestic partnerships.)
Sonicfrog:
“Now, as we have recently seen in Citizen United and 2nd amendment, the Roberts led Supreme Court is not afraid to step back and erase legislative and even judicial precedent, and go back to a more origionalist interpretation of the Constitution and amendments. BUT, and this is a big but, each time they have done so, it was to restore the rights of a group that had been usurped by the legislature and the courts. If they were to decide against the judge in this case, they would be restricting a right (remember, both defendant and plaintiff agrees that marriage is a right in this ruling) to a group.”
Your argument falls apart where it claims that marriage is a right…it demonstrably is not.
Now, the plaintiff and the respondent and the judge could all agree that the Earth is flat, but reality is under no obligation to mold itself to what they all agree it is, or should be.
It is what it is, and it isn’t what it is not. And marriage is not, and never has been, a right for homosexuals or heterosexuals. And while Judge Walker can believe and repeat the lie that he believes:
“Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage.”
I’m sorry, your Honor, but what is a right that one needs a government license to perform?
It is no right at all, but rather a privilege.
No-one talks about the “right to drive”, do they?
“Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.”
Well, California said NO. But here comes Judge Vaughn to dictate to the People of California that they are not ALLOWED to say no, (although one presumes that His Honor WOULD allow them to say Yes).
This is tyranny, and there’s no way to sugarcoat it.
“Tell me, exactly how would biological differences of any kind help the pro-Prop 8 case? How could one make this argument in court?”-Sonicfrog.
If you could definitively establish that homosexuality has a biological origin, this would in my view hurt the pro Prop 8 case, in the short term, since it would make a much more valid argument for the Gay Marriage crowd to the anti anti-miscegenation laws that they are trying so very hard to equate their efforts with.
In short, if you’re irrevocably and irredeemably “born homosexual”, then that is as beyond one’s control as being born black-skinned or blue-eyed or left-handed…and about as permanent.
BUT…if a person IS “born homosexual”, and the hereditary cause of this can be identified, then in the long run I could see it very well over time making homosexuality itself extinct.
The biological imperative of procreation would dictate that you would test for, and abort unborn babies that carried the genetic ingredients for homosexuality.
If you will pardon my usage of an oilfield term…what parent would willingly invest all that time and money into a genetic “dry hole” that they could avoid?
On the other end, there might be an entire medical industry set up to treat or correct homosexuals…which would shortly bring you all back close to the pre-1974 DSM-III days, when homosexuality was diagnosed as mental illness.
Not a pretty path to contemplate, is it?
One last item of Vaughn’s language that really bothers me. See if you can guess what it is:
“The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household.”
Did you notice that term “adult” is missing from in front of the word “spouse”?
California’s age of consent is 18, but the age of marriage can be younger with parental or guardian permission:
“California: If either the bride or groom is under 18, at least one of the minor’s parents, or legal guardian, must appear with the couple. Certified copies of birth certificates are required. The couple must also schedule an appointment with a counselor and then appear before a superior court judge.”
-from:
http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
Under Vaughn Walker’s language, a California homosexual pedophile could legally “marry” a 12 year old boy, as long as the boy’s “legal guardian”, (who could himself be an adoptive homosexual pedophile), gave his permission and they went to the right kind of counselor and appeared before an understanding judge.
And if you think homosexual pedophiles are not adoptive parents, did you hear about the OTHER Duke Rape Case…the one with the confession and the conviction?
(You’ll want a barf-bag before you read this):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/frank-lombard-duke-univ-o_n_221900.html
The verbal smokescreen only works if people don’t realize what this is all really about.
Now that Judge Walker has substituted his opinion for the democratic will of the people of California, it should be up to the Governor and the Attorney General to represent the people in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, if they took oaths to uphold the Constitution of the State of California. Instead, they chose to break their oaths and oppose the amendment passed in their own state. What kind of elected officials are those?
Your argument falls apart where it claims that marriage is a right…it demonstrably is not.
Again, it’s not my argument, it’s the conclusion of several court cases and judgments that Walker linked to, and it was also the opinion of the defendants, the ones trying to keep Prop 8 intact. Why did the defense agree to that status, and not try to establish that marriage is a privileged, and not a right???????
Sonicfrog:
“Why did the defense agree to that status, and not try to establish that marriage is a privileged, and not a right???????”
Their programming, I reckon.
The homosexual marriage lobby has so successfully framed the argument that even the pro-8 folks conceptualize it in terms of “rights”.
They sure are powerful, cause it’s even in case law, as cited by the judge.
BUT…if a person IS “born homosexual”, and the hereditary cause of this can be identified, then in the long run I could see it very well over time making homosexuality itself extinct.
The biological imperative of procreation would dictate that you would test for, and abort unborn babies that carried the genetic ingredients for homosexuality.
If you will pardon my usage of an oilfield term…what parent would willingly invest all that time and money into a genetic “dry hole” that they could avoid?
Abort Homosexuals? Why would anyone want to do that? So conservatives support abortion if it will get rid of the scourge of gay?
Is homosexuality really THAT bad in your eyes?
PS. To steal one of your own arguments against SSM, homosexuals can still breed, just not with each other.
So is the record of convictions under now-unConstitutional Gun “Control” laws.
The fact that something is in case law doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a true fact or that it is correct.
(Dred Scott is “case law” too…)
It IS peculiar though, that Walker would cite precedent…which is tantamount to standing on legal tradition to attack the traditionally accepted and widely held definition of marriage.
Rather like Sirhan Sirhan claiming that if Bobby Kennedy were alive, he would want Sirhan released from prison.
But then that’s what to expect of a man who declares the majority of voters in a state to be “not rational”. He pre-judged this matter and filled in the middle part with case-law based rationalizations.
That’s okay, I’m sure it’s not the first time or the last time, but he isn’t fooling anyone.
The fact of the matter is that to be considered “married” by the state, you first need to seek a license FROM the state.
If you need a license to do it, then it ain’t a right.
Michael, thanks for bringing these cases to my attention.
Before I continue, this is the basic rational that I remember about the reasons why the ERA did not pass in the 1970′s. From the wiki:
One criticism of the ERA was that it would have been superfluous, claiming it would not have provided women with any more rights than they already have under the Constitution. According to a 1986 report of Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, “the ERA advocates were unable to show any way that ERA would benefit women or end any discrimination against them” arguing “that women already enjoy every constitutional right that men enjoy and have enjoyed equal employment opportunity since 1964.”[3
On to the cases you presented.
Read Rostker v. Goldberg and Michael M. v. Superior Court . In particular, the criminal statute that Michael M. upheld was an exercise in invidious sex (and sexual orientation!) discrimination in criminal law.
In Rostker, you have two issues:
(A) It is a military issue, which often does not translate to civilian law.
(B) There are specific physiological sexual differences that matter when fighting a war. Those differences, upper body strength being the most obvious, are demonstrably pertinent to the issue in this case. Seeing as the ability to procreate is not a legal prerequisite for marriage, what actual sexual differences would matter in marriage?
Michael M. deals with criminal law. In a nutshell the reading of the statutory rape law, as it appeared in the day. that "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years." did not discriminate based on gender as ." The Court found that the state had a strong interest in preventing "illegitimate pregnancy." The Court noted that "[i]t is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. This case would actually damage your case, because California law has made this ruling moot, as the language and definition of statutory rape has changed to exclude gender differences, and reads as “it is illegal for any person to have consensual sex with any person who is under the age of 18″. This strengthens Judge Walkers assertion that gender differences have become less important in the eyes of the law.
Though the restrictions from Rostker still apply, that women cannot be drafted, do note that since this ruling was issued, the role of women in the military has expanded greatly, bringing more gender equality within the military. California basically overturned the SC, and made their law gender neutral, lending support for the notion that the ERA is moot. These two cases also do not bolster the assertion that marriage should stay bound to “one man, one woman” based on gender differences.
PS. Both SC ruling you cite are from 1980 and 81. There is 30 years of case history since these were decided. Can you find something more recent to help bolster your argument?
This case would actually damage your case, because California law has made this ruling moot, as the language and definition of statutory rape has changed to exclude gender differences, and reads as “it is illegal for any person to have consensual sex with any person who is under the age of 18″.
On the issue of the applicability of the 14th Amendment to gender discrimination claims, it does not matter that the state of California, using its legislative judgment, rendered its statute gender-neutral. In any even, state laws do not make Supreme Court precedents moot. If the Supreme Court upholds a law against a constitutional challenge and the law is later repealed by legislative action, it does not diminish the value of the precedent. Michael M. is still precedent, even if the law it had upheld was later repealed.
This strengthens Judge Walkers assertion that gender differences have become less important in the eyes of the law.
How would the importance of gender differences in the eyes of current law affect the interpretation of the 14th Amendment?
If Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because gender differences became less important, would an identical law have been constitutional in 1868 (the year the 14th was ratified) when gender differences were important in the eyes of the law?
The fact that something is in case law doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a true fact or that it is correct.
(Dred Scott is “case law” too…)
But when it was, it was cited in the same way that Walker cites case law supporting the fact of law that marriage is considered a right.
Strike one…
<If you need a license to do it, then it ain’t a right.
I want to buy a gun. I need a license to do that. Therefore, owning a gun is by your logic cannot be a right.
Strike two…..
“But when it was, it was cited in the same way that Walker cites case law supporting the fact of law that marriage is considered a right.”
How it’s “considered”? Oh for Heaven’s sakes!
Look, it either IS a right or it’s NOT. If it is a right, then by what basis does the state require you to be licensed to marry?.
Your pro-SSM side might have better luck attacking state marriage licensing as being unconstitutional. It would certainly make more sense than this crap.
I think your crew made a grave strategic mistake kicking this up to the Federal level, since the SCOTUS will have to decide this, and ultimately the People, (as in the citizens of the entire USA), will get to affirm or reject that decision.
You couldn’t get popular affirmation in California…do you reckon you can carry Kentucky?
If it comes to that, there could be a Constitutional amendment along the lines of DOMA…do you think you can get some Federal judge to nullify a US Constitutional amendment?
“I want to buy a gun. I need a license to do that. Therefore, owning a gun is by your logic cannot be a right.”
DO you now?
You might wish to check on that, since the 2nd Amendment was recently incorporated against the states. A lot of those licensing schemes as written are going to have to be scrapped as unconstitutional now.
You just might have yourself a tasty lawsuit there.
I know that MY state requires no license whatsoever to buy a firearm, and only requires a license to carry a weapon concealed.
And I wouldn’t give that rather minor, (and fairly commonsense, frankly),infringement on the RTKBA odds on having a long lifespan.
Look, it either IS a right or it’s NOT.
By Constitutional law, as cited in Turner v Safely (1987), Zablocki v Redhail (78), Cleveland BOE v LaFleur (74), and Loving, marriage is a right for consenting adults. These are all Supreme Court cases. It’s what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land. Don’t argue with me about it. It’s not my call – it’s the Supreme Courts.
If it is a right, then by what basis does the state require you to be licensed to marry?.
Among other things, to confirm that both parties involved are legal consenting adults, and meet the requirement of age and non-relation status.
I think your crew made a grave strategic mistake kicking this up to the Federal level, since the SCOTUS will have to decide this, and ultimately the People, (as in the citizens of the entire USA), will get to affirm or reject that decision.
One more time. Look at page 110 line 25 of the Walker ruling. Both sides agree that marriage is a right.
Now, Focus please.
I ask one question. If marriage is not a right, then why did the defense, the side that was arguing against SSM, not present that as fact in their legal argument? If they would have, and would have had the legal citations to back it up, it would have been much harder for the judge to imply the status of a right on SSM. Remember, both parties are responsible to provide the best legal reasons to support a ruling of fact for their side. If it’s not a right, then why did the defense agree that it was? Did they screw this up that badly?
You might wish to check on that, since the 2nd Amendment was recently incorporated against the states. A lot of those licensing schemes as written are going to have to be scrapped as unconstitutional now.
I try to keep up on things, but on this issue, I haven’t seen too many legal scholars argue that the mere licensing of a gun is unconstitutional. I do agree that some state will have some challenges in this area, but that would apply to those who have written their statutes in such a way as to purposely make it difficult to own a firearm.
Still, even though owning a firearm is a right, one expressed specifically in the Constitution, states are not barred from requiring licenses to own them. States can also restrict the rights of a felon to bear arms.
“I ask one question. If marriage is not a right, then why did the defense, the side that was arguing against SSM, not present that as fact in their legal argument?”
A very good question with a very easy answer…because they sucked.
Especially when you consider that the language of Prop 8 specifically overturned the California Supreme Court’s finding in re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional “right to marry”. (When SCOCAL overturned the Proposition 22 statutory initiative.
The pro-8 lawyers screwed the pooch…they took a dive…they fumbled the ball.
But that’s alright, because California has again blazed the path that the rest of the country will follow.
Passing a law was struck down by the SCoCal, so the voters amended the California Constitution, which effectively told the SCoCal to “STFU!”…and lo, o best beloved, it did indeed STFU.
So now the pro-homosexual marriage people go running to the Feds.
Well, we now know how, if it becomes necessary, to make the Federal judiciary STFU too.
Amend the Constitution.
Hey…your side upped the ante.
Now, YOU focus.
Since we’re passing the time debating points of language, maybe you could answer a few quibbles.
1) Why did plaintiffs name the Governator and AG what’s-his-name as respondents?
Those two idiots didn’t do anything to the SSM crowd except kiss their patooties.
The homosexual marriage partisans’ beef was with the People of California.
So name them.
and 2)
For all the psychobabble about “equality” that was and is bruited about, why is it that the language is always very careful to distinguish “gay men” or “gays” from “lesbians”.
If your issue is homosexual marriage, then CALL yourselves “homosexuals”.
The language being used smacks of:
“….but some are MORE equal than others.”
1) Why did plaintiffs name the Governator and AG what’s-his-name as respondents?
Uhm… Because they favor that side of the political chasm. Duh.
2)
For all the psychobabble about “equality” that was and is bruited about, why is it that the language is always very careful to distinguish “gay men” or “gays” from “lesbians”.
Example please.
“I ask one question. If marriage is not a right, then why did the defense, the side that was arguing against SSM, not present that as fact in their legal argument?”
A very good question with a very easy answer…because they sucked.
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!! So the “judicial activism” everyone who loses a case bitches about can actually be as much, if not more, a result of the crappy defense than that of an “activist” judge.
Note that there is criticism of the judge favoring the plaintiff because of gay. If he was straight, and he ruled for the defense, the other side would be able to say the same thing. The only way to get a fair trial by these standard is to either find a hermaphrodite judge, or one that is a eunuch!!!
“FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!! So the “judicial activism” everyone who loses a case bitches about can actually be as much, if not more, a result of the crappy defense than that of an “activist” judge.”
Is THAT the windmill that you’ve been tilting at? That the pro-6 lawyers sucked?
This isn’t exactly “Revealed Truth”, y’know. Heck, Walker himself apparently was flabbergasted at their suckage.
They phoned it in.
But that doesn’t mean that Walker isn’t likewise guilty of judicial activism either. In fact, in this case I’d say that the respondents’ attorneys doing the palooka makes no difference.
“Note that there is criticism of the judge favoring the plaintiff because of gay. If he was straight, and he ruled for the defense, the other side would be able to say the same thing.”
I agree, which is why I haven’t flapped my soup-cooler about Walker’s homosexuality. Because when this matter is settled in Prop 8′s favor at the SCOTUS by what are reputed to be heterosexuals, then that’s gonna be the breaks.
“Uhm… Because they favor that side of the political chasm.”
I asked you to focus. Prop 8 was an initiative of the People of California, not the state government,(such as it is).
So why did the anti-8 folks sue Guv’nah “Kindergarten Cop” and Bucky the AG?
“Example please.”
Read the decision. The Plaintiffs and Walker are very careful to distinguish gay men from lesbians. It’s very peculiar. Is this some kind of homosexual protocol that I’m unaware of?
This isn’t exactly “Revealed Truth”, y’know. Heck, Walker himself apparently was flabbergasted at their suckage.
They phoned it in.
Please link to the mainstream Conservative sites that make that point. So far, I’ve not seen one acknowledge this. I’m a huge Hugh Hewitt fan, and most follow his assertion that the defense did a fine job.
So why did the anti-8 folks sue Guv’nah “Kindergarten Cop” and Bucky the AG?
Because when you are suing the state, you are suing the folks in charge, and that would be Gov and AG.
Read the decision. The Plaintiffs and Walker are very careful to distinguish gay men from lesbians. It’s very peculiar. Is this some kind of homosexual protocol that I’m unaware of?
Have no idea. Do you think it matters?
Walker, Gay Judge?
The jury’s outrageous nullification of the evidence in the OJ Simpson case was nothing compared last week’s judicial nullification of the evidence in the Prop 8 case.
District Court Judge Vaughan R. Walker threw out thousands of years of tradition and overruled 7,oo1,084 good citizens and voters of the State of California at the same time he labelled them as irrational, hateful cowards.
In finding for the plaintiffs in the now-famous same-sex, homosexual marriage case Perry v. Schwarzenegger–the matter of Proposition 8– he didn’t quite use those words, opting instead for the more judicious language of irrational “fear” and “animus,” which amount to the same thing.
In a very revealing sentence from his decision quoted in a CNS article by Terence P. Jeffrey, he also said, “The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage . . . Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed:” http://tiny.cc/hxnxs
Judge Walker thereby does not perceive “any historical purpose” for society to reserve marriage to those capable of procreation. His twisted decision is virtually palpable: Try the very perpetuation of a society, Judge Vaughn!
Furthermore, his usage of the words “artifact” the time for which had “passed” reveals the judge to be an incredibly supercilious individual who somehow felt empowered to take unto himself the right to toss out ancient precedent as nothing more significant than an old shoe and to proclaim that we are now living in his version of the astrological Age of Aquarius because the time had arrived for homosexuals in A.D. 2010.
What arrogance and presumption! . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1836)