Chief Judge Vaughn Walker knocked down Prop. 8 today, “the California referendum which amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Prop. 8 previously was upheld by the California Supreme Court.” According to William Jacobson of the Legal Insurrection blog, “the Judge then holds, in essence, that the justifications are irrational and have no legitimate societal basis.”
Gavin Newsom Twittered: “The federal court has struck down Prop 8! A major victory for equal rights & for thousands of committed couples, families & friends in CA.” Mike Honda called it a “victory for equal rights.” Newt Gingrich was more elaborate in his response:
Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.
Although the debate over Proposition 8 is going to be argued in terms of the legal doctrine of equal protection, in the light of recent developments in Arizona, Missouri and Texas, it is inevitably going to seen as another tussle between the Feds and the States, between the Center and the Periphery, and unlikely as it may seem in the case of California, between Red and Blue. What is interesting about these disputes is that they seem to be multiplying and increasing in frequency rather than diminishing. Conflicts normally either disincentive the parties from further argument or egg them on. In this case, the eggs have it. The question is: why?
This is not interesting. It was guaranteed that a homosexual judge in San Francisco was going to rule against Proposition 8. This issue becomes interesting only after completing the appeals process (that will take years).
W: “In this case, the eggs have it. The question is: why?” I think you were digging into this phenomenon in another recent thread. It seems that the nature of Progressivism is that it has no logical stopping point, no moral or intellectual self-confidence that, if it is forced to take less than the whole loaf, it could still get by with half, or even a slice. It must win, and win, and win again. All must submit and obey. This kind of self-feeding anxiety even in victory, this furious blind greed, reminds me of Macbeth’s predicament. With each success he became more insecure, more desperate to seize more, obliterate any conceivable threat.
It’s a kind of madness, I think.
So using that logic, if Judge Walker had been hetero and had ruled to uphold the bigotry that underpins prop 8, would it have guaranteed his support?
As for the appeals, by Friday afternoon, once Walker removes the stay, our gay brothers and sisters will be happily planning or carrying out their nuptials. If you really want to know how and why Walker ruled as he did, instead of relying on guesses as to what he thinks or believes, why not just read the ruling? It’s a very interesting ruling, I think you’ll enjoy it.
Marriage is a secular, state-sanctioned act. You don’t get the benefits of marriage from a church, you receive them from the state so to deny one citizen rights you guarantee to another in unconstitutional.
Dick Morris says that “having already lost all Republicans and almost all independents, Obama is shedding Democrats these days.” The President has achieved the remarkable feat of disappointing everyone from the Left to the Right. The Left is disappointed because Afghanistan is turning out to be … Vietnam.
And maybe the reason Afghanistan is beginning to look like Vietnam is that Barack Obama is beginning to look like an inferior version of Lyndon Johnson, with less money and less competence. The reason Vietnam follows the Left around like a bad penny from eon to eon is because Vietnams are a consequence of their actions. It is what stares back at them in the mirror when they act abroad. It’s the consequence of them.
The President was sold by publicists as being something for everyone. Now it turns out that the box is empty. There is nothing for anyone. Hence the universal disappointment. He was the “blank canvass” onto which everyone projected their aspirations. He was in fact the blank canvas, period.
The ramifications, according to Morris, are that “the prospects for a Democratic turnout grow dimmer by the week and the chances of a Republican victory, capturing both houses of Congress, grow stronger.” Assange, 1. Obama, 0.
@HumboldtBlue, where in the Constitution (or any other “secular law”) is it stated that marriage is a state-sanctioned act? No one said that marriage is granted by the church and it was always a false premise that your side presented in making such an argument. Indeed, in order for Judge Walker’s analysis to work, you must assume that marriage is a state-sanctioned act that is granted by the government. This is basically what he said in his ruling: that somehow when the Court gave gays the “right” to marry, the people (remember, we are supposed to a democracy of the People for the People by the People) took away this “right” and therefore is unconstitutional via the Equal Protection Clause. However, as properly understood, since the dawn of humanity, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Of course, in order for the judge to reach his ruling, he had to basically tell Californians that they should ignore this reality and bend it in order to allow a “right” for a group of individuals which by its very definition are inferior to heterosexual couples, namely, that gay couples cannot without the aid of science have children and even then must still use the opposite sex to have them.
After the ruling in Arizona, we are beginning to see a fundamental dichotomy between those who think them our betters and the rest of us. It will be telling which side ultimately wins.
Wretchard said:
“The ramifications, according to Morris, are that “the prospects for a Democratic turnout grow dimmer by the week and the chances of a Republican victory, capturing both houses of Congress, grow stronger.” Assange, 1. Obama, 0.”
And yet Barbara Boxer of California is currently leading her Republican opponent by 4.4%. Barbara Boxer is arguably the dumbest person in the US Senate (dumb as a stone) and certainly among the most liberal. She should be getting crushed in the polls but instead there’s a good chance she’ll be re-elected.
I fear the Republicans will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Eggplant, if that’s the margin of error and she’s below 50% then it is Barbara Boxer that is worrying. Obama’s already peppered the state twice and has not moved the needle.
It is in the nature of gay love that swaption happens all the time. That is the NORM for all gay relations.
I’m against Gay divorce. The ONE single economic advantage of gays is that their lover can’t completely impoverish them when they walk out the door.
Gay marriage is a BOON to trial lawyers. Gay divorce will ramp up from zero to terrifying heights.
Gays do not need pension swaption advantages. They are already way ahead of the game by not having children, typically, and NEVER facing paternity lawsuits.
When a two lesbians breakup by what logic will the judge insist that the dyke fork over for a child obviously not of her blood? What if the dyke wants to enter a conventional marriage? What if the dyke got pregnant?
If gays can’t lay pension funds by for the days of age… who can?
BTW, the typical pension that the gays want to tap is a government sponsored pension.
Is there any other kind of pension worth fighting over?
In every other way gay marriage is a nullity.
Like the legendary Sonny and Cher they can perform their own marriage rites in a shower tub and the outside world will accept their telling.
Although the Proposition 8 is going to be argued in terms of the legal doctrine of equal protection, in the light of recent developments in Arizona, Missouri and Texas it is inevitably going to seen as another tussle between the Feds and the States, between the Center and the Periphery
The heart of the ruling is that Prop 8 amounts to legislating morality, with an appeal to long tradition and an unfalsifiable scripture rather than a rational, scientific, falsifiable demonstration that same-sex marriage is harmful to society. When we say you “can’t legislate morality” it’s often interpreted to mean “you ought not legislate morality” but since moral culpability rests on the concept of a free will you literally can not legislate morality…so the burden of proof of societal harm falls on the party that would limit the rights of some American citizens.
Why?
I’ll tell you Why.
People need to feel secure in who they are.
Black=White, Gay=Straight.
Label, Label, Label, Label.
We evolve on a daily basis.
The Creature know as Mankind thinks It has A Mind of It’s Own, but It’s not alone.
Darwinian Evolution moves apace, weather you agree with It or not.
The notion that Marriage is sacroscant or not is moot.
Homo Sapiens breed.
Homo Sexuals do not.
Biological functions evolve for a reason.
America is deevolving as you read.
But, that is a good thing.
Biological Evolution has no Mercy.
I have thought much about how our American system has devolved into a game of “capture the flag”.
Perhaps in the modern age, with information spreading at the speed of light, social norms have become like water seeking it’s own level. Until one vision prevails, the national overview, which can suddenly be seen with almost God-like clarity, remains in a profound turmoil.
Since the elites and progressives on the coasts have held a near monopoly on the media and narrative for so long, it deeply disrupts their sense of security. It’s hard to quantize just how shaken the best and brightest are to learn the extent to which the rest of America is not in sync with their lifestyles and agenda. The imbalances between one version of America and the other has never been cast in bleaker starker terms than today. And there has always been a huge difference between the vision of the established edges of this nation, and the vision among those who inhabit the vast interior. Now that those on the edge perceive that they don’t own the terrain or the narrative, ( as was their birthright in earlier times), they seek desperately to impose their vision again, this time more shriily and more forcefully than in the past.
For my part, I began to drift away from my younger more liberal leanings when I noticed that the grievances on the Left, rather than being appeased by genuine progress, always seemed to become more demanding and less satisfied as they scored their victories.
Examples:
The air and water is cleaner today than it has ever been in my lifetime, but the “environmentalists” espouse ever more radical “solutions”, and now seek the dismantling of the capitalist systems itself.
After 50 years of steady race progress, Black Leaders, Black Caucus, and Black billionaires and celebrities, in chorus with armies of race pimps and hustlers, accuse, sue, malign, slander, lie spit, fume and harass more than ever before. “Nation of cowards”. “RACIST!” “Typical white”, etc.
In case after case, despite real progress against the flaws of the past, those who agitate for “change” are more determined today to demand more, accuse more, sue more, and bully more than ever before. They are not appeased by progress, but see it as a encouragement to grab more and destroy more and settle scores. Shouldn’t it be different? Shouldn’t America get some credit for her progress? The same indictment applies to virtually every grievance group, whether women, blacks, gays, illegals, unions, etc.
It’s clear to me now that he endless proliferating “causes” were ALWAYS pretexts to conceal the real agenda: the destruction of America. I understood early on from his first utterances how poisonously dangerous Obama would prove. Sadly, most of my worst nightmares about his ascension are coming to pass, and it will be a lifetime repairing the annihilation Obama and the Left have caused in America. But we must.
Humbolt Blue: Your premise is flawed. Gay couples can enter into legal, protected civil unions as can hetero couples. In fact, with common law statutes, there needs be no marriage or no civil union by showing you’ve been a declared couple for a certain amount of years, so where is the bigotry you so blithely claim those of us who voted for Prop 8 are guilty of because we don’t believe MARRIAGE is secular. Civil Unions are secular and many heteros chose a civil union. Becoming a legal partnership by way of a judge, justice of the peace, or ship’s captain is just as legal as getting married in church, but it isn’t a sacred marriage with vows made to God. It isn’t a marriage, it is a partnership with legal perks.
My widowed Mother and her best friend of nearly 60 years decided to pool resources after they both retired and become roommates. They had an attorney draw up the documents of a partnership along with Powers of Attorney and Powers of Attorney for Health Care and a Notice to Physicians naming each other as their spokesperson and financial decision maker should either be unable to speak for herself. My Mother’s friend had no immediate heirs, my Mother only had her only child, me, so they spelled out their wishes in detailed wills. My Mother’s made clear that although I was her sole heir, should she predecease her friend, I could not sell or take possession of the residence or their car until her friend’s death or her decision to vacate on her own. And, a certain amount of funds from the estate was designated to be set aside as my Mother’s share of maintenance on the residence/car. My Mother’s friend kept it simple and made my Mother her sole heir. Two hetero women who, at the age of 70, decided to join forces to be able to live better on two retirements than either could alone. They did this in California in 1982 and maintained the partnership until the death of my Mother’s friend 19 years later. My Mother commented at that time that in only 2 more months her partnership would have had the same longevity of her marriage which ended just a week after my parent’s 20th anniversary with my Dad’s death.
This whole idea that somehow gays are denied something that heteros get is bunk and designed to set up guilt trips among the ill informed. What are they denied? They can be joint tenants on a home purchase, they can be on the partner’s health insurance, no one is stopping them from forming legal partnerships, they can adopt children, etc.
Marriage laws and things like age of consent are State issues. Calling Prop 8 discrimination is a red herring. Since marriage is basically a religious issue why is the Federal Court involved? If marriage caused economic damage to gay people there might be an issue, but with civil unions resolving the economic issues there is no damage. Why are all of the Liberals upset with Prop.8? I thought they wanted democracy not a Republic anyway. If there is any State that could benefit from Shurea Law it is California. OK maybe New York and Massachusetts too.
Re: Wretchard wrote “What is interesting about these disputes is that they seem to be multiplying and increasing in frequency rather than diminishing.” I would dare to add that the amplitude (manifested by significance of an issue for society survival) is getting smaller. All this might be a sign of an approaching critical point (aka cusp, regime change, etc.)
The institution of marriage is the oldest institution on earth–it even predates motherhood or fatherhood. The Christian, Muslim and Judaic belief based on explicit scriptures is that marriage was established expressly by God for the first man and first woman as a pattern for future behavior.
Setting aside scripture for the moment, marriage existed before governments were conceived of, when family groups wandered around, recognizing the marriage ties between man and woman for the purpose of producing offspring who would bind the group(s) together peacefully. Established custom of the oldest and strongest sorts indicates marriage is between man and woman. These same family, tribal groups, in various cases, engaged in prolific homosexuality of all kinds, viewing their sexual relationships as being for “fun” while “marriage” was for the production of children (and the furtherance of the tribe, broadly, and family property rights, narrowly). This attitude persists in various places in Islam to this day, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Government–especially modern nationalist government–has attached a variety of additional levers to the marriage relationship, based on the principle that engineering greater or lesser childbirth is a good thing. Therefore, a married couple may or may not enjoy this or that tax break, etc. This is the civil, secular aspect of marriage. It springs not from the institution, but government control over other aspects of society (how much is stolen from you, broadly).
If homosexual couples want to enjoy the civil, secular benefits of government recognition of their commitments to one another, then fine: have all the civil unions you want. “Marriage” on the other hand is a spiritual and religious thing that happens regardless of any drags government wants to attach, and that the people have clearly and repeatedly indicated does not include homosexual couples. The Gay Rights crowd does not want governmental recognition, they want “legitimacy” by forcing their morality down the throats of others.
They will not get this. Instead, they and their ruling-class facilitators will get Texas.
–JC
Morton Doodslag #11
“But we must.”
Nicely worded but…How? Who is going to lead the charge? When?
Re #11: “I noticed that the grievances on the Left, rather than being appeased by genuine progress, always seemed to become more demanding and less satisfied as they scored their victories.”
It applies equally well to muslims.
JC in KZ: “Marriage” on the other hand is a spiritual and religious thing that happens regardless of any drags government wants to attach, and that the people have clearly and repeatedly indicated does not include homosexual couples.
If marriage was a spiritual and religious thing, then are we to ban atheists from getting married?
The pastor/priest/justice of the peace says, “By the power invested in me by the state of _______ I now pronounce you man and wife.” Marriage is a state function. And states must apply the law equally to all citizens.
9. Teresita
…so the burden of proof of societal harm falls on the party that would limit the rights of some American citizens.
Romans 1:25-27 (New International Version)
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV).
Leaving the morality and religion out and only the politics in, JC in KZ probably has it right. Marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is part of something that sits underneath the civilizational rules. It’s rooted in biology. In the statistical distribution of human genes. It’s like VmWare running under a number of different operating systems. It is argued that the practical problems of homosexuals can only be solved by getting the OS to take over the VmWare. But that makes the solution far more complicated than it has to be or maybe even infeasible.
It is politically difficult to sell a solution stated in terms that are intuitively — I will not say rationally but intuitively — repellant to 90% of the population. There are other ways to meet the practical needs of homosexuals without resorting to cramming it down the majority’s throats in this particular way. But the Left will have this way and no other.
There’s a certain petulance to this insistence which goes far beyond the actual scope of the problem. In fact, it’s not a debate about homosexual rights at all. It is about who gets to officially define human nature more than anything else. Human nature must be made infinitely adaptable to the requirements of the planners. Otherwise there would “high beauties forever beyond their reach”.
I’ll wager that one day the Left will decide gays have no rights. And on that day they will have none.
I don’t think this is about “legislating morality” either way. It is about power. It is an unnecessary, gratuitous and pointless dispute in a world where it is easier to live and let live. And that meaninglessness is the reason it is so compelling to the left. What is power but the ability to insist on the pointless?
Taking the judge’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, upon what basis can the state continue to
prohibit marriage between closely related persons, father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister? Also,
how can marriage (or for that matter sexual relations) between someone who has achieved the age of
majority as currently understood, and someone who has not (e.g. a 50 year old and a 13 year old)
continue to be legally proscribed?
What about two individuals who have not reached the age of majority (e.g. two 14 year olds)? Upon what
basis can we continue to legislate that 18 is the age of majority? How is the basis for legislating 18 as the age of majority legally different from the basis for arguing that heterosexual marriage can be promoted by the state as a
matter of good public policy?
My, things certainly fall to the “it’s right or wrong” debate quickly….. It is for me to decide in my private way. I decide whether I believe that gay marriage is morally correct. They are my morals. The state decides whether it recognizes that moral decision. We elect the “state”, the “state” appoints the judges that determine…what? That’s the answer of the ages.
But, to nudge back into Wretchard’s lead, the idea that this is may be a time where there is radical shift into another conservative (note small “c”) era…
People are fickle, they have an attention span as long as the meme is in their face. The job for conservatives now, is to give them a vehicle to make that shift without revolution. The current climate is at a pivot point. To ignore the racial component brought forth in the debate and ideological differences of the “coasters” is to push that revolution pivot point. Answer those questions about the conservative movement and let the people decide how they want their children to live. If the conservative viewpoint is rejected, don’t let it be due to MSM coverage/spreading of lies, let it die due to it’s defects. If it’s embraced, make it stick with a return to the constitution and on it’s merits. But, that return will be dramatic, their will be lives and fortunes changed. Expect the worst from every side – have that argument, but expect the worst and be ready with a logical, clear response. If the day is lost, we weren’t prepared…
Marriages are a subset of civil unions, and should be treated as such. Matters such as salvation and baptism are treated differently by different churches.
And let us not forget the rights of bigamists to marry as prescribed by their religious beliefs.
Please excuse my typo’s, but then again I really may be that stupid… You don’t know…
I thought it was minority Obama voters who got the credit for passing prop 8 in 2008. These are the same folks who are experiencing 30 percent unemployment today under the new “Spanish Model” economy. Now they are the bigots. I hope they take the news well.
The lack of “gay marriage” was part of the indictment of the current arrangements of society — a list of charges the left uses to acquire allies and to delegitimize the status quo before it can impose the sweeping change that gives them more power. In this sense gay marriage is wedded to global warming and much else: Windmills, gin mills, marriage mills and spin. But the secret to success for the left is to not let the various “allies” examine the program too closely. The left needs to deceive them as to the programs true intentions because the one “remedy” that they want in the program will be overwhelmed by the twelve “remedies” they don’t want.
This really is no different than insisting the Party can make 2+2=5 if it wanted to.
And isn’t it interesting how the DOMA was attacked as concerning something (marriage) the Federal government had no business meddling in — but now they’re using a Federal judge to get their ruling?
Back to Teresita’s point, there is no way that science can disagree with natural law, and indeed it doesn’t. There is simply no scientific evidence that homosexuality is primarily biological in origin. In fact, the available twin studies suggest that it is about 90% environmentally driven. In other words, “gayness” is not a state of nature but a behavioral choice.
The Jews were the first to get on top of that one. They proscribed homosexual activity and thereby promoted the status of women, the sanctity of the family, and the nurturing (as opposed to the sexual abuse) of children.
This is just more leftist nihilism. The idea, as with the sexual revolution, is to sanction sexual acting out and thereby undermine the moral bedrock upon which our sociocultural success and progress has rested for thousands of years. Most Americans realize this, and judges like this one will be lucky to live long and healthy lives.
Teresita writes: ‘The pastor/priest/justice of the peace says, “By the power invested in me by the state of _______ I now pronounce you man and wife.”’ This demonstrates far too much reliance on what is seen on TV. Those words might be standard in civil ceremonies, but I’ve never heard them in a religious ceremony. Rather, after the ceremony is over, the priest/rabbi/etc will complete the necessary paperwork for the couple to have their union recognized by the state. I suppose the couple could choose to remain married only in the eyes of their faith and not the state, but of that I’m not certain.
Teresita further writes: ‘Marriage is a state function. And states must apply the law equally to all citizens.’ Oh, but it already does. What the gay marriage advocates are seeking is to change the definition of marriage to suit their purposes. They are not seeking civil rights, they are demanding that the power of govenment be exercised to force everyone to accept gay unions as equal to traditional ones. In logic it is as foolish as men, feeling unappreciated by society, demanding to be recognized as the mothers of their children so they can get flowers and telephone calls in May – under force of law.
The time will soon come when an Islamic family consisting of one man and four wives will come to the United States. They will probably try to settle in Michigan where there is already a large enclave of Islamic immigrants many of whom are US Citizens. They will appeal to a Judge to legitimize their marriage. The Judge, citing the tragedy of breaking up a family, and citing the same “religious toleration” reasoning being used in the New York Mosque case, will claim something like this: “American values demand that we must honor and not discriminate against Islam. Their faith allows four wives and by refusing to legitimize Islamic marriage we will be exercising an unacceptable religious discrimination. Therefore this marriage will be deemed legal by this court.”
The State Supreme Court will uphold the ruling. The Michigan legislature (I use Michigan as the most likely example, but there are other candidates as well) will be mindful of the significant Islamic population and will approve legislation to the same effect.
Soon thereafter, two physics Nobel Prize winners from Harvard, married to each other under that State’s same sex marriage act, will move to New Mexico to work on a project at Los Alamos vital to national security. They will petition to have their marriage recognized in New Mexico. The case will eventually make it up to the Supreme Court. They will say that the marriage must be recognized under a legal theory based on the equal protection clause and on their very broad interpretation of interstate commerce.
But that will open the door for the Michigan Islamic marriage, initially applicable only to immigrants previously married in Islamic countries, to be recognized in all states. Thus multi-partner marriages will become the law of the land.
What hath God wrought?
I think wretchard has it, the public is in no mood. And this judge’s comments were intemperate, absolutist. It discredits the court system when it goes head to head with the will of the people – that can’t go on forever.
–It is inevitably going to seen as another tussle between the Feds and the States, between the Center and the Periphery, and unlikely as it may seem in the case of California, between Red and Blue.
But before 2006, the Red/Blue and the Center/Periphery didn’t equate to the States vs the Feds.
The culture war was the main issue in 2000. And yet, there was nothing to hang that hook on, exactly. Gore was claiming the mantle of the center Clinton had led from, except he’d be more moral, and hidden in that morality was the Left, but it was shrouded. GWB was claiming to be a compassionate conservative, which was a calumny against conservatives. But the culture war was going on underneath, as people tried to articulate what was going on in their country, and yet their two focal points weren’t wanting to bring it to the surface. The country was divided so evenly that it was almost a tie.
Then September 11th happened, and things changed. The Right thought that the country was united in fighting a way, and that Left and Right would put aside their differences to fight an enemy that would kill them both. Except the Right was wrong–the culture war went on, and the Left fought it, finding that the Right was its enemy, while the Right fought militant Islam.
What you’re seeing now is that we’ve gotten to the part of the curve where the Left’s causes have spread like wildfire. It looked slow for them between 2000 and 2006, but they had kept moving, kept spreading, kept fighting. No one much noticed at the time.
And since 2006, they’ve had the full force of the federal govt to help them, with their lawyers staffing every agency, with their activists deciding policy.
The conflict is happening now, visibly, domestically, and the Red/Right is no longer spending its time and energy on militant Islam (even if it should). The center is putting up a defense, but not a very good one.
The conflict is breeding because those winning see that they are winning, and think their opponent’s resources are mostly exhausted. It worked in Congress too–Obamacare and Cap and Trade and CPSIA and TARP and TARP II and stimulus and Fannie Freddie and … who can respond when there are too many fires everywhere? But if you don’t fight back now, there won’t be another chance.
batman…
You’re making TOO much sense.
Stop it!
It seems to me that the judiciary is going to lose big in this, actually. They may make the new laws of marriage, and they may tell AZ that the USG gets to decide when AZ is being invaded, not AZ. But in the end, they will be seen as impotent.
The Executive branch of the USG will decide for itself whether or not it will defend the border, and nothing the federal courts say will change that. A strong executive will make clear that the executive has the power to fight wars (or not), and the courts do not. Likewise, it’s won’t be the courts that force churches under ground for refusing to let gay couples adopt, or the courts that force religious hospitals to close when they refuse to perform abortions. It will be executive branches of states and feds that do that. Whether those executives do what the people want or not remains to be seen, but it won’t be because of what the robed ones said.
The courts were useful at changing minds. But they will be relegated back to no power whether the ruling class has achieved its ends, or whether the rest of the people say no.
JC–Do you have any data that supports your claims, such as: “oldest institution on earth–it even predates motherhood or fatherhood,” or “marriage existed before governments were conceived of[?]” Of course not, because these are pulled straight from the air.
Can anyone factually point to any widespread adverse effects upon society that would result from homosexual marriage, when consenting adults from a tiny minority of the population engage in purely voluntary social arrangements that involve gay sex?
I sometimes don’t see much difference between conservatives and leftists, because they both seem intent on using government power to control peoples’ lives.
Judge Walker’s decision was stunning in its intellectual honesty and simplicity as it relates to Constitutional principals. It is an affirmation of Liberty and Freedom.. Judge Walker deserves the title, “Your Honor.”
Conservatives are the staunchest defenders of the Constitution EVAH! Except, of course, when they hate it. As far as that “small government” line is concerned, conservatives just want to shrink government enough until it’s small enough to fit into our bedrooms. Equal protection means all of us, even the ones the bigots don’t like.
Supporters of Prop. 8 argued the ban, for the most part, was necessary to safeguard the “traditional” understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing. Whatever that means.
Separation of Church and State, however, is the real issue here. The Church can keep the “sanctity” of their blessed marital tradition, but the State has an obligation to protect minorities from discrimination. If marriage is a religious tradition, it has no business being something you need to get a state license for. Bottom line: The world doesn’t revolve around what Prop. 8 proponents can’t understand or can’t support. As far as the Constitution is concerned what voters can’t understand or can’t support is irrelevant. Moreover, it is not a true conservative position to be legislating or voting on the private activity of consenting adults. This is an opinion of “conservatives” who believe that their interpretation of the Bible must be forced on everyone.
For me it’s simple. You cannot bring to a public vote an issue on the rights of a minority, especially if it conflicts with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The vote should have never been allowed to take place.
I understand that the Prop. 8 supporting bigots don’t view marriage through the same lens as most rational human beings. Rather, they view it the way a four-year-old might view a plastic toy. If they have to share that toy, or if their sibling has the same toy, then they may just as well throw the toy on the floor and have a tantrum. Because in the end, it wasn’t about whether or not they were actually able to enjoy the benefits of the toy–rather, it was about how they were the only ones able to do so.
On a personal note, since I am not gay and never intend to enter into a same sex marriage, why the heck should I care if others do? I’m not going to be thinking about the two guys next door when my girl comes down the isle. Their love doesn’t infringe on my life. However, it may infringe on the hate of Prop. 8 supporters, but that’s their problem.
BOOYA! In your face bigots! America and the Constitution will not back down! We will not relent. Not now. NOT EVAH. If necessary, we have Second Amendment solutions too and will fight to protect the Constitution as it applies to EVERY AMERICAN. This is what it means to be a real American and a real patriot.
Let us chalk one up for the Constitution today. It is strong and it will survive the teabagger tantrums for many years to come.
Can anyone factually point to any widespread adverse effects upon the homosexual community that would result from civil unions rather than homosexual marriage?
FIFY, Person! @ 34.
The concept of the “tipping point” has been discussed in this forum before as has the notion that societies can only see the major shifts in retrospect and don’t realize it when the change is actually occurring.
To the horror of the powers that be dead Cthulhu may be waking up in his buried cities of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to wreak a horrible vengeance upon them. When the stars are right …
What’s the point of voting? The people of California can vote for whatever they want, but it does not mean a thing.
What’s the point of law? There are so many laws, written so poorly and enforced so selectively, that it does not mean a thing.
In the meantime, the State of California is bankrupt. It has driven out all its industry and ruined its farming. It has obligations which will never be paid. Why waste time making some homosexuals feel better about themselves when the economy is crumbling round about them?
History will record this as one of the Neo-Stalinists Pyrrhic victories. This is Gollum triumphantly grasping the Ring as he topples into the fire.
It matters not the Golden State
Supreme Court ruled one way
You simply find a federal judge
Who likes things nice and gay
The courts are not like they once were
Arbiters of the law
Today they rule their leftist views
Their partisanship raw
The left has truly left its mark
The law is what they say
The constitution was all right
But it has seen its day
The country once had solemn faith
That law would be upheld
Today the law is leftist law
The doomsday bell has knelled
Marriage exists to encourage and protect the procreating family unit. It exists in every culture on earth – it is not a white, european male invention. It is not a Christian invention. Marriage is not to make the abnormal feel normal.
Society rewards desired behavior. Not all the teams in the NBA get a championship ring – only the winners. Marriage is a highly esteemed institution. Marriage has a purpose, and homosexuals do not fit.
Marriage is regulated at the state level. Car insurance is regulated at the state level. Sentencing for murder is handled at the state level. Bad drivers pay more than good drivers. Murderers in Texas get put to death, whereas murderers in Oregon don’t. Many things have an inequality to them, based on the State’s definition of desirable behavior.
The Judge is wrong. Those seeking a conservative definition will win at the SCOTUS.
So, all of a sudden, at the stroke of a jurist’s pen, the ancient common law definition — the monogamous union of one man to one woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others — a gloriously clear declaration that has stood for centuries, is irrational and has no legitimate ‘societal basis’? Because a minority of a minority of a minority throws a temper tantrum and a San Francisco homosexual in a black robe says so?
Why we are even having this discussion?
#35. Praetorian
For me it’s simple. You cannot bring to a public vote an issue on the rights of a minority, especially if it conflicts with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The vote should have never been allowed to take place.
I suspect that everything is simple to you, otherwise you couldn’t understand it at all. I really love your point about how “the vote should never have been allowed to take place.” How “Progressive” you are. It shows.
I don’t have anything against gays, and I think they should be able to have civil unions which give them the same rights regards one another as between the traditional concept of marriage.
But don’t ask me to call it by the same name. Don’t ask me to prostitute my language. Marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman. It has never meant anything else. Ever.
Imagine a horrible right wing government that attempts to change the term “suicide” to include what happens to enemies of the regime who are rounded up and kicked to death? And what about changing the meaning of the word “doctor” to include the thugs who do the rounding up and kicking the victims to death? How would that perversion of the language suit you?
The primary sins of “Progressives” like you often consist of expecting me to prostitute my language. No thank you, I don’t want to do it, and that’s what a lot of this is all about.
What happened to my vote? I’ve been disenfranchised.
I’m a citizen of California in good standing, not a felon, taxes paid in full, registered. I voted for Prop 8 based on my evaluation of the issues pro and con. The majority of voters came to the same yes/no decision and the state constitution was amended.
Then some federal judge comes along and decides – by himself – that my vote and the votes of the majority of California voters had no rational basis and no power to decide the basis for marriage in OUR state.
I’m not so much against gay marriage as I am a federal judge taking away MY POWER as a citizen.
Whatever happened to the 10th Amendment? “The powers not delegated to the United Sates by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
My edition of the Federalist Papers doesn’t even have “marriage” in the index. Ergo, laws about marriage are reserved and not within the power of the United States.
Can’t this judge READ?
I think it is time for a constitutional amendment to allow direct recall of federal judges.
Teresita 18. The pastor/priest/justice of the peace says, “By the power invested in me by the state of _______ I now pronounce you man and wife.”
I have officiated I don’t know how many marriages and never said those words, nor are they part of the Roman Rite. Theologically, marriage is a Sacrament administered by the couple each to the other. The Church, as the community, is merely the witness to the public exchange of vows. My role as officiant was to insure that the forms were properly observed and act as the Church’s official witness to the exchange of vows.
The community, whether of faith or otherwise has a vested interest in marriages because it by means of the union of man and woman that the community extends its life into the future through procreation. Further, every community exists in a culture, which is also transmitted, Mrs. Clinton and her It Takes a Village speech not withstanding, principally within the boundaries of the family. Every community and every culture has a vested interest in its propagation through the oncoming generations. The Church and the State regulate that process because it is a matter of vital importance. Because homosexual persons are not generally participants in this supremely important act of procreation, at least at the physical level (no one ever quickened a turd nor was impregnated by cunnilingus), they have more often than not been viewed with suspicion by or as actually undermining society. Like lepers of old, those afflicted with same sex attraction disorder tend to be ostracized by the larger community. Which is not to deny their common humanity, only that the practice of their affliction makes them mistrusted by, and often revolting to, those committed to the mainstream values of the community.
The Left has always been the force that seeks to undermine the larger society, and it does so by demanding that the transgressive behaviors they champion be not only accepted but applauded by society at large. Since the self conscious orgiastic sacrileges committed on the altar of Notre Dame during the French Revolution to Man Boy Love Association members proudly marching in Gay Pride parades, it remains the same. It is all of a piece: erode cultural norms, especially those associated with religion in order to bring about a future that no one can imagine because the envelope is continually being pushed further an further out. History attests to the fac that the Left is very skilled at the processes of destruction, but when finally achieving power, utterly unable to formulate and implement a sane, rational and constructive policy.
The West has inherited from Christianity an empathy for victims which is exploited by the Left. Every misfit of whatever stripe is presented as a victim whose pains society is required to assuage. The world is an imperfect place inhabited by variously imperfect people, there is nothing that can be done to make everyone’s sense of inadequacy about their flaws disappear. Yet this is the impossible task to which the Left is attempting to force society to commit itself. For well OVER a century the Left has been given leave to pursue it’s madness, undermining rather than building, and dragging us all along in their descent. The gayness issue is just another of many moles gnawing away at the foundations.
What the gay community attacks by bludgeoning us with the gay marriage issue is the nuptial relation between the sexes and their naturally creative role in engendring new members of society and the transmissing of culture. These roles have been functionally in place since the end of the last ice age, and are inherent in the human species. Thus they are blessed, not created by religion and the state.
The Left argues that the abolition of the nuptial relationship (ultimately nothing less is being argued for, as it reduces all relationships to a level in which none is any different than any other) would not create any problems for society in the future. I’ve heard that one before, and not so much doubt that it is true, but am certain that it is not simply considering the source and said source’s deplorable track record.
Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not discriminate against gays, it discriminates in favor of a healthy society and a stable culture.
#42 “The primary sins of “Progressives” like you often consist of expecting me to prostitute my language. No thank you, I don’t want to do it.”
You can call it ‘ice cream cone’ for all I care. What does it matter to you if a same sex couple calls their union marriage? How will this impact your life? Better yet, how will it negatively impact your marriage (I’m assuming you’re married)? If the answer is yes, then what you need is not a vote or a law preventing gays from getting married, you need to see a marriage counselor.
The state has no compelling interest in affording opposite sex couples special status and telling same sex couples to go to the back of the bus. If you put aside all your cultural values and look at this as a matter purely of law in terms of equal protection it’s a no brainer. It was notable the defense (Prop. 8 supporters) only brought two expert witnesses and the judge basically eviscerated one of them. If this does make it to the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee that they will hear the case I believe Judge Water’s sound ruling will be upheld. Believe it or not,if you look at their record, you won’t be surprised if Justices Kennedy and Alito join with the majority in a 6-3 decision. Upholding it WOULD be the conservative outcome.
You’ve got some pretty selective Biblical quotations there, Charles (#19). You might also note that the Bible (in Deuteronomy) prescribes death for adultery and disobedient sons.
“So using that logic, if Judge Walker had been hetero and had ruled to uphold the bigotry that underpins prop 8, would it have guaranteed his support?”
I think maybe that word doesn’t mean what you think it does;
noun
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion:
What is irrational about hating homosexuals?
Homosexuals are extremely destructive to society. That is because they recruit instead of breed, so you have queers promoting queers on the basis of sex instead of merit. It ruins any corporation, to have sexual favors replacing merit as the main route to promotion.
If you want 2 examples where that has lead to major social problems, I give you BP and Fannie Mae (both famous for their homosexuals). BP with the gulf OIL spill and FNMA with the financial meltdown of ’08. Granted, they were not solely responsible, but the promotion thru sex instead of merit eventually destroys any organization. It rots away at the core.
Then there is the FACT that over 70% of serial killers are homosexuals. It isn’t known if they are serial killers then homosexuals or homosexuals then serial killers. Regardless, there is a link.
So what is irrational about hating queers?
Then there is the damage homosexuals are doing to the civil rights movement. Civil Rights are about conditons that the person involved has no choice over. Black, Female, short, tall, left handed, etc.
Homosexuals made a choice. Sort of like arsonists.
If homosexuals get civil rights, why not arsonists? child molesters and every other social deviant out there.
Here is a new word for you;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_%28sociology%29
{snipped}
“Deviance in a sociological context describes actions or behaviours that violate cultural norms including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime) as well as informal violations of social norms”
The judge should have disqualified himself.
Something has dawned on me, reading the comments here: the “law” is effective only as long as people believe that it is “law” (something that is constant, universal, and impartial). Once people come to the belief that the b”law” is not these things, it will cease to be “law”. Americans have believed that we lived under a common law called the Constitution, and that we all lived by certain rules. What we have seen is that the Left, having effective control of the legal branch of government, has poured contempt on that belief. There is a tipping point for our society when enough people conclude that there is no longer any “law” that can be trusted. This will result in one of two things–the end of the American experiment, or the Second American Revolution.
#5 Chris Bolts Sr
Sir,
You are not helping the cause with statements like this one: “…since the dawn of humanity, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”
Embarassing.
HumboltBlue “Marriage is a secular, state-sanctioned act. You don’t get the benefits of marriage from a church, you receive them from the state so to deny one citizen rights you guarantee to another in unconstitutional.”
if marriage were a civil right then why would one need a license to marry? The civil institution of marriage as opposed to the religious sacrament of matrimony is a collection of civil privileges bestowed by the state on qualified individuals. the state determines the qualifications, the benefits, and has it’s own reasons for conferring the benefits and does so through laws enacted by it’s elected representatives.
In general the state supports marriage because it is the bedrock of families and helps ensure the legitimacy and hence support of the children of married couples. Since homosexual “families” cannot produce legitimate offspring their very existence in fact encourages illegitimate offspring through artificial means or through the hiring of surrogates. The state therefore does have a rational societal reason for denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage.
The judge is wrong and will be reversed yet again. The damage he is doing to the federal court system, the constitution, and the country will be permanent. We are near civil collapse in this country and when it comes it is going to be sudden, devastating, and a complete surprise to all sides. Real change is like that. god help us all when it comes.
#47
WTF?
#44 Boy, you’re funny! I like the “no one ever quickened a turd nor was impregnated by cunnilingus” line. That’s clever! But you are also assuming an awful lot in terms of what people gay (even straight) do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Have you seen a straight porn movie lately? If you have you’d notice that most of the guys in them can’t get enough of the chicks backside (speaking of turd quickening) and the girl on girl action. Whoa, lot’s of that going on too (speaking of cunnilingus)! So why don’t you just bury your heterosexual marriage promotes a “healthy society and a stable culture” in the garbage where it belongs. If you want help in destroying marriage look to Britney Spears or Bristol Palin.
The bottom line you 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.
Your argument against gay marriage is puerile nonsense, & that’s 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. FAIL!
#45. Praetorian
I really don’t care if a gay couple wants to refer to their relationship as a marriage, I object to me being forced to refer to it as a marriage by force of law. And that’s what its really all about. The prostitution of the language by force of law.
I’d understood when I voted for Prop 8 that it had the effect of reserving the word “marriage” for unions of one man and one woman, without affecting the ability of the state legislature to afford all other forms of union equal rights, except the right to call it by the single, unqualified term, marriage. In other words, the ballot initiative amounted to protecting the traditional meaning of the term marriage without otherwise affecting the rights of anyone.
If I’m a bigot, it’s about the sanctity of established use of language and against the hijacking of it to muddy its established meaning.
And I’m enough of a bigot to expect gay creativity sufficient to create suitable new language to characterize unions other than those traditionally called marriage, and to seek legislative adoption of them into law. In that I remain disappointed with gay talent.
The federal judge appears to have adjudicated a red herring cause of action.
#46
For what its worth while we are using the Bible argument…
(Old Testament – home of Deuteronomy – which you use to show some perceived irrationality with using Biblical verses to illustrate a point, a prophecy from Jeremiah)
Jeremiah 31: 31-34
“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
(New Testament which throws out many of the perceived irrationalities for modern times that certain individuals repeatedly use to try to illustrate the “craziness” of Christians)
Luke 22: 19-20
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me; Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
To use Old Testament quotes to try to demonstrate an alleged irrationality within Christianity is being far more selective than the mostly New Testament (basis of Christianity) quotes that Charles chose to argue his point.
While I have no idea (nor do I care) what your stance on the issue at hand is using Old Testament quotations to attempt to show a perceived irrationality within Christianity is intellectually dishonest. Given that the entire basis of Christianity is derived from Christ’s words; references to stoning, dismemberment, or any other harshness in the ancient past are meaningless.
Praetorian,
I think the greatest irony of it all is the backwards application of equality.
Separate but equal — it was the supreme court itself that told us that is not equal.
Take a time machine to the street only a few decades ago and ask what marriage equality means, and they’d tell you about the travesty of unequal burden between men and women in marriage. They might even bring up patriarchy, and a number of other phrases that amount to epithets in their eyes.
Now tell them that a judge wants an all-male relationship to be the new model of marriage equality. Tell them that the right to be segregative is now to be equalized with the integrated.
Or, take that time machine into the future and tell the children who wonder why they never had a father, or never had a mother, that the prejudice which shunned that person from their full status in the family was nothing more than the sexual bias (prejudice, even) of their mother or father.
Its a tough sell. Neutering the gender-equality of “one man and one woman” from marriage will be seen as one of the most oppressive things one group of society did to another since slavery and abortion.
Marriage equality is the equal rights recognition of each member of the procreational unit; the man, the woman, and the child they potentially create together.
Yet as a progressive cause, nothing has been such a step backwards for our humanitarian concern for equal treatment as endorsing the segregation of same-sex relationships for adult preference only as equal to that primal humanitarian concern of helping with the equality of the mother, father and child.
I think the religious argument is a red-herring for many of the reasons mentioned.
That marriage is recognized by religions and governments alike is a form of consensus. You’ll find marriage has been recognized by strictly atheist governments, as well as religions who care nothing about government endorsement (see FLDS polygamy/rape case which is also in recent news).
Prop 8 did not win on religious zealotry, but on the ability to convince the populace that marriage equality is important — as long as that marriage equality endorses equal behavior between the man, woman and child they potentially have together.
I think the articles about Judge Walkers presumed sexual orientation simply shows that since that equality is not his priority, it should not be a priority for the government. Well, that is perfectly sound rational for him to vote against Prop 8, but falls far short of enough to over-rule a constitutional amendment.
It´s a real comfort these people doesn´t survive. How come a judge, homosexual can leave the door wide open to the muslims? He must be a traitor of the constitution?
In Orwell’s 1984 the protagonist Smith writes “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
The converse is also true, that tyranny is being forced to say that two plus two equals five. If that is enforced, slavery follows.
Can anyone factually point to any widespread adverse effects upon society that would result from homosexual marriage, when consenting adults from a tiny minority of the population engage in purely voluntary social arrangements that involve gay sex?
I would be more interested in the widespread positive effects.
#19 Charles – The argument from authority is one of the oldest logical fallacies, and one committed repeatedly by the authors of tracts – none of whom seem to realise that quoting scripture doesn’t convince anyone who isn’t already convinced.
Anyway, I’ll say it again. Something written by a collection of religious fanatics two thousand (or more!) years ago is not proof. Especially if it has been badly translated, repeatedly. And even more especially when it’s so obvious from reading that stuff that the authors had an axe to grind.
“When the first knave met the first fool, then was created the first priest.”
Person – “Can anyone factually point to any widespread adverse effects upon society that would result from homosexual marriage, when consenting adults from a tiny minority of the population engage in purely voluntary social arrangements that involve gay sex?”
Person the issue is not consenting adults engaging gay sex but rather whether the state should confer certain civil benefits and concomitant responsibilities on people engaging in gay sex. The benefits in question like tax breaks, protections against being forced to testify against a spouse, inheritance rights, the right to financial support, pension rights, and a host of others all come with certain responsibilities and together they were primarily designed to support and encourage procreation. It is that procreative function civil society supports and it does so because any society needs a next generation to, excuse my French, wipe our old wrinkly arises when we are in the nursing home and pay off our debts after we are dead and gone, and yes maybe tend our graves.
Because gay marriage does nothing procreatively except blur the lines of parental origin and responsibility it is an outright hazard to society and should not be legally supported or at least that is a finding of fact best left to the legislature or the people and not the courts.
Ultimately the reason why the gay community is so he’ll bent on gay marriage has almost nothing to do with the actual civil benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage and everything to do with the social recognition and acceptance of homosexuality. Even if the judge could confer the legal right to marry the social acceptance is beyond and governments power to confer. For my own part I couldn’t care les who sodomizes who as long as I don’t have to watch, nor do I care if a church sanctified gay marriage or only heterosexual ones. But I do care what kind of relationships my government supports and encourages because that support costs me money and potentially affects my nursing home care.
Seems like everyone is arguing gay marriage, but I think the more important point here is the assertion of States rights, which is becoming more pronounced. I think this is a great thing, the one thing that may lead us out of this morass if it becomes widespread.
This is one of many prominent disputes that revolve aroung this theme. The AZ immigration law, and Missouri vote regarding health care mandates, are but a few of the big, high profile items that embrace this theme. I think this Judges ruling, as well as the recent AZ ruling, will move us another step in the right direction, so I applaud them.
Decentralization of political power is in itself a good thing, and we should all embrace it. The more the Feds overreach, the stronger this movement will become. It can’t happen fast enough for me.
Our host asks “Conflicts normally either disincentive the parties from further argument or egg them on. In this case, the eggs have it. The question is: why?”
Maybe because the Federal gov’t has thrown all caution to the wind, and decided that they will pass whatever they can, regardless of the popular support for the particular policy. Maybe because enough of our citizens have figured out that they can no longer get out of the way?
I’ve said it here before: the only significant political power that has any legitimate chance of challenging the Feds are the individual States.
We can elect GOP majorities in the House and Senate, God willing, but that only provides a blocking mechanism. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem. The Feds have overstepped their boundaries in a big way, and it didn’t start with Obama. He’s just doubled down, and is throwing it in everyones’ faces so they can no longer ignore it.
The problem is that the Federal Gov’t is too big, unwieldy, and has usurped power that is not rightfully theirs. Putting different people in charge may reduce the problem, but it won’t eliminate it. Decentralizing political power is the answer, and I’m hoping that people are starting to get the picture, even if they don’t think of it in those terms.
The saying is that it’s always darkest before the dawn. My hope is that this is one of those times, and our offspring will look back on this as a very difficult period in our Nations history that nevertheless produced a great new political realignment that eventually allowed this Country to return to what it should be. I’m optimistic that this will happen.
Joe Hill @ 62: “Person the issue is not consenting adults engaging gay sex but rather whether the state should confer certain civil benefits and concomitant responsibilities on people engaging in gay sex”
Nope.
What is at issue is the liberty to call things by their right names. Pretended marriage among same-sex couples is one thing, but requiring others to use that word (a transparent falsehood) to describe it is tyranny.
One of the major sources of Soviet power was the constant, daily lying required of the population. Forcing fathers to lie to sons and mothers to lie to daughters was humiliating and disarming, which was its intention. Calling sexual congress between two males or to females a “marriage” is a lie, no matter what authority promulgates the requirement.
THAT’S the issue, as so perfectly expressed by Lenin: “Who? Whom?”
Do you rule yourself, do you rule your mind, or does the revolutionary vanguard? Stay tuned.
#62-Joe Hill,
You have presented the bigger picture that gay activists never seem to get. The narcissist position of radical gay marriage proponents ignores the social responsibilty question entirely. It denigrates the concept of self control and giving up immediate pleasures for the long-term good. For the most part, partners in childless marriages accept these concepts. Society as a whole benefits when individuals are willing to look beyond their immediate desires, and there is nothing wrong with laws that reinforce that behaviour. At some point, gays are going to have to ask themselves whether the radicals really speak for them.
It’s instructive that the pro-gay marriage commenters think it’s positive thing that a judge with a vested interest in a case overrules a citizen referendum on the issue under consideration. At least there is “transparency,” if not respect for democracy.
“Marriage is a secular, state-sanctioned act. You don’t get the benefits of marriage from a church, you receive them from the state so to deny one citizen rights you guarantee to another in unconstitutional.”
Slippery slope – The Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered/Others lobby will now sue any clergyman who will not marry them. The Feds will remove the Church’s tax exempt status.
Part of the judgement reads:
“Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. ”
I must have lived a closeted life because I do not recall ever reading about same sex marriage in the history books.
The historical core of the institution of marriage? How do you keep religion out of the historical core?
The adverse impact of sanctioning same sex marriage and promoting, rather than reigning in, sexual acting out in general are well documented and should be clear to anyone who does not wish to flee from the truth.
In those European countries in which sexual license has been promoted and marriage has been changed from one thing into something entirely different, out-of-wedlock birth rates have skyrocketed. In Scandinavian countries that legalized homosexual marriage over a decade ago, the number of children being born without stable two-parent families quickly began to exceed 50%. Not to mention the more general problem of those countries, because of their embrace of liberalism in general, facing demographic suicide in the next 50 years.
Now, you can argue that homosexuals can be just as good parents as heterosexuals, but you can’t argue that same sex couples can do as good a job of raising children without simultaneously arguing that there is no difference between a father and a mother or, for that matter, a man and a woman.
Chesterton said that “without the family we are helpless against the state.” These people know that, which is why same sex marriage is such a holy grail to the left. Most homosexuals couldn’t give a rat’s ass about being married. This is about destroying who we are and replacing us with a new kind of man.
Looking at the number of anti-Proposition 8 trolls here, one wonders what the troll tsunami would be like were the Russians to invade San Francisco “on behalf” of that city’s gay population!
For the stupid and uniformed:
1)All legitimate laws for the protection and preservation of society are based on religious morality (Thou shall not steal, thou shall not murder, etc…)
2) There is NO Constitutional basis for redefining marraige. The Constitution leaves such matters to the States to decide; therefore, this abomination in his filthy black robe is the epitome of unconstitutional.
@Praetorian
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
There are people who do not believe in gay marriage because it violates their religious beliefs and/or they view it as detrimental overall to a functioning society.
A good portion of these are not against civil unions, even to the point of being legally equivalent to marriage.
A vast majority, I suspect, don’t have animosity to homosexuals, but instead view the attempts to redefine marriage as an assault on their ideals and beliefs.
In essence, they are opposed based on principles, and for rational reasons, even if they might be wrong or their rationals weaker than the counter-argument.
“I understand that the Prop. 8 supporting bigots don’t view marriage through the same lens as most rational human beings.” – Praetorian
Bigot is as bigot does, Praetorian.
You, with your dismissive denigration and slander of, anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, bigoted. You reveal, with your little rant, the darker nature of the movement you are championing.
You decry supposed bigotry while at the same time using it yourself as a vile club, which is apparently somewhat of a specialty of the left nowadays. You are not interested in dialogue and tolerance, but of beating your opponents into the ground using whatever tactics you deem proper.
Let me rework your statement a bit:
“I understand that the anti-democratic bigots challenging a legally passed measure don’t view democracy through the same lens as most rational human beings.”
How’s that sound?
For the record, I am agnostic on Gay Marriage. I get the arguments for both and against (rational people do that). I also don’t think the Republic will fall if it becomes the law of the land, and that the institution of marriage has bigger threats.
I also, however, have some questions on what is the point of getting it, how that is done, what the real agenda might be behind it for some, and as someone else pointed out, what the precedent might bring.
If its bigoted to actually THINK about the issue in its entirety, then guilty as charged.
So who rules this land?
Is it we the people? Or a tiny elite that despises us?
Because it seems to me this isn’t really about gay marriage so much as it is about governance. Bluntly, the elite and the minority of the public that supports them are unwilling to abide by the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution. Sure- they’ll use the Constitutional machinery if they find it in their hands but failing that they will just issue a decree or simply ignore laws that don’t suit them.
And the public is noticing- a process no doubt helped mightily by the elite unwillingness to accept the numerous rejections gay marriage has received at the hands of the voters.
Sooner or later there will be a reckoning in this country. Either the elite will be brought to heel and taught to accept the rule of law as the Founders intended- or the public will give up on the Constitution-as-practiced and look for other means to defend their interests.
Interesting times…
52. Praetorian
Not all sexual acts are procreative acts. The fact that hetero couples enjoy other forms of sexual acts does not obviate the fact that only ‘regular’ hetero intercourse can ever lead to conception. Some individuals are not really equipped psychologically to be parents, sadly the list is a lot longer than the standard honor roll of celebrity disasters. When it comes to child raising no family is perfect. The fact of universal imperfection does not obviate the fact that the family is the best mechanism for engendering and raising children there is. The same is true of childless marriages, whether voluntarily childless or not.
As for the paucity of witnesses, the threats against potential witnesses in favor of Prop 8 certainly had much to do with the low number. Threats and intimidation are standard tactics of the Left and were in play here. Gay Nation rioting on my lawn or in my place of business would certainly make me reconsider my willingness to testify had I been asked.
Late to the party but…
This aint about gays or marriage. Its about the culture. If the idea that is so basic to human culture (marriage between a male and a female) is wrong , what can be right? If nothing is right, nothing is wrong. SO license is rampant. Let the games begin.
Part of what happens as a result of this is cognitive dissonance. Either we go mad or we get sane.
Here is what this decision is truly based on. Tenet #6 of Humanist Manifesto 2
SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.
Other tenets and the preface to this document repeatedly state that all religions offering salvation and an afterlife and judgment are irrational and outmoded. So then, they are bound and determined to eliminate any law based on God and the things of God. Sooner or later, they will come for us who believe.
The leftists routinely fall back on the “equal protection” argument when it suits their purpose; but where are they when congress or the administration enact legislation or regulations designed to favor one industry over another or that disparately impact one group of citizens over another?
The issue of homosexual rights and marriage in particular will, if
such “marriage” becomes the law of the land, become a primary weapon in the war against organized religion in general and Christianity in particular. The
legal basis laid and the “right” established it will be but a short
time before the secular state takes action to mandate that such
“marriages” be performedy by clergy in churchs and temples. To do
otherwise would be to perpetuate the “bigotry” under which homosexuals
have suffered. Individual pastors and the churches they work in
will be sued in civil court and eventually (sooner rather than
later) criminal statutes will be passed in an effort to force
an embrace of depravity.
“…benefits of marriage…” WTF????
Let me recount the benefits;
Higher taxes
Expensive, complicated and potentially financially disasterous divorce laws
Burdensome paternity penalties
State interference in the raising of your children
Discriminatory governmental policies against the children of married couples (if my wife and I had never married our children would have been given preferential treatment when applying for college loans and grants instead of being flat-out denied).
The only reason that the State got involved in the Marriage business is so that they could get their hands on some money. The idea that the State has any business licensing a religious observance is repugnant. If they are issuing a legal document that reflects a shorthand way of defining the legal obligations between a man and a woman that have been married that is one thing. The same thing can be accomplished by civil unions. Almost ever other license that the State issues requires some sort of proof of competency, they got in on the marriage thing because they knew nearly everybody was going to be doing it and wanted some cash out of the deal. There is no test or qualifications that I know of, no demonstrable skill set that can be objectively assessed.
The idea that I have to purchase the “privilege” to marry the way I would the privilege to go fishing is foul beyond description. The forms filled out reflect a burden, imposed by the State, that I am willing to accept to fulfill my responsibility to the woman that I love.
BTW; Teresita 18. The pastor/priest/justice of the peace says, “By the power invested in me by the state of _______ I now pronounce you man and wife.”
I didn’t hear that at MY wedding. As if I could give a tinker’s damn about the powers of the State, or who they have been invested in, when it comes to something that important.
Even following the quote you prove the point that a marriage is a man and a woman unless I am way off in my understanding of what “man” and “wife” mean in the English language.
Sorry about the long rant.
Nice pick-up, Bold Believer. I’d read that but forgotten about it. Interesting how they say they’re against sexual exploitation, when what they’re doing is trying to turn the clock back to a time when, as with the Greeks, sex was primarily about who did it to whom or what, dominance and submission. When women were basically slaves or prostitutes, most boys were victims of pedophilia, and homosexuality was culturally promoted to the point of being normative behavior.
G-d hardened his heart.
A Rabbi, Yosef Edelstein of the Savannah Kollel writes:
—
The Chofetz Chayim explains that [G-d] did not, in fact, take away Pharaoh’s free will. When the Torah says that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it means, simply, that G-d took away the divine assistance that is usually offered to a person who sincerely wants to repent. … Our Rabbis wanted to teach us that we need help from G-d Himself if we want to achieve complete repentance. By hardening Pharaoh’s heart, Hashem is, in effect, saying to Pharaoh, “If you want to repent, you’ll have to do it on your own. I withdraw My helping hand from you.” Pharaoh’s free will is not taken away, then; he can still choose to change his ways, and act righteously. But the path will not be so smooth.
—-
As a nation, following the murder of Terri Schlinder, the Texas v Lawrence decision, and now this …
Our path back will not be so smooth.
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
The “conservative case” for same-sex marriage collapses.
BY Stanley Kurtz
February 2, 2004, Vol. 9, No. 20
ShareThis
Printer-friendly version
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
If a Constitutional “right” can be woven out of aberrant sexual behavior then who needs a Constitution?
I suppose that’s the point of it all. Law and custom are obstacles for those who know better.
Wretchard,
I think that you are on the mark in more ways than one. A few years ago I read an interesting essay called, “Conciliating Hatred“. Oddly enough, it talks about the very reasoning that Walker used in his judgement.
Walker, it seems, has found animus as the only motivation for being for Prop 8. I disagree with that, naturally, but lets take that finding for what it is. From the essay,
Essentially, to found a decision on animus is a political rather then a legal maneuver. And, like fingernails clinging to the cliffs edge, is the last resort of the amoral to find some kind of morality to justify legal reasoning itself. It is the nice dovetail that reconciles the otherwise inherent contradiction in Walker’s ruling where he openly shows animus towards morality in the decision process of the voters, while appealing to the morality of friendliness to give him adequate legs to move the court the direction he wanted to.
His ruling is as contradictory and arbitrary as the King of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, and very much a last ditch political effort of a ruling class operative who happens to be in the judgement seat.
#49, cristina, so you know of when things were different then? This line from the ruling:
“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”
And here I thought gender was always important, namely, for purposes of procreation. Isn’t that why Adam complained to God and God gave him woman or, if you are an atheist or secular humanist or whatever, that evolution allowed for the creation of two distinct sexes within a species so that that species may continue to reproduce?
Also, it should be clarified that “one man, one woman” is a recent phenomenon. It took many centuries to eventually settle on the concept. Prior to that, men could marry many women and have many children (and some cultures do that. I believe some here are ridiculing Muslims for still continuing the practice). So if you think that there was time this was different then it is embarassing that you are not making your case.
I am not trying to help any case here. The very fact that a case must be made to defend marriage goes to show how far we have gone into Progressive la-la land.
42. Tcobb
#35. Praetorian
For me it’s simple. You cannot bring to a public vote an issue on the rights of a minority, especially if it conflicts with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The vote should have never been allowed to take place.
“I suspect that everything is simple to you, otherwise you couldn’t understand it at all. I really love your point about how “the vote should never have been allowed to take place.” How “Progressive” you are. It shows.”
“Praetorian” is a college student (by his own admission, on a previous PJ Media thread), and considers himself brilliant. He’s an immature little troll. Hope he doesn’t plan to hang around. Plese ignore him.
@50 if marriage were a civil right then why would one need a license to marry? The civil institution of marriage as opposed to the religious sacrament of matrimony is a collection of civil privileges bestowed by the state on qualified individuals.
Exactly. This is my whole bone of contention with the gay marriage issue. No one has the ‘right’ to marry because no one can be forced to marry. Marriage is a liberty two consenting adults must choose to enter into together. Just as the state bestows driving licenses upon those who are qualified to obtain the liberty of driving in that state. Physical qualifications must be fulfilled before an individual can prove to the state he is at liberty to drive a vehicle in accordance with state law. The legally blind cannot drive. The mentally ill cannot drive. If they were given the liberty to do so by the state, the right of every other citizen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be infringed upon by the blind/crazy person operating a moving vehicle who can kill them with their faulty liberties.
No one can be forced to get a license to drive but if you don’t have one and want to say to a cop who pulls you over, ‘i have the right to drive because i can’ you will be prosecuted for breaking the law. you didn’t follow the law by properly obtaining the license to do so by satisfying the requirements civil society holds for drivers to drive amongst us. similarly people who want to marry must prove they are at liberty to fulfill the requirements of marriage. no one is saying that someone who is blind/mentally ill doesn’t have the right to get from Point A to Point B; they simply cannot do so by operating a moving vehicle. They are free to take public transportation. Civil union:marriage license ::: public transportation:a drivers license.
Homosexuals are NOT in charge of their own destinies because they refuse to procreate naturally. This is the true danger to society. No one on the left is concerned about these children of gay marriages who result from test tubes and artificial insemination and women selling their offspring to homosexual couples. None of those people care that there are generations of children being raised who have no history or identities. It’s codified child abuse to say that these things don’t matter, that as long as kids have two parents they’re fine. But what do you expect from people who say abortion’s all right, gender reassignment’s normal, etc. All first world problems. Nothing that exists in societies where survival is all that matters.
Prop 8 was passed in the most liberal and tolerant state in the Union on the issue of homosexuality. In no place in the U.S. have open gay lifestyles been more tolerated or more welcomed. Yet, despite that tolerance, a majority of californians are against gay marriage.
Therein lies a yawning gap between the left and many of their supposed “constituency.” I think it’s safe to say that a majority of blacks and latinos do not support gay marriage. These folks are among the most socially conservative of Americans, despite their voting patterns. Washington, DC has instituted gay marriage, against the will and approval of the majority of the city’s population. I wonder how this paradox is going to play out?
So who rules this land?
Is it we the people? Or a tiny elite that despises us?
Because it seems to me this isn’t really about gay marriage so much as it is about governance.
Precisely. The “Consent of the Governed.” But then, that comes from the Declaration of Independence, a document that has been dismissed for some time by progressives for its adherence to Natural Law and other radical, subversive notions.
John 2:13-22, Jesus whipped and chased the perverter’s out of the temple! Jesus showed anger and acted angrily… One of the few times the Lamb (Jesus) shows anger while in fleshly form. Jesus return will not be as the Lamb but as the Lion roaring, hungry to devour those not of his pride (kingdom), unimaginable horrors and pain will suffer those (perverter’s) that have rejected God on the days following the Lion’s return. So many signs point to the coming, even the blind are seeing these sign’s yet will they repent? No says the lord for they will denie the truth and seal their fate.
It’s not about gay marriage at all. It is about who gets to decide – the citizens or our Federal Masters? The Ninth Circus has appointed themselves as Philosopher Kings, changing the law of California at the wave of a hand. And they have been doing it for decades.
Interesting that this latest event took place in California. A long time ago in California, there was a period when the Powers that Be got so corrupt, so arbitrary, and so venal that the citizens rose up and started having trials in the streets followed shortly afterwards by punishment for the convicted. They ended up being called Vigilantes.
I do not think we are all that far from the second coming of the Vigilance Committees. I see tar, feathers and rope in our future.
# 75 “The fact of universal imperfection does not obviate the fact that the family is the best mechanism for engendering and raising children there is.”
You have no evidence to support this view. Read the trial transcript.
#93, why is it that those who are against the Progressives’ thinking must present evidence to support their view, but the Progressives, who are universally right, are never required to present evidence to support theirs?
I do believe that someone posted an article from the esteemed Stanley Kurtz. Try reading that, or read some of Maggie Gallagher’s work. However, that does entail you wanting to be informed by a different point of view.
Praetorian,
You perhaps need to read the trial transcript as well as the judgement.
They both presented a lot of evidence which suggest that the low-conflict in-tact family is the most advantageous for children to be raised in.
What the trial and judgement did in the face of that evidence was claim that a homosexuality made no difference in some specifically measured outcomes of children.
If you conflate the latter as ruling out the former, that is your own mistake. For the former does not claim to know if the intact families have homosexuals in them (though we seem to see children do okay if they do). And the latter makes no pretense on whether the families it monitors are intact or not, in fact they specifically compare apples to apples by choosing a fair amount of non-intact families (single parents, step-parents, co-habiting adults) to make the comparison more fair to the same-sex couples (which are always comprised of at least one step-parent).
In short, the “no evidence” claim is unjustified in this case.
#94,
Add Margaret Sommerville, David Blankenhorn, and Kay Hymnowitz to that list (Kay being my favorite). Margeret even makes the case that neutering marriage (i.e. removing the gendered nature of marriage) winds up violating children’s rights to know their heritage. Anywhere that you find people saying any two people can raise your children as well as you can (I’ve even seen some suggest that if you are a man then any two women can raise them better!) you’ll encourage people to not care about the heritage you can provide your own children.
I’ll also make a shameless plug for Opine Editorials, in existence since 2005 has been daily making the secular case for equal gender representation in marriage. There is a resources section which provides links to many studies and reviews of studies which find that the intact family is the best for children. The link from my name goes to that site.
This ties in nicely with the other threads above, Texas, Arizona and now California have all had the “will of the people” overridden and have been dictated to by a Federal appointee, either from a Judge’s bench or the halls of a Federal Bureaucracy. The break between the Rulers and the Ruled is becoming more and more apparent.
#9 Karen: You say that the heart of the issue is that “Proposition 8 amounts to legislating morality”. As if there were no rational reason outside of some “moral code” to support an institution intended to encourage biological parents to raise their own children and otherwise provide for the stability of families.
But Judge Walker’s decision clearly reflects HIS OWN personal morality – his moral code.
And he apparently believes that his moral code is superior to the ethical systems of all previous successful civilizations, as well as the “morality” of his benighted fellow-countrymen. PLUS he KNOWS that expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will NEVER, EVER, in future generations, ” affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”
He knows the future because he is part of our Legal Priesthood.
And he worries about gays and lesbians being offered an equivalent to marriage by a different name because “the cultural meaning” of marriage id withheld from same-sex marriage in domestic partnerships. Which may be true. But it is also true that he is CHANGING the “cultural meaning” of marriage. In other words, he wants to legislate his morality from the bench.
Stephanie: If they were given the liberty to do so by the state…
The state does not give liberty. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinefs are inalienable rights granted by the Creator. The state was formed by the consent of the governed to be the guarantor of those rights. In this case, however, the state has stepped in to take away the liberty of two womenfolk from getting hitched.
Stephen Johnson: 2) There is NO Constitutional basis for redefining marraige. The Constitution leaves such matters to the States to decide; therefore, this abomination in his filthy black robe is the epitome of unconstitutional.
Before 1967, some states decided to define marriage as only between people of the same race. Same-race marriage was thrown out only after the courts intervened.
California already had civil unions for gays that granted them every government recognized benefit of a marriage.
Everything except mastery over the definition of the word itself.
This case was not about winning new rights. They had those rights already. It was not about tolerance. California is one of the most tolerant places in the world.
It was about forcing the majority to submit to a militant minority who is seeking control over the very language we use.
#99 Teresita,
When you get down to it, Prop 8 didn’t even take that away. Two women could get hitched, even call their relationship a marriage and get private entities to recognize it as such.
All it took away was their ability to put the jack-boot of the government on the necks of people who want to support responsible procreation, to having to support adult centered sexual lifestyles as the same name.
Also to correct your #100,
In 1967 some states decided to regulate (not define) marriage to force whites to marry whites. Other inter-racial marriages were not regulated against.
The decision stated that integration should not be regulated against. When whites argued that they could not, and should not integrate with blacks in any meaningful marital way, they were the precursors of people today who also argue that their intolerance and bigotry should be supported by the state. Those that say because they are gay they cannot have representation from either men or women in their marriage. That their identity gives them exclusion because they cannot integrate in any meaningfully marital way with the other gender.
Whether or not that is true, my take on this is that a constitutional amendment affirming the expectation of equal gender representation is anything but representative of the animus and bigotry that Judge Walker is tilting at.
Re #27 “Most Americans realize this, and judges like this one will be lucky to live long and healthy lives.” He will not. Homos’ average lifespan (~45) is approximately half of the healthy population. You do not see 70 years old homos around.
Re #34 “Can anyone factually point to any widespread adverse effects upon society that would result from homosexual marriage, when consenting adults from a tiny minority of the population engage in purely voluntary social arrangements that involve gay sex?”
AIDS, anyone?
What I don’t understand is why so many otherwise sensible people keep having gay children. If I were a sensible person—which I am not, I can assure you— it would be the last thing on earth that would occur to me to do. I wish these people would stop. I find gay people very distracting. Especially at the gym.
I believe the decent and merciful thing to do is pitchfork these miscreant infants in the crib before they go off fixing up old houses and sodomizing each other with so much delight. I only mean the homosexuals here. Calm down. Heterosexuals may fix up as many old houses as they want.
My own feeling (and I must stress, it is merely a feeling, with no rational or religious basis whatsoever) is that we should declare a moratorium on child-bearing for a little while—say 100 years—hardly an eye blink in Heavenly time—so that men and women of good conscience, clean minds and wholesome habits can take a deep, thoughtful breath and figure out they are doing so monstrously wrong.
I mean, honestly, between us, we are all fiends here. I mean friends. (See how a small transcription error can alter the meaning of a word entirely?) Perhaps, before we consider the legal question of gay marriage, we should first ask ourselves: who is perpetuating this problem in the first place?
“Not I,” said the duck. “I blame Barack Obama.”
Another point about gay marriage has been made on my side of the pond, repeatedly. The main distinction between a real marriage and a gay civil union (whether called marriage or not, I don’t really care) is the possibility of children from a real marriage. I have no particular objection to gay couples publicly declaring a commitment to each other, and even to the tax breaks and other advantages – as long, that is, as the consequences of a breakup are the same.
However, there is an admittedly rather rare case that exposes some unfairness. There have been a number of fairly well-publicised cases in Britain of a pair of elderly spinster sisters, who have been living together in the same house for decades – and when one of them dies she has to sell the house to pay inheritance tax and has other related problems. It is impossible for such a couple to contract a civil union, simply because they are sisters. Why? To be somewhat crude, is it because they are unlikely to be fisting one another?
Sometimes the unstated expectation of ‘equality’ for an alternative lifestyle is not only equality of outcomes but equality in all things. And that implicitly includes equality in moral standing, social acceptance and in sanctity. Thus a church or mosque may not refuse to bless a relationship; no one may be allowed to express distaste for an arrangement and the slightest, subconscious aversion is a sign of bigotry that must be treated with therapy. Otherwise full equality is not achieved. To achieve this goal, government must mandate this auxiliary equalities and therein lies the problem.
A government of limited scope could only guarantee legal equality or equality of outcomes. It could not mandate a status outside its sphere. For years this was the case. Now the expectations have changed.
But although a government with unlimited aspiration can can send its writ anywhere the messenger would prefer not to be shown the door. That means it will deliver the message to the addresses of little old ladies and not to habitatants with a shotgun and a mean ol’ hound. It will go for the low hanging fruit first and then last, if ever at those who thumb its nose at the writ.
Marilyn Penn at Political Mavens asks “will gay Muslims be welcome at the Cordoba Mosque … How do enlightened thinkers such as Bloomberg, Quinn and Cuomo feel about supporting groups that discriminate against gays?”? Whatever they think they are likely to keep mum because Muslims unlike the ‘Christianists’ who are the bete noire of the Left, push back. Often they shoot back and bomb back. Human nature alone dictates that the Feds will bring up the subject of gay marriage there last, and then only in respectful tones, barefoot and veiled, performing the required reverences along the way.
This returns us to the first and original problem. Can a policy — whatever the moral and ethical considerations may be — be imposed on such a cavalier manner on a population that has explicitly rejected it? This is a hearts-and-minds problem. If Gessler proved anything it is that “booya”, as Pretorian puts it, doesn’t work in certain places in the world, although he may expect it to work in California. If you want to understand why any war by the Left eventually looks like Vietnam, go no further.
There is a great deal of wisdom to the policy of live and let live. When the Left gets in your face over something, it is often not about that something but about dominance. They get to stand over the Christianists in the hope that they can get the Christianists to stand over the Muslims. Too difficult otherwise.
Wretchard: If you want to understand why any war by the Left eventually looks like Vietnam, go no further.
The Revolutionary War was by the Left, the Righties in that conflict moved to Canada. The War of 1812 was merely part two of two. World War I and II were both wars “by the Left” that looked nothing like Vietnam. Korea is compared to Vietnam because it was fought to a “draw” rather than a clear victory, but it was nothing like Vietnam in reality. It was a traditional war against a clear-cut foe, not a counterinsurgency operation, and as the largest component of the Cold War it actually halted Communism in its tracks before it could gain Japan, the Philippines, and Formosa. Afghanistan was a Bush war, and the current “surge” is pure Bush. So the only war by the Left that looks like Vietnam is Vietnam.
Teresita:
You’re projecting.
Teresita:
The Revolutionary War was by the Left, the Righties in that conflict moved to Canada.
Interesting observation. How do you define Colonial Americans who were adamant about property rights and individual freedom as “the left?” They bore little resemblance to the genuine proto-left of the French revolution. There was nothing Jacobin about the founders, with the possible exception of Tom Paine, and even that is a stretch.
The American revolution was not a “class struggle” in the classic sense. It was fought by people who were used to prosperity on their own terms, and meant to keep it that way. Not exactly “leftist” sentiments.
Teresita 108…
Korea was an extension of the Chinese Civil War.
Even now most western historians are clueless as to what transpired:
Mao used his northern armies is if they were the NKVD…
And shoved the newly conquered southern armies into the frontal kill zone…
So that the Penal Battalion of Stalinist Russia was scaled up to army groups…
And the ENTIRE corps of southern China was dashed against the UN.
This was the real purpose of Maoist intervention. BTW the northern armies were scarcely blooded even after three years of conflict!
Vietnam was dominated by the recollections of China gone rogue. Not understanding what had happened in Korea, our best and brightest were constantly on guard for the Han boogie man going south in a big way.
In reality, the Korean slaughter had crippled the economy of Southern China. That and the fulsome distrust of the Peking boyz meant that southern ranks never had the new toys.
China was so militarily weak that she spent most of the 60′s stealing Russian overland aid and killing herself off with ‘True Chaos.’
But such was the American mind set, that we never went north. It took dang near forever to mine Hai Phong harbor.
Even our strategic bombers stayed south of the 17th parallel. ( Shades of the 38th and of Yalu River!)
The Korean part of the Korean War lasted but seven months, at best.
—–
Since I believe the Revolutionary War is invertedly named:
( It was clearly a Reactionary War — reactionaries want to go back to the way things were before — ie colonies without tariffs and bumped up stamp taxes just for them. The Royalist faction, almost without exception, derived their purse directly and indirectly from the Crown. Very few attorneys joined the Rebels — they were officers of the King’s Court. Likewise, shippers and what passed for big business ran to the Crown. Given enough time George III and Pitt managed to alienate even many of these citizens. This slow burn was especially pronounced in South which proved to be a catastrophe for the Crown.)
I also regard it a campaign that occurred BEFORE the terms Left and Right arose as ‘handles’ in the French uprising.
So, it is hard to pin such labels on Adams & Company vs the Crown & Company.
Feckless meddling with customs and traditions dating from time immemorial is an occupation rife with unintended consequences.
Or like we say here- “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke”.
107. wretchard
There is a great deal of wisdom to the policy of live and let live. When the Left gets in your face over something, it is often not about that something but about dominance. They get to stand over the Christianists in the hope that they can get the Christianists to stand over the Muslims. Too difficult otherwise.
…..
This presumes a cunning/shrewdness/canny/wisdom in the dark networks that my wag would be isn’t there–unless Elton John is channeling the dutch homosexual community and maybe some of the English pinks. The English like the dutch cannot help but recognize now that the game the Islamists there are playing is one of dominance. The trouble with both countries currently is that their christian communities are utterly supine. They are broken shattered shadows of their former selves. So they cannot be counted on for support.
However, America still has a vital grassroots Christian community.(Even if it is being steadily pushed out of the public square and generally delegitimized.)
Therefor Elton John’s building bridges American tour.
Elton John is against gay marriage.
Elton John is a rather prominent gay.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a disconnect between the European and American gay communities. It would fit a pattern of other leftist disconnects between Europe and American. The European socialists shot O down on his greater spending borrowing policy prescriptions in Canada.
Drew M. in a very discouraging post titled “The Prop 8 Decision And The Gulf Between The Legal Class And Citizens” at Ace of Spades, discusses how the decision by the Gay Judge was carefully written to thwart an appeal. Apparently, he made the key outrageous provisions of his decision ” a finding of fact ” in order that they be judged in our convoluted legal system under the difficult “strict scrutiny standard” for appeal. I am not an attorney but this sounds like real trouble, like perhaps where some higher court will rule there are no grounds for appeal.
Drew goes on further to discuss how these arbitrary standards have gained great currency in the legal world without ever being delineated at all in the Constitution. Just another example of the power grab over-reach of the Ruling Elite Aristocracy.
Don Rodrigo: Interesting observation. How do you define Colonial Americans who were adamant about property rights and individual freedom as “the left?”
The positions of the Left and Right vary back and forth according to the current zeitgeist of the society they are immersed in, because they always represent the Experimentalist and Traditionalist factions, respectively. Revolutionary vs. Reactionary. Surely you see this. The loyalists in the American colonies were the Tories, who largely fled to Canada. They accepted the divine right of the King to rule, which has a basis in scripture. Think of how the Democratic Party bloc that ruled the “Solid South” from Reconstruction until Nixon traded places with the GOP, such that we now have the specter of a black President extolling the lifetime accomplishments of a deceased Senator who had once been an Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan. Parties change, but Experimentalism vs. Traditionalism never changes.
Wretchard, #107: This returns us to the first and original problem. Can a policy — whatever the moral and ethical considerations may be — be imposed on such a cavalier manner on a population that has explicitly rejected it? This is a hearts-and-minds problem.
Hearts and minds are an afterthought to progressives at this point, for they have convinced themselves, rightly or wrongly, that time and demographics are on their side. That all they have to do is keep that benighted, intransigent population at bay for another generation or so until whites are no longer a majority, unmarried women (with or without children) outnumber married ones, and whole new legions of voters have been made dependent on Obamacare and other forms of government largesse enacted by the current administration. At that point, they will have achieved permanent majority status and, for all intents and purposes, complete and final victory over us pesky conservatives, and same-sex marriage will just be the flagpole planted at the tip of the iceberg.
As you have already pointed out, how much of that actually pans out remains to be seen. But that’s what progressives are staking their long-term political prospects on.
Teresita @108,
The Revolutionary War was by the Left, the Righties in that conflict moved to Canada.
Rubbish.
Using today’s categories of Left and Right in 18th Century America is risky business, but if you want to do that you have to first convert labels to durable categories. The Left is primarily a top-down, neo-feudal movement that believes that society is divided into those who rule and those who are ruled, and the rulers make the rules. The Right is primarily a bottom-up liberty movement that believes that everyone has certain inalienable rights, and that ordinary people are capable of self-governance. (Note that these categories are very different that Democrat and Republican, neither of which is reliably Left or Right.)
By these measures, the American Revolution was definitely a “revolution of the Right.”
Now, you may not like these categories, so I’ll use yours @115: Experimentalism vs. Traditionalism.
To the colonists, their life since coming to the New World was one of self-governance. There was no Parliament in America, and all taxes were locally levied. They lived exactly as they saw fit, setting their own rules based upon the traditions of their country of origin. And while they were subjects of the crown in theory, in reality they were free.
Their “tradition,” then, was self-governance. And this system allowed for stunning economic prosperity. Then, toward the end of the 18th Century, Parliament tried to change the rules; they “experimented” with levying a tax – the Stamp Act. This set off a firestorm of protest, not because the tax was economically material – it wasn’t – but because the colonists objected to the change in the traditional relationship between themselves and the Crown. They objected on principle: no taxation without representation.
Think about it: until then, representation wasn’t an issue because the colonies hadn’t been taxed by the Crown.
Read Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution, and it is plain: he is fighting to preserve the American system of self-governance. He would have preferred to stay in the Commonwealth. But he realized that once you give in on the principle of self-governance, it was just a matter of time before you lose your freedom.
So the colonists fought to preserve their tradition, their way of life. Even by your definition, it was a revolution of the Right.
The Tories wanted to change American to England. Just like today’s Left wants to transform America into Europe. The Left, far from being the descendants of the American Revolutionaries, are really the intellectual heirs of the Tories, right down to their faux aristocracy (Kennedy, Clinton, etc.) and use of conspicuous consumption to accentuate thier specialness (Chelsea’s wedding, Michelle’s Spanish holiday, etc.).
No, I’m sorry, your characterization of the American Revolution as perpetrated “by the Left” is utter nonsense.
Obviously, this is OT for the current thread, but coming from someone of your intelligence and reputation at the Belmont Club, I felt the need to set the record straight.
Cheers,
L3
Think of how the Democratic Party bloc that ruled the “Solid South” from Reconstruction until Nixon traded places with the GOP,…
Terrisita….
As typo prone as I am…
Still!
Nixon signed Affirmative Action into being by way of Executive Order in 1969. It was one of his first delightfully principled writs.
He also gave us the EPA, and reversed almost entirely the Democratic build-up of the American armed forces in Vietnam. Even before he left office in disgrace (Early August 1974) the US Army was out of the war.
Quite a change from Kennedy. The man who gave the West the Berlin Wall. We now know with absolute certainty that the Kremlin was going to give up entirely upon the project if Kennedy kicked the first wet mortared bricks over!
—-
BTW the Tories never fled to Ontario. It was a stately float up the St. Lawrence taking almost as long as the war for the last Tories to depart New York! Such was the Treaty of Paris enforced. Who left and stayed was left to individual choice: the Crown promised all loyal subjects an opportunity to displace elsewhere within the empire.
Indeed, some did leave the hemisphere, some left for the West Indies – -but the majority of Tories went north to torment the Reactionaries to this day.
The perfect example of such nobility is Robert MacNeil of the NewsHour fame. He was standing at the microphone as Nazi and Jewish positions on Israeli were ‘balanced’ equally. ( same air time – of course ) His was the prodigal son generations removed who has come down from Ontario to hector America — the lower status lower states — the lower caste.
But it is all too much to call a five-year moving schedule as ‘fleeing.’
BTW In all my times with Canadians, I’ve never met one who doesn’t feel that they come from a morally superior nation; that they benchmark themselves as America PLUS. The land of peace and mercy — dang near heaven it is.
Now if they want to brag on the Toronto bar scene — I have to tip my hat.
But, please, living a history that is more myth than most: America makes it possible for Canada to roar. Every nation on earth knows that if any attempt is ever made to invade Canada they can skip to the chase: they’ve just awoken big mama.
Praetorian @35. You wrote:
“BOOYA! In your face bigots! America and the Constitution will not back down! We will not relent. Not now. NOT EVAH. If necessary, we have Second Amendment solutions too and will fight to protect the Constitution as it applies to EVERY AMERICAN. This is what it means to be a real American and a real patriot. Let us chalk one up for the Constitution today. It is strong and it will survive the teabagger tantrums for many years to come.”
In spite of the fact that you appear to be an especially obnoxious and deranged tantrum thrower yourself, I actually agree with you with respect to the unconstitutionality of Prop 8. But I hope you will pull out your precious regard for the constitution when your progressive elite masters continue to shred it to pieces as they pass more and more legislation that denies liberty and opportunity to middle class Americans by massive growth in government, excessive taxation and regulatory extremism. You can’t have it both ways dude.
93. Praetorian
I have heard that communism is really a swell system; its only pity that it has never been done right…yet.
Let’s press on with all the stuff that has never worked or been properly tried, but for what reasoning?
Perhaps for the full blistful wickedness of it, hmmm?
To show what is really going on, try this: Put an initiative on the ballot
stating that no member of the clergy can be forced to perform a marriage ceremony
if such a marriage violates the tenets of his religion.
Watch the fur fly.
45. Praetorian
The state has no compelling interest in affording opposite sex couples special status
……..
A state that adapts this position commits suicide.
Now guess why?
This ain’t rocket science.
Praetorian 35 -
“Let us chalk one up for the Constitution today. It is strong and it will survive the teabagger tantrums for many years to come.”
Please check your facts. Tea Party groups have declined to take a position on SSM.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/13/AR2010071301436.html
Let’s see. Two hetero perps of the same sex commit a felony. While incarcerated and awaiting trial, they decide to get married. Now, they can’t be forced to testify against each other, right? They don’t actually have to be, or even act gay.
California Attorney General Brown, who is also running for Governor, has asked the Judge to immediately allow same sex marriages.
Wretchard @ #21: “Marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is part of something that sits underneath the civilizational rules. It’s rooted in biology.”
Really? Then why the “. . . whatever you want to call it”? How “rooted in biology” were the many Ancient Greek forms of love, or the vast array of Roman marriage arrangements? If Athens and Rome are not sufficiently sexually hetorodox for you (by today’s standards) than I suggest a brief look at Ancient Jerusalem via the Old Testament. How many fine examples of polygamy were engaged by Jewish prophets and kings. There’s a strange gloss on the historical record in this post, and many of the comments, as if pre-Kinsey American sexual mores were distributed back in the beginnings of Western civilization.
And I trust Wretchard is being a bit too wry and ironic for his readers in citing serial adulterer and twice divorced hypocrite Newt Gingrich as a defender of traditional marriage.
#126: And as debauchery became the accepted norm, both of these great civilizations declined.
Sunderhaus (#126) raises an interesting point. First off: What part of western civilization does our defense of traditional marriage rest on? It’s the Judeo-Christian overlay that the West began to acquire some 1,700 years ago. Secondly, one has to ask: is the issue of gay marriage a threat to established civil society and norms? Is gay marriage about inclusiveness, or is it about the destruction of what we have come to consider and value as the family?
Finally, the single most important underlying issue here is: at what point does government get to defy the consent of the governed?
What is not negotiable here is God’s position on the matter. ICor.6.9-10 teaches us that “…homosexuals shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” The pasage goes on to imply that those who repent(cease and desist) may be forgiven. Whatever positions men or governments may take in the matter, God has the final say; and He has said it. In eternity the soul either is comforted in Heaven or punished in Hell; irrevocably. So, if we love someone we do all we can to persuade them to refrain from homosexual conduct, lest they be forever damned.
Our motive is love; theirs is lust.