March 15, 2005
California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
In what is another battle won on the same-sex marriage front (yes I support same-sex marriage—albeit a temporary victory—a state court in the nation’s most populous state, California, has ruled that a law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer stated in his opinion that “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.”
The judge's ruling is sure to be appealed by any number of conservative groups and perhaps even the state, and it might be a while before we see final resolution on the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage violates the California state constitution. But it is gratifying that yet another state court has ruled that laws outlawing same-sex marriages are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clauses of the states' founding document. California's ruling comes close on the heals of two such rulings in Washington state, and one in New York in the past six months.
California's Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro acknowledged in a hearing in December that the state is "a leader in affording rights" to same-sex couples. But he cited tradition as the reason the state should uphold the existing definition of marriage. Judge Kramer disagreed stating "[T]he state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."
I couldn't agree with the judge more! Once again this is not an issue of tradition, or religion, or even morality, it is an issue of equal protection before the law. It was tradition until recently to deny people of different races the right to marry; surely no one in the Year 2005 would (rationally) defend the right of the state to deny mixed race marriages on the basis of tradition. A tradition, no matter its intent or import to a segment of society, should not be adhered to if the fundamental constitution rights and or statute mandated Civil Rights of the citizenry are trampled, or otherwise set aside in order to honor said tradition.
Homosexuals (Gay men and lesbian women) are citizens of this nation, and their respective states, and such are constitutionally guaranteed equal protection before the law (see the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution as well as state constitutions). And if the state can find no compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage, it must allow it; marriage after all is a fundamental Constitutional right codified under Loving vs. Virginia. It matters not--or should matter not--what religion--any religion--has to say about the matter, because the institution of marriage as regulated by the many states is a Civil Institution, govern by civil law.
However, this might all be a moot point if California voters approve an amendment this coming November to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. If approved this amendment would follow 13 other states that did the same thing last November, effectively halting freedoms march in parts of the United States, relegating Gays to the status of perpetual second class citizens.
As I stated in a previous articles posted herein, the passage of these amendments to the various state constitutions underlies that by-and-large the American people (ordinary citizens and law-makers alike) lack even a basic understanding of the constitution and how our government is supposed to be run. Not do they understand or appreciate the tenets of real freedom and equality. That is frightening for the future of our nation…but the battle in this war is far from over…
Because we’re not a Christian nation…
It is perfectly normal and proper for anyone to have and protect personal beliefs, values, and norms. Thankfully, with freedom of speech, all of us have a platform to publicly announce and live out our individuality.
Now, let’s look at the extremes. Fundamental Christians use the Bible to speak against behavior that contradicts what the Scripture says. These individuals look at the world through the lens of faith and religion.
People who don’t subscribe to fundamental Christianity look at the world through the lens of logic and reason. In this worldview, individuals speak against behavior that contradicts the laws of mankind.
Because we’re not a Christian nation, Fundamental Christians cannot demand or expect others who don’t agree with them, to act or think like they want them to do.
Because we’re not a Christian nation, we are set up to run under the laws of mankind.
Because we’re not a Christian nation, every citizen should have equality of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Because we’re not a Christian nation, this means that even people who don’t fit the “norm” of society should have the opportunity to own and protect personal beliefs, values, and norms.
Because we are a nation, with freedom comes responsibility. With any personal belief, value, and norm, it is necessary to consider their effects upon the nation as a whole.
If we are going to be a nation, then at some point we need to obtain a common goal and vision for the future. Otherwise, without these things, the nation we now know will be no more. Change and progress are normal. However, as a nation, what direction do we want to take?
The point is… the steps we take today ultimately shape the nation of tomorrow. Let’s question ourselves, and not get caught up in petty arguments.
Is there anyone brave enough to set aside selfish ambitions? Is there anyone wise enough to consider the outcomes of todays choices? Because were not a Christian nation, then what kind of nation are we to be?
P.S. I am a Fundamental Christian. Received biblical and theological training in a fundamentalist Bible college. Ive also received a liberal education (social sciences, psychology, social work, and criminal justicejust to name a few) in a public college and university.
Posted by: Suzanne at March 15, 2005 01:26 PMFundamental Christians LIBERALS cannot demand or expect others who don’t agree with them, to act or think like they want them to do.
kctim,
It works both ways but you have a simplistic view of what is going on so I will clarify. Fundamentalist Christians by the masses want to suppress other’s. As a matter of fact, a strong minority of Baptists at church think they should be executed and have their balls ripped off of them with chains. Believe me or not, I heard them. Liberals want equal protection for all, no matter what background. They want a world that is perfect in equality, if not unrealistic. Sometimes they have a fallback like Muslims. Muslims, atleast the orthodox ones, do not believe in anything that is liberal. The Christians and Muslims should get along fine but they don’t because they each worship their own God. Other than that, they are mirror images of each other. The Liberals want equality for all while Fundamentalist Christians want laws to benefit them alone, their dogma, and strict way of life. You have it very confused in the general sense.
Sean Hannity is on Kctim. He hates Liberals just as much as you do.
VEM,
Good article and on a roll again. Whatever the case is, this is a victory for equal rights.
kctim,
When will your horse die?
=)
V. Edward,
Somewhat off topic, but if you’re interested in a good read, may I recommend How the Homosexuals Saved Civilization, by Cathy Crimmins. Doesn’t necessarily address any marriage legislation issues (I don’t think, only about 1/2 way through it myself) but addresses in some very interesting and humorous ways the impact gays have had on american culture.
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 02:18 PMLeon
It works both ways, too bad everybody has to be so closedminded to the other side.
I choose to try and see BOTH sides of an issue. To bad that is such a simplistic thing to do.
Taylor
My horse just died and I think everyone on here will be happy to hear that.
I guess there is no room for people like me. I refuse to blindly follow party lines and put all the blame on the other side while excusing the same digressions made by the side I support.
You have to be either left or right, no free thinking allowed. Kind of explains why I was turned down to post topics here though.
You guys win, I give up.
I will try to be more partisan, regardless of truth, and will give up my simplistic views of being fair, understanding and openminded.
Make it all legal.
Since we are not a Christian Nation and we are for the rights of ALL minorities make everything legal.
At this point murderers, rapists, bigamists, thieves, heroin users, child molesters, drunk drivers, are all minorities.
Let’s fight for their rights and make their less than popular activities legal.
You are talking about changing the definition of marriage as it has been understood since the beginning of time.
If it were just a matter of equal protection under the law it would be different.
Makeitlegal—
Your arguments have little merit, though I realize that you are being overly dramatic to make a point. It is just a question of equal protection. Who does it harm to change the definition of marriage? Before Loving vs. Virginia, in most of the states Black people and White people could not legally marry. That case indisputably changed the definition of marriage and the country survived. So, I ask again, what harm is done to either a person, society, or the country to let same-sex marriages move forward?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 15, 2005 03:29 PMmakeitalllegal,
I knew it wouldn’t take long for the classic “slippery slope” post. Thanks for getting it out of the way.
I don’t think changing the definition of marriage is as key to the discussion as is— giving people who choose life partners (regardless of the gender) the same 1000+ federal benefits given to the rest of couples in the country.
Tradition for sake of tradition is a weak argument.
BTW — Child molesters already have a safe haven for making thier activities legal, it’s called Catholic priesthood.
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 03:34 PMDamn those Republican Catholic Activist judges!!!
Judge in gay marriage case is a Catholic Republican appointee
Posted by: JJ at March 15, 2005 03:42 PMWhat’s being lost in this argument are the rights of polygamists everywhere. Since the courts are in favor of gender independent marriages and traditionalists are in favor of marriages only between men and women then it stands to reason that polygamy might offer one answer to the conflict. Simply add column A to column B and voila! Mixed gender parenting and homosexual marriages, all in one. Does the constitution prohibit the number of people we can legally marry? No, but there are laws limiting the number of spouses you can have to one. Strikingly similar to the arguments homosexuals are making. If it turns out that the law is blind to who you can marry then it must be blind the the quantity you can marry. In fact, around the globe there are far more societies today that incorporate polygamy in comparison to those that incorporate homosexuality.
Posted by: threescompany at March 15, 2005 04:18 PMNice find JJ. By george! Not all liberal decisions are made by liberals. Who’da thunk it?
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 04:29 PMHere Mr. Martin we again disagree, but, it is a small disagreement.
I believe adamantly that there is no society, no group effort, no civilization without a language which is well defined and which most members of society observe in common.
I find it very easy to debate folks both on the right and left on the basis of their use of language. When they try to use a word to make their case by ascribing a new definition to that word which is not in the dictionary, they give the debate over to me. When their argument depends on defining the word black to include the color white, they have lost the debate whether they admit it or not.
On this issue, marriage has an etymology coming from the anglo-french and middle english which defined marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman. This definition was not questioned until just a few decades ago, yet, today, Merriam-Webster now includes in the defintion a second application “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage “.
But notice that even in Merriam-Websters new definition the word marriage as it applies to same sex, has to be stipulated as which highlights the non-traditional and not original defintion for the purpose of clarification.
Therefore, I side with the Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims on this issue and assert that Marriage is a union between a man and woman recognized by societies law.
That said, I must immediately follow with the fact that I see absolutely no reason for a society such as ours to deny same-sex partners the status of civil unions which confers the same legal rights and limitations which it confers upon married couples. But to confer upon them the traditional and heavily religious influenced definition of marriage is to corrupt common sense useage of language for a minority’s advantage in a battle against the majority, and that I believe is wrong.
As I said in the beginning, there can be no society or group effort without a common langugage which most members understand and share. Calling same sex unions marriage damages the cohesiveness of society which a shared common langugage affords.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 15, 2005 04:37 PMVEM - Good post, thanks.
It’s important to keep in mind that this is about the legal definition of marriage. Whether or not they can get their church to approve is up to the church.
Suzanne, well said.
kctim, you’re saying your views are “fair, understanding, and openminded”. Please help me to understand the logic of this better. Laws or amendments prohibiting gay marriage deny legal rights to a group of citizens. Let’s compare this to laws that prohibit something like stealing. Stealing has a clear victim. I’m having a hard time seeing who the victim is when allowing two men (or women) to legally unite. It doesn’t say that everyone MUST do something. It’s your choice, according to your beliefs and morals. So, again kctim, who are you being fair and understanding to?
As for the “definition” of marriage, it really depends on what part of the world you’re from. Many cultures allow the marriage of cousins. Some allow polygamy (heck, Solomon, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob - they all had multiple wives in the Old Testament). Some allow mistresses or lovers during marriage. And, yes, according to John Boswell’s book, Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, same-sex marriage was allowed by many nations, and even the Catholic Church until the 1500’s.
Posted by: Tad at March 15, 2005 04:45 PMMaybe more appropriate:
…same-sex unions were allowed by many nations as well as the Catholic Church.
“Who does it harm to change the definition of marriage?”
Depends on your definition of harm. It ‘harms’ all of those in the MAJORITY that believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
You can argue that both sides are being selfish by insisting their definition is correct, but as it stands, the majority of people believe using the word ‘marriage’ is wrong when talking about same sex couples.
Gay couples decided that they want to be ‘married’ just like heterosexuals and think they have every right to shove this down people’s throats in the name of equality.
The ones that are being selfish are the ones demanding everyone else accept and give in to what they want just because they think we should.
Deciding one day that you want something someone else has doesn’t mean you should automatically get it.
It is a matter of equality.
It is selfish of gay couples not to accept civil unions at this point in time and work toward a greater acceptance in the years to come.
It baffles me that they refuse to do it this way. Sometimes baby steps will gain more ground than trying to take one giant leap and falling flat on your face.
Who decides what definitions belong in Merriam-Webster? Just curious.
Posted by: makeitalllegal at March 15, 2005 05:39 PMDavid said:
I see absolutely no reason for a society such as ours to deny same-sex partners the status of civil unions which confers the same legal rights and limitations which it confers upon married couples.
Unfortunately David, civil unions do not.
Why aren’t civil unions enough?
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 05:47 PMDepends on your definition of harm. It ‘harms’ all of those in the MAJORITY that believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Well, what *is* your definition of harm? Is your own marriage or sexual identity so unstable you’ll suffer irreparable “harm” from allowing others to be happy together and have the 1000+ federal rights and protections to support thier choice to live thier lives together?
It is selfish of gay couples not to accept civil unions at this point in time and work toward a greater acceptance in the years to come.
Selfish? I suppose it was selfish of blacks to not want to sit in the back of the bus and use separate washrooms? Or was their first act of selfishness not wanting to be slaves, and from there it was all downhill?
The world has changed. Like it or not, the gay rights movement has brought our society to a point where gay persons situations are different now than they were even 40 years ago. It’s not uncommon today for gay couples to buy a house together, to share assets, to adopt a child, or for one partner to have a biological child which that couple raises. These people NEED and DESERVE the same protections every hetero couple in the country is getting. PERIOD.
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 05:55 PMYou have to be either left or right, no free thinking allowed. Kind of explains why I was turned down to post topics here though.
For such a free thinker, you are quick to generalize “liberals”.
I hate it when people use the words “liberal” or “conservative” to describe themselves or insult others, it just shows you must hide behind a label to make up for your lack of knowledge.
Posted by: Deiouss at March 15, 2005 05:56 PMTaylor My horse just died and I think everyone on here will be happy to hear that. I guess there is no room for people like me. I refuse to blindly follow party lines and put all the blame on the other side while excusing the same digressions made by the side I support.You have to be either left or right, no free thinking allowed. Kind of explains why I was turned down to post topics here though.
You guys win, I give up.
I will try to be more partisan, regardless of truth, and will give up my simplistic views of being fair, understanding and openminded.
kctim, I only asked what I asked because it seemed to me you’re beating a recurring theme of people demanding others do things. I’ve asked for further explanation, and to my knowledge, you haven’t helped me understand why you feel this way. I certainly don’t want you to give up, and I highly doubt you truly will. You’re an empassioned person, and although we find one another at odds often, I enjoy your posts here. They keep me thinking. If you want my opinion however, and you probably don’t, but you’re gonna get it anyhow, you aren’t very non-partisan. I’m not the first person to mistake you for a bible-thumping right wingnut, and probably wont be the last. In any case, friend, I hope you didn’t take my previous remark with too much levity, I hoped a smily face would soften my remark, not intensify it.
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 06:02 PMI’m going to make a hypothesis here. The Bush administration has neglected to out-right ban gay marriages through the constitution, though it very well could, because it wants to use the fear of gay marriages as a political tool. The point of such a hypothesis: the people who voted for Bush based solely on the gay-marriage thing were tricked, and the liberals are just giving the idea more strength by being so gung-ho about gay marriage.
Oh, and just to say something opinionated, I believe that gays and heterosexuals alike should not be given tax breaks for marrying. It is, in my view, not the government’s job to give incentives for marriage. (I hope someone disagrees with me :)).
Posted by: Zeek at March 15, 2005 06:23 PMZeek,
When you say tax breaks for marrying, you mean we should crank the marriage penalty back up. You get tax breaks for having kids, not for getting married. I look forward to your response.
Posted by: Peter at March 15, 2005 06:36 PMDavid:
I was going to weigh in on this one but found myself in total agreement with your comments made above. Same sex marriage does lead to confusion. In a pluristic society certainly we can solve the legal problems of same sex couples with civil unions.
I am also troubled by changing definitions because it seems to open the door for polygamy. I have yet to see polygamist relationships that do not end up diminishing the lives of women and children. Civil Unions allows me a way of “not going there” on the polygamy issue.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 15, 2005 07:10 PMCivil unions, x-prime, whatever, just don’t offer if you dont me ALL of the rights, responsibility and protection that marriage offers today.
The term “marriage” has become quite a sticking point for a lot of people. It’s symantecs, imo. I’m personally content with letting the “traditionalists” keep their term, so long as what else is offered under whatever you want to term it IS INDEED the same, in a civil sense.
Thus far, no “civil union” legislation has offered even a fraction of equivalency, which is why I believe the gay community continues to press “marriage”. Separate but not equal is the name of the game. Stop the separation and I think people will start coming to agreements.
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 07:28 PMYes, Craig, we are indeed of the same mind on this issue. I totally agree with your comments on polygamy. When people play with time honored defintions, a host of unintended consequences can result. There is a reason certain definitions reach the status of time-honored and traditional - they work without unintended consequences, in addition to providing stability and communication with understanding. To define marriage to include same-sex unions can indeed lead to unintended consequences.
This is one of the key functions of the courts, to insure that legal definitions do not get distorted and misrepresentative for political partisan reasons. But, as we have seen, even some of the courts are being confused by the introduction of same sex unions into the definition of marriage.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2005 07:34 PMI am concerned what this will do to the upcoming Elections. You know how homophobic and shallow some people are. Could they forget about Social Security and vote on this issue alone? It did happen last time…
Posted by: Aldous at March 15, 2005 07:47 PMAldous,
I doubt it. The Evangelical Christians are a bunch of people who go with the wind. Voting in 2006 or rather, non-presidential elections are not the “in” thing to do. Sure, it will be an issue but by the masses, I doubt it. I do think though that the Democrats will vote in higher numbers than Republicans. The reason is I think most Republicans do not see a threat any longer. Bush has won re-election, all branches are dominated so who gives a flip. The Democrats want a come back. I hope they realize how vulnerable the Republicans are in 2006.
David and Craig,
Society accepts homosexual marriage because I believe they view it as the samething between heterosexual marriage except sexual organs. Polygamy is a whole other avenue. The reason is because people are not going to look at polygamy from a sinful Biblical perspective. They will consider polygamy with welfare, taxes, children to feed, abuse, brainwashing and a wide array of avenues. They have a good point in that. The counter to gay marriage is easily refuted because it goes on definition of marriage, sin, and molesting kids. That is mostly propaganda, idealogy, and inneuendo (sp). Would you agree David and Craig? I hope this added something to consider that homosexual marriage will not transitionalize to polygamy. I just don’t see public support going on, even from Liberals. Polygamy, again, brings in a lot to consider other than the three factors mentioned above.
Leon:
Thank you for your comments. This debate is about rights. If marriage is granted to same sex unions, I have not “moral basis” for not granting the same to polygamists. What would be the basis?
Morality in our context is rights driven society driven as opposed to religion. Morality has to meet community standards and protect the rights of minorities.
I may change on this after I know more, but at present I cannot support gay marriage because I can envision a “pandoras box” of issues that seem impossible to predict.
On the other hand, I sympathize with my fellow citizens who are gay/lesbian who have clear and real legal issues that need to be addressed. My choice of accepting civil unions instead of marriage is my way of helping the gay/lesbian community answer their legal concerns which I agree with, without going down a road that I fear I may regret in the future because of unintended consequences such as granting marriage to polygamists.
It is a hard one to argue, because I admit my view is emotionally based. However my motive is to protect the rights of children and women who I see victimized by polygamy. Even if you disagree I hope you might understand.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 15, 2005 08:22 PMCraig,
I see where you are coming from. From an emotionally driven decision on this issue, you make the most sense of anyone whom is opposed to this practice. I see a pandora’s box opening up from organizations like the ACLU but I don’t think anything will ever happen with it. The American public will never support polygamy because of the economics of the issue. Just the name brings that issue in contrary to gay marriage; which is based more on morality and propaganda than anything else and are easily refuted. Bestiality will never happen. Polygamy is a possiblity with the religious argument but I don’t think too many people are willing to join in the practice nor are many people willing to support it from two points; a) morality of the matter b) the economic ends which everyone fears. I wouldn’t worry about it and I will never support polygamy nor anything else. I would think that 90% of the people who support gay marriage wouldn’t either. Polygamists and their supports are looked at by the masses as quacks. I don’t see it that way because I am flexible enough in viewpoint to see their side but the economic ends prevent me from supporting their position.
Depends on your definition of harm. It ‘harms’ all of those in the MAJORITY that believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
So, you’re essentially saying that the harm you would face if you lost on this issue is that you would live in a society in which you lost on this issue. Boiled down further, your harm in losing is that you lost.
That’s no harm at all. That’s like saying that an elected official should be allowed to take office because some people voted against him. There’s nothing to it.
Furthermore, the harm that you would face in losing is exactly the same as the harm I would face in losing. Since this is essentially a zero-sum game, someone is going to be “harmed” anyway its decided, so that “harm” can’t be a consideration.
When balancing your intangible harm for one solution against my exactly equivalent tangible harm plus significant tangible harm to people deprived of equal rights, your “harm” just doesn’t hold up.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 15, 2005 08:34 PMThanks Leon for making the differntiation between gay marriage and poligamy. There is indeed a difference, and it’s not quite the “slippery slope” that gay marriage opponents want us to believe.
Poligamy is complicated. I definitely believe it’s a separate discussion alltogether. I’m not opposed to it, if people feel it’s the best model for their lives, who am I to stand in the way? The complications come in with how does society support the non-wage-earning members of such a relationship.
In a gay marriage, we’re still talking two people. In most cases, both are wage earners, but if one has a child and the other supports them, the answers for how we handle such situations are already answered by the hetero model of “marriage”.
In poligamy, it’s more complex, if a man has 4 wives, do they all get insurance, do they all get social security, do they all get inheritance….. I don’t know.
The point of the matter is, the issue at hand is gay marriage, we’re still talking 1-on-1, we’re not trying to tackle poligamy. Should America address poligamy, perhaps. Should America address poligamy in the same breath as gay marriage? Absolutely not.
Anyone who starts the “slippery slope” routine on this is only doing so to incite fear. I can’t necessarily blame them for trying, since Bush and co. have found fear to be such a utilitarian model to insert into a political campaign/agenda. That said, it’s still wrong, lets deal with issues one at a time, and in their own and proper context. Poligamy is a separate discussion. Start a separate thread if you feel so inclined to do so.
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 08:38 PMTaylor:
On what basis would society deny polygamy if it approves of Gay marriage?? I can’t see any. Just take the Judges comments from San Francisco and insert Polygamy. It works!!
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 15, 2005 09:44 PMCraig,
You shouldn’t be so stubborn. People will reject polygamy as already stated on economics and out of element of the norms. Homosexuality is not so out of touch with American culture. Just watch MTV. Polygamy is viewed as more of a cult in nature rather than religious doctrine.
V. Edward,
You could not have framed the court’s ruling in a more pointed and effective manner. Well done. And, thanks to JJ for such a useful link.
Reading the discussion so far, I’m not ready yet to totally dismiss the slippery slope/polygamy argument. Knowing that the overwhelming public opposition and unlikelihood of a polygamist mounting a challenge is not sufficient to dismiss the notion, can someone here actually make an argument based on the Constitutional Equal Protection clause?
As far as the future political ramifications of Gay Marriage, for the foreseeable future, we will be seeing a dueling routine of court victories versus marriage ban initiatives (although I doubt it will pass in California). The social Conservatives will have their ballot victories, but will find it difficult to make it a ‘wedge issue’ in the upcoming 2006 Mid-Terms, for many reasons.
Such as betrayed Bush voters and regional elections tend to focus more on important issues. Depending on the fate of the ‘nuclear option’, we could see a civil war erupt in the Republican Party. And, American voters (and the GOP establishment) may finally become fed up with Dobson, Falwell & Co.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 15, 2005 09:57 PMCan anyone tell me what difference exists between Opposition to Gay Marriage and Opposition to Interracial Marriage? The same argument people made then is being used now.
Posted by: Aldous at March 15, 2005 10:06 PMTaylor, Leon, et al.-
How is it that polygamy is so strikingly different than gay marriage, but the African-American civil rights movement is a prime analogy? Virtually every gullable proponent for gay marriage has, at one time or another, brought up the comparison of gay marriage to the civil rights movement of a decade ago. These are two issues that couldn’t be more contrasting. The civil rights movement had virtually nothing to do with its influence on the family unit. Yet, this is the persistant example people bring up when defending marriage for homosexuals.
How naive is it to assume that society is perfectly unified on the concept of monogamy, but is split down the middle whether that monogamy should be reserved for opposite genders or include homosexuals?? I can guarantee there were people just a few decades ago arguing whether or not affording Blacks equal rights would open a Pandora’s Box, saying how it would lead to affording the same rights to animals, trees, the family car, etc. If someone would have brought gay marriage into that debate I’m positive, at that time, both sides would have, people like you saying “Oh, never, society would never allow gay marriage” because it was virtually inconceivable to them at that time.
While I’m not an advocate of the Pandora’s Box defense, I am an advocate for equal rights. If homosexuals are granted the “right” to marry “legally” then there is no justifiable defense to exclude polygamists from the right to marry whichever men or women they choose. The symantics of determining who’d get insurance or inheritance is peanuts against the harm and inequality served to the population of our society who are polygamists.
Economics is such a bogus one word side-step. The average family has 2.3 kids, why not 2.3 wifes? If you did a poll of American women how many do you think would agree that if they could have 3 kids, but only be pregnant once that they’d do it? Your economics presumption is purely based on the fact that polygamist families breed like rabbits. Completely false. In fact, even if they did have a higher average number of children, there’d be a much higher number of providers. There’s plenty of families who already rely on their extended families for support. No one would ever consider limiting the number of children a family could have. Employers don’t limit the number of children they insure. So why would it matter how many spouses one would have? Illogical.
One defense against beastiality is not much different than a similar defense against homosexuality. It’s a simple fact that neither relationship can physically, biologically, or naturally produce a family. You can’t have a dog and a man produce a dogman for a child, just like no two homosexual men cannot concieve and bear a child of their own in a purely monogamous relationship. By no other law than nature’s own, you’d have to involve a third party parent in order for any homosexual “family” to exist. But wait, polygamy isn’t the issue here….
So explain to me again how polygamy is clearly a separate issue? And please tell me how just because it’s “more complex” (for you) that it’s irrelevant to this topic? How do the proponents who presume gay families are “equally” as functional as hetero marriages deal with “third party biological parent,” who now wants to be a part of their child’s life? What rights do the biological parent(s) have? How does that promote the stability of a family unit any more than a polygamous family unit? Add to that how you’d explain to a child that Daddy A isn’t really your daddy, but Daddy B is. Or that you don’t have a Mommy, but you did “technically” come out of a woman. Why should we remove the rights of children to grow up in a natural family with one father and one mother? I doubt anyone could win an argument saying that polygamy is more of a cult in nature than homosexuality is.
I’d rather be the one who irons out which of the other guy’s four wifes gets insurance. Actually, I’d rather do neither…
Posted by: threescompany at March 15, 2005 10:45 PMSee what happens when you take the king’s coin?
Exactly where does the govt. get the authority to say what is my marriage?
It doesn’t. People should be free to do (generally) whatever they want to do. I just do not want to pay for it. The marraige debate is over money, not rights. If you want to claim you are a married, then do so. However, do not use that status to claim a subsidy. Granted, we already subsidize hetero marriages, but instead of arguing for more subsidy, help me fight for less.
Live your live. Be happy. Call it whatever you want. I do not care. My indifference is near universal. Just please do not ask me to pay for it.
And as to equal protection. It only protects things we think it should portect. There is no magic understanding of what it means. We draw arbitrary lines. Some we decide are too arbitray (inter-racial marriages - good decision), some we decide are ok ( no alcohol for someone 20 yrs and 364 days? - not good decision). The mere fact that lines are drawn is meaningless. Anyoone that argues differently is an uninformed idiot.
Viva Freedom!
Posted by: Tflan at March 15, 2005 11:07 PMthreescompany,
1. Your not a polygamist, despite your attempt to decieve that you might be by the guise you post under. You’re here to add pandora’s box arguments and nothing more. You treat poligamy too lightly to believe in the practice.
2. Based on #1, and the tone of your post I’d have to assume you an opponent to gay marriage.
3. Nice try.
There are a lot of correlations between the civil rights movements and the gay marriage movement, in that both are an exercise in —
A. Separate, but not really equal
B. Taxation without representation
If you want alternatives that are unrealistic and ludicrous to coincide with your post, here they are:
— Abolish all 1094 federal rights and benefits bestowed on hetero couples today to level the playing field……
or….
— Establish a lower federal tax bracket for homosexual couples as they are unable to benefit from rights their heterosexual counterparts enjoy today.
Posted by: Taylor at March 15, 2005 11:33 PMHeh, nice catch there Peter. That is what I meant. But I was pretty sure marriage was a requisite of those tax benefits no? Maybe I’m just going insane… WILL & GRACE CAN’T HAVE LIED TO ME!! I’m going to go post on the Republican blog and see why they are against gay marriage anyways…
Posted by: Zeek at March 15, 2005 11:46 PMThree’s Company,
It seems to me that you are more talking out of your ass than anything else. Your message is the one thing that really pisses me off because you are not on the lines of debating this; rather using illogical propaganda and inneuendo in order to make gay marriage supporters look stupid. By the end of this post, trust me, your message and rant will be the only things feeling stupid. Let me begin.
“The civil rights movement had virtually nothing to do with its influence on the family unit.”
A lot of scope is under the Civil Rights Movement but let’s stick with marriage and Civil Rights. Not so long ago, White and Black spouses of the opposite sex could not marry. It did influence the family unit. Let’s call their kid a “zebra.” Did you forget that or did you just want to throw something at me because you underestimate my wittiness and intelligence?
“How naive is it to assume that society is perfectly unified on the concept of monogamy, but is split down the middle whether that monogamy should be reserved for opposite genders or include homosexuals??”
The only thing resembling naiveness is your post. You act in the manner that you do not believe that a pandora’s box will open but that is just what you are arguing. Society right now is split on the definition of marriage in the context of two people but of same sex. We are not arguing polygamy so quit acting like we are. I don’t believe all of society is completely for monogamy but let’s call it a 97-3 ratio; as that is what it is realistically. Your message represents a perfect Republican in that as politicians play with your fears, you do the same with others because your message reflects that you don’t know anyother means of debate. How sad.
‘“Oh, never, society would never allow gay marriage” because it was virtually inconceivable to them at that time.’
Your message is so retarded in that you seem not to understand timelines. In all probability, Abraham Lincoln was a bisexual. Why did we not know this until recently? Because homosexuality is a fairly new thing to talk about in the open. As a matter of fact, Lincoln wrote a poem about gay marriage. He would have been chastized or stoned at the time. Men and women did it but people didn’t talk about it. Akin, to don’t ask don’t tell. It was never, ever inconcieveable except to the Relgious Right whom “God will protect us” mentality. Why? The thought never occured to them and it was never openly discussed. Polygamy is viewed as an ancient practice and of Eastern civilization if anything. Polygamy has always been known and gay marriage has never been talked about before; much less homosexuality itself rarely discussed.
“If homosexuals are granted the ‘right’ to marry “legally” then there is no justifiable defense to exclude polygamists from the right to marry whichever men or women they choose.
The symantics of determining who’d get insurance or inheritance is peanuts against the harm and inequality served to the population of our society who are polygamists.”
Not necessarily and again, contrary to your claim; your message is using the pandora’s box argument, which is truly pathetic and reflects how dishonest your message really is. There is not a legal justification to ban it but public support for polygamy is abysmal at best. Gay marriage is constantly getting more and more public support. Like I said previously, polygamy is viewed as ancient and cult-like akin to the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Gay marriage and openess about homosexuality has just come out of the open. The economics of the matter will weigh in big time. I would beg to differ that even Populist and Libretarian Liberals would be inferior to Polygamy for more than economic reasons. Your message is exaggerating the situation in a big way.
“Economics is such a bogus one word side-step. The average family has 2.3 kids, why not 2.3 wifes?”
Not really. Most polygamists would not even want their spouse to work. Your message shows that you have little mathematical considerations. The average family has 2.3 kids. The “why not 2.3 wives” falls flat on its face. 2.3 x 2.3 would equal 9.9 which is a scary number. Polygamy is more on the lines of strict, relgionists that is way out the realm of society. With that mentality, women probably would not be working. Ergo, the economics is debated and will not be popular on the mainstream right nor left. I don’t see why you have a problem either way with polygamy. After all, big bad Jehovah sanctioned polygamy. Why can’t you follow the true God’s Laws?
“Your economics presumption is purely based on the fact that polygamist families breed like rabbits. Completely false.
One defense against beastiality is not much different than a similar defense against homosexuality. It’s a simple fact that neither relationship can physically, biologically, or naturally produce a family. You can’t have a dog and a man produce a dogman for a child, just like no two homosexual men cannot concieve and bear a child of their own in a purely monogamous relationship. By no other law than nature’s own, you’d have to involve a third party parent in order for any homosexual “family” to exist. But wait, polygamy isn’t the issue here….”
Cite me a source! Completely false? Have you seen the polygamists in Utah? They are in extreme poverty. 36 people living in a trailor and I am WRONG! Your message needs to check its facts before you talk out of your ass! I will be blunt about this and it might need editing so Watchblog Manager; be prepared… This require bluntness.
GET READY!!!!
Your message reflects a complete disregard for homosexuals. A guy sticking his penis in a cat’s ass, IE bestiality, is not the same as humans. Unfortunately, your message is either playing dumb or your message is so brainwashed in views that you can’t distinguish between the two. Homosexuals do not need a third party for a child. Adoption is the option and why not? After all, what is better? A fetus getting sucked in a vacuum or loving parents whom are homosexuals taking care of a child who needs a home. Strict God-fearing men are more likely to molest a kid than homosexuals.
In conclusion, your message sucked and was filled with blatant ignorance. I destroyed your message and your argument was easily refuted and fell flat on its face.
By the way, I find your name funny. Three’s Company….sounds like polygamy to me. Just joking.
Leon,
I think we saw about the same thing, albeit you elaborate a bit more =).
It’s become a trend in this country to attempt distraction at any cost to muddle the public’s attention to issues.
POLIGAMY! Oh, are those gays trying to marry again?
GAY MARRIAGE! Oh, are we still at war in Iraq with a multi-trillion dollar national deficit while Bush’s friend make billions off the taxpayers?
I really can’t remember.
By all rights, everything that’s needed to be said on this matter has been said, can we get back to talking about the incompetent chimp in the white house now??
Posted by: Taylor at March 16, 2005 12:04 AMLeon:
I am one of those who cannot support same sex marriage for reasons stated above. I do however support the following:
1. The right to name beneficiaries even for Social Security.
2. The right to have the same as “next of kin” status in case of illness.
3. The right to adopt as a couple instead of the pretend thing like now.
4. The right to estate exclusion that is the same as for a married couple.
5. The right to be included on health coverage.
6. The right to file US income taxes jointly.
and more that I just can’t think of right now.
What is different to me about “Civil Union” as opposed to Marriage is that “Civil Union” can be created out of new cloth. It can be flexible and creative for other groups as well as gays.
For instance, what about a “civil union” for a brother and sister who have lived together al their life? Why are unions for “romantic” love? A brother may want his sister to get his Social Security, or other part, but marriage to them would mean incest, when that is the farthest thing from their mind.
Human fabric is so diverse and we need a new institution that will impart rights to far more groups than Gays/Lesbians.
I hate to quote Jesus because I have done that once already, but Jesus said it is not wise to put new wine into old wineskins or the wineskin will burst. Instead we are to put new wine in new wineskins. I think that new wineskin should be civil unions.
I do not however want to be lumped with those who are simply anti gay and using the marriage issue to deny rights. I am for increasing the rights of gay families.
Craig
Taylor,
Ya, I hear ya.
Craig,
I already know your position and people with common sense will not lump you into the dimwits crowd. I see where you are coming from.
Leon, your comment above to Three’s Company violates our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger rule. Further, you indicate in your comment that you recognized that when you warned the WatchBlog Manager. Willful and intentional violation of our rule is surest way to lose your comment privileges on WatchBlog.
Consider them lost.
Posted by: WatchBlog Manager at March 16, 2005 02:15 AMI really don’t see why Same-Sex marriage is equated to Polygamy. I suppose Interracial Marriage is a form of Bestiality for you as well? Rights of Individuals must be handled individually not as a “What if…” scenario.
Posted by: Aldous at March 16, 2005 03:39 AMMr. Remer—
I understand your stance vis-à-vis the usage of the word marriage and it does have merit. However, Civil Unions as they are administered now will not work for they are not recognized by the federal government where a vast majority of the legal and financial benefits of marriage are realized. If and until the federal government recognizes Civil Unions as equal to marriage, there can be no compromise on this issue. Anything short of full recognition of Civil Unions as equal, both legally and financially to that of traditional marriage relegates Gay’s to the status of second class citizens, and that is unacceptable.
Makeitlegal—
Your argument is very familiar; it is the same argument used when Black American demanded their full fundamental right under the constitution at the dawn of the Civil Rights movement. Why should full citizens of this nation have to WAIT to enjoy that which is guaranteed them under our constitution? Freedom and equality is not supposed to be depended upon the good will and benevolence of the majority, rather it is to be realized naturally to all citizens by virtue of their citizenship.
You did not detail any tangible harm done by allowing Gay to marry; hurt feeling of the majority does not constitute legal harm. And I do not think it is SELFISH for Gay Americans to want to avail themselves of their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights! Civil Unions are not equal to marriage, and I do not blame the Gay community for rejecting them outright.
Threesompany—
While the analogy between the struggle Gay American are currently going through to win the right to marry, and Black Americans struggle for equality, are not direct associations there are similarities that cannot be ignored. Both are a struggle for equality before the law, and both are a struggle of the minority to overcome the tyranny, bigotry, and ignorance of the majority.
Tad and Taylor
Thank you for your responses.
The reason we are having this ‘problem’ right now is because of the society that has arisen from our Constitution. We as a nation have been evolving for over 200 hundred years.
When we first started the majority of the population believed that slavery was acceptable and even cited the bible as evidence. It was a group of ‘liberals’ that plundged us into a bloodly civil war over the issue of slavery.
But as well all know, full equality did not come until after a century of suffering.
Homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries longer than blacks have. Some of you have complained that they are ramming their way done our throats. Well if you flip the coin, they have had our way rammed down their throats for a lot longer. It took ‘liberals’ that defied the majority of the nation to force equality for non-whites and now its an accepted fact.
Our society is adavanced enough to hand the idea that everyone should have the same rights across the board no matter who you are. We actually practice what we preach, unlike many of the ‘liberal’ nations of Europe. The sky is not falling because homosexuals are demanding rights that have been denied for centuries.
The sight of two gay men kissing makes me feel uncomfortable, but that does not mean I can say because you’re different, you can’t have the same rights and privilages I enjoy.
Posted by: William at March 16, 2005 03:28 PMMr. Martin, I agree with your logic. But, that simply means that it is up to the supreme court to either 1) rule that civil unions formed in one state are honored in all states (for which there is ample precedent) or 2) the court rules in a challenge that barring civil unions is unfair and unequal application of the law, hence discriminatory, (which will be the most contentious avenue.)
It is very unlikely the US Congress will pass anti civil union discrimination laws, so the courts are the only avenue. Ultimately, this is a states rights vs fair and equal application of the law issue as well as an unequal application of federal law in favoring marriages but not other kinds of legal civil unions. I wouldn’t at this time bet on swift movement on these issues by the supreme court regardless of how fast challenges are forthcoming.
But, ultimately, that appears to be the best hope for civil unions as I see it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2005 06:50 PMV. Edward:
“I couldn’t agree with the judge more!”
Me either! As a Californian who has been following this story, I am very happy that our state is doing the right thing. Good on Judge Kramer for realizing that, as you said:
“this is not an issue of tradition, or religion, or even morality, it is an issue of equal protection before the law.”
YES! This has nothing to do with what anyones individual hangups, religions or opinions are. This is about having the state(s) (and hopefully, one day the federal government), legally acknowledge that gay Americans have complete equal protection and the same exact rights as any other citizen.
These are American’s who have made a committment to each other and live their lives together. They pay taxes, contribute to the economy, buy homes and other personal items together, buy life and health insurance, write wills and get sick and die just like every other American.
If we believe in the rights given to us by the Ninth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And the Fourteen Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Then straight and gay people should be able to stand equally in ALL ways.
V. Edward:
“Civil Unions are not equal to marriage, and I do not blame the Gay community for rejecting them outright.”
Nor do I. Ultimately, if we want to say that we live in FREEDOM, then gay people deserve to be legally MARRIED - when and if they wish, and to live their lives exactly as they see fit - without prejudice stepping in to block their Constitutional rights.
Religions on the other hand, have every right to their prejudices and hatreds, and they can and should be able to deny and to refuse to perform, gay marriages if they wish to do so.
David:
Would you agree that a bride is one who is married to her husband, by definition?
How then would you characterize the use of the term berdache for the “male bride” in native american same-sex unions during colonial times, if marriage has never had a broader definition than one male and one female in western civilization?
I do not think this issue of definition is as cut and dry as you suggest. Both marriage and family have gone through drastic transformations of meaning and understanding in the course of western history. If we are to look back to the very roots of anglo-saxon concepts of marriage for our definition of marriage, would we also not include in the definition of the concept the requirement that the wife submits to her husband and the husband to have authority over the wife and household? What about the definition that says marriage is only between members of the same race, and interracial unions are miscegenation?
Prejudices can be enshrined in language. What reason is there to cling to our past understandings of what the word could mean in terms of the genders of those involved in it, when it is clear that our understanding of its meaning has already evolved in so many other respects?
Posted by: Jarin at March 16, 2005 11:00 PMI still think that what it all comes down to is homophobia. The Christians (and quite a few other people for that matter) are uncomfortable (to say the least) around gays and don’t want the reminder of gays muddling their everyday lives. I suppose, for them, it’s a haunting idea that gays could be doing the same things they are (getting married, adopting and whatnot), like EQUALS or something.
Posted by: Zeek at March 16, 2005 11:17 PMYou’ve hit the nail on the head Zeek. That’s all this is.
Posted by: Taylor at March 17, 2005 10:06 AMMr. Remer,
There is third and more compelling avenue: the Supreme Court once again takes up the issue of marriage as a fundamental right under the federal constitution, something it has already done in Loving vs. Virginia. Most, if not all of the state court judges that have thus far ruled on the same-sex marriage issue have found that this is a question of equal protection before the law and little else. The ultimate outcome embraces same-sex marriage and finally settles the same-sex marriage question once and for all.
Many have suggested that this is an issue best left up to the states to sort out, but I reject that argument because this is a fundamental federal rights question as much as it is a fundamental states rights issue.
Mr. Martin, I agree with you, but only because federal law confers special benefits to married couples. One has to be very careful, though, moving to the Supreme Court on this issue under a conservative court, could result in no federal preferential treatment toward married couples in tax law, survivorship law, bankruptcy law, etc.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2005 03:58 PMProf. Blythe:
I don’t typically re-cross to those who cannot defend themselves, but I’ll make an exception in your case since you can’t seem to divorce emotion from fact.
To quote Prof. Blythe:
Your message shows that you have little mathematical considerations. The average family has 2.3 kids. The “why not 2.3 wives” falls flat on its face. 2.3 x 2.3 would equal 9.9 which is a scary number. Polygamy is more on the lines of strict, relgionists {sic} that is way out the realm of society.
Maybe it’s the “retarded” in me talking, but when I multiply 2.3 x 2.3 I get somewhere in the 5.29 range. In fact, I can’t do anything with 2.3 and 2.3 to get 9.9:
2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6
2.3 - 2.3 = 0
2.3 / 2.3 = 1
2.3^2.3 = 6.79
2.3sin2.3 = 1.71
2.3cos2.3 = -1.53 (yikes!)
The fact is that economics is what drives family sizes, not the other way around. The number of mates someone has contributes insignificantly to the number of children they have when compared to the influence of their economic status. It is widely known and accepted that family size is inversely proportional to economic strength. Poorer countries have larger family sizes because they have much poorer standards of living and life expectancy. They perpetuate by mass action, hoping that some of their children will survive and persevere. In the U.S. it’s expected that all of our children will survive, limiting the need for larger families for the sake of carrying on the lineage. This is also why polygamists are misunderstood. They had large families out of necessity to expand their numbers and gain a foundation in society. If polygamy were socially acceptable this wouldn’t be necessary.
One could argue that there’s more popular support for polygamy than gay marriage based on a couple of facts. First, the 2004 elections demonstrated that the public is quantifiably against gay marriage. Of the eleven ballot questions in as many states posed to voters on this issue all eleven failed to support gay marriage. That’s 11/50 states banning gay marriage. That’s over 20% (for you math buffs) of the United States, so far. I applaud all of these maverick judges for trying their best to do their job. They’re doing exactly what they’re being paid to do. However, despite what some judges’ interpretations of the Constitution may reveal, it has and always will, come down to the will of the people, not judges. The 1 deciding vote in the Massachusetts Supreme Court will be drowned quickly by the thousands of votes of the people. This is a liberal state we’re talking about too. The trend we’re seeing is that judges interpret the Constitution, set precedent for other judges, and other judges follow. Fine, but the other side of our democracy is that the people get the final say. Eleven of eleven ballot questions so far have told the judges to be prepared to reconsider.
The other argument that polygamy stands to be more popular than gay marriage is found in a popular sex poll. The average number of sexual partners the average person has in the U.S. is 10.3, just under the global average of 10.5. Granted that at any given time the vast majority of those partners were from some transient monogamous relationship, but that’s because, like Lincoln in your example, it’s not fashionable to have multiple partners at the same time these days.
Society is weak because people can’t take responsibility for themselves. If that were the prime objective then all of this would be moot. Gay marriage offers an excuse for anyone to claim anyone else as their “partner”. That means if I’m sitting here single and my roommate doesn’t have health insurance, we can go get “married” at City Hall for $25 and my company has to subsidize his insurance until he moves out and we get “divorced” for $50 at City Hall three years later. Marriage is a joke as it is (thank you Liz Taylor). I don’t care how “Pandora’s Box” that sounds, it will happen and that’s why gay marriage legislation will always be flawed and I’d never support it. You’re a hypocrite if you say you wouldn’t take advantage of that if you were 20 something, out of a job or getting better pay without benefits.
JP,
The roomate scenario you describe is completely plausible today between hetero friends. Yet you haven’t offered overwhelming (if any) testimony to the fact that people are doing it in such abundance it’s burdening the system. There will always be someone who abuses the system, but that doesn’t mean we cringe from offering real opportunity to people who deserve and need it because of a few bad eggs. If that were the case, we could begin repealing 1000’s of laws in our nation right now.
Your message remains one of homophobia, not one of poligamist support.
Posted by: Taylor at March 17, 2005 05:51 PMMr. Martin-
I can understand the superficial parallels between the Civil Rights movement and the gay marriage movement, but to what end will this be embellished? I don’t think African-Americans had top rated sitcoms back in the 60’s. In fact, I doubt they profited in any way by being African-American. It’s a difference of several magnitudes of order the relative “injustice” the gay population is served compared to what African-Americans went through. They’re comparing their 3.0 earthquake to an 8.9. This is no where near as destructive and deserves no where near as much aid or attention.
Posted by: JP at March 17, 2005 06:14 PMTaylor-
I don’t get where you’re seeing that I’m a homophobe. I’ve got plenty of homosexual friends. Two are getting married, in fact, this summer in Massachusetts, where I’m from.
Will Smith and Ben Affleck are already rumored to be spoofing the “pretend to be gay for insurance purposes” angle. Supposedly they’re in talks for making a movie titled I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry. They’ll play two firefighters pulling the scam. The whole concept will be ultra popular. You’d be very, very surprised how many heteros do it now. It’s much easier to get a long time buddy to go along with it than it is your girlfriend or opposite sex roommate without things getting “weird.”
This issue is all about how the government endorses nuclear families. Currently the government chooses to endorse monogamous heterosexual families. Will my lesbian friends be able to have children of their own? Biologically, no. Do I support them going out and adopting a child? Maybe. There’s very few cases where this should happen. This child is the product of a man and a woman so is starting out with two distinct disadvantages. 1) S/he won’t live with a male parent 2) S/he won’t have very many, if any peers who are growing up in the same environment. This dramatically reduces the chance that their family will be successful. If divorce rates and family dysfunction rates were somewhere in the single percentage area I’d have a much different outlook and more strongly support gay marriage because it would only benefit society. My lesbian friends are not some super-couple. They’re normal, have fights and have just as good a chance of splitting up as anyone else. Ignoring the fact that there are just as many if not more domestic dysfunctions in homosexual families as biological families is irresponsible. It clearly contributes to the destabilization of society through promoting dysfunction and abuse of the system.
You’re right though, I’m not a polygamist. I’m just using it for the sake of argument. I personally think adultery should be outlawed. If you’re married to one person (gay or otherwise) you should be fined and/or tossed in jail if you commit adultery. No single thing could be more destabilizing to a family and therefore society than adultery. Nothing harms children more than a cheating mom or dad.
Posted by: JP at March 17, 2005 06:45 PMThis dramatically reduces the chance that their family will be successful.
JP, I think you’re wrong here. And I think you know you’re wrong too, you later say:
They’re normal, have fights and have just as good a chance of splitting up as anyone else.
I won’t vouch for the stability of anyone’s realtionships. I’ve seen relationships that I thought to be rock solid split apart, and vice versa.
But your OWN point is “They’re normal, have fights”, that they have just “as good a chance of spilitting up as anyone else”.
I really, really want you to reflect on your own words. Based on your own words, which I happen to agree with, what sets a homosexual family apart from any other. Do they not deserve the chance to have one just because the rest of society screws up on such high percentages?
I, and many straight and gay people agree with you on adultery. It’s the most damaging thing to a monogomous relationship. Some couples recover, many don’t. Don’t you see though? COUPLES! Straight or gay! It hurts both!! Once you’ve committed your heart to another person, it doesn’t matter what’s between thier legs, that betrayal is pain for anyone. We are all the same, humanity. When we dedicate our lives to another person, it’s a 1-on-1 bond that is so very special, so very sacred, so very swollen in our hearts that it consumes us. Adultery in straight or gay relationships HURTS to the VERY CORE.
THAT is what we are talking about here. Not the bible, not tradition, but human emotion, and the value we place on it. If you’d ever had the oppotunity to see a lesbian cry, when her partner had betrayed her, it’s intense. But no more or no less intense than watching a straight woman cry when her husband has betrayed her.
When these PEOPLE, straight or gay, want to make the life commitment to one another, and stick by that, and believe me, the ones that have already made the demonstration feel they do(standing for hours in the rain outside the San Francisco courthouse), as much as any straight couple, how can you NOT support them?
This is a matter of human love, of commitment. Some may take it lightly, sure, and end in divorce, as so many in today’s straight married world do, but why punish those who truly want legally federally protected life together, for the few that might muck things up?
Take a moment and look at the full side of the glass, please.
Dangnabit Taylor you weren’t supposed to agree with me! Now I can’t debate with you. Humph. >:(
Oh, and by the way, if it would easy the mind of the Christians out there I will start saying “civil unions” instead of “gay-marriage.” Since, from what I gather, it is the threat to traditional marriage that you guys are against (right?).
Posted by: Zeek at March 17, 2005 11:03 PMTaylor - your last post was brilliant.
JP:
“Will my lesbian friends be able to have children of their own? Biologically, no.”
Of course they can. All they need is male donated sperm.
“Do I support them going out and adopting a child? Maybe. There’s very few cases where this should happen. This child is the product of a man and a woman so is starting out with two distinct disadvantages.”
That child is starting out with the most important advantage of all - being wanted and loved by the two people who will raise them.
“1) S/he won’t live with a male parent”
But then, there might be a grandfather, or brother, or family friend who could fullfill a male role model in their life. Failing that, there is yet another solution.
For many years my husband, has been the “big brother” to a young boy who has two lesbian moms (these two have been together forever), the boy also has an older sister. Both of these children are the biological offspring of one of the mothers, and both have the same donor father - who lives in another state, but who visits with them several times a year. This family is as happy and healthy and emotionally stable as any traditional family I have ever known. The boy is now a teenager who just entered highschool this year. He ranks among the top of his class and is currently head over heels in love with his first real girlfriend - he really is a wonderful kid.
I also know a gay male couple who have an adopted daughter - again a very happy and healthy family. Honestly, love is all that is needed.
“2) S/he won’t have very many, if any peers who are growing up in the same environment.”
Love and Stability at home is what children need more than anything, in my opinion. If they have that, they’ll survive whatever vicious words come out of the mouths of their peers.
I believe that children who have only one parent may actually have it much harder. Or kids whose parent is constantly changing girlfriends/boyfriends. Or kids who have abusive and/or alcohol and drug addicted parents.
Hmm…who rights are being violated? John who is gay has the same rights I have. They are enumerated in the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution. Marriage is NOT a right and never has been. It is regulated just like your drivers license. That is why you have a marriage license. These basic privileges are regulated by society through their legislatures. John may marry any woman he choses to just as I may. I can not marry another man and neither can John. We are both living under the same set of rules.
As for civil unions I am against them or any other set of programs that tend to equate domestic partnerships (be they gay or straight) with marriage for the purpose of giving the same financial benefits that married people have to those who are not ( be that private sector or public). As this debate moves to its logical conclusion economic forces will squash it along with heterosexual marriage. So the defenders of heterosexual marriage do have something to defend other than traditional values.
Polygamy will be the final nail in the coffin as businesses and the government are bled dry by having to feed and clothe every one living under the roofs of these new families. They will then end the benefits altogether or make them al la carte thus ending the benefit of reduced rates for family members. Gays will then no longer care about the issue as their motives are twofold: 1 to get on the gravy train both government and private and 2. to force acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of society through the institution of marriage. After they have wrecked it, no one but the religiuos among us will bother with it and since most people will then resort to “shacking up” they will have achieved their “equal status.” Thank God I am self-employed! Then as for a legal sense we are back to square one in that marriage will have been rendered worthless and only churches will continue the quaint practice.
But that is fine with me as long as I can create my Social Security free investments ( no payroll taxes becasue all my income is from investments), medical savings accounts and private health insurance for me and my family, permanent repeal of the death tax, and etc. Then I and my family can be exempt from all of this when it comes crashing down. The rest of you can wallow in the pig sty you are about to create. So please slow down. Unlike Mel Gibson I dont have the money to buy my own island yet. But when I do you can be assureed I will be out of here only to return for my free medical care when I get sick or upon my death!
Posted by: bill_j at March 18, 2005 11:57 PMBill,
You have the right under American law to marry who you wish to marry because your wishes correspond to what the gov’t approves. Gays don’t have that right.
How would you feel about this law: “Anyone is free to worship any deity they wish, as long as it’s Allah”? Under that law and your reasoning, you wouldn’t be discriminated against because you’d have equal right to worship Allah as anyone else. How would it be the law’s fault that the deity you must worship is not the one you want to worship? Why are you agitating for special rights to worship whoever you want?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 19, 2005 05:28 PMAgain let me re-iterate marriage is NOT a RIGHT. Read your constitution buddy. I can not marry more than one woman. I can not marry my mother or sister. I can not marry my aunt. I can not marry a horse or donkey no matter how responsive they may be to my amourous overtures. Does marrying your sister, mother, aunt, horse, or dog sound reasonable to you? Does the thought of sexual relations with any of the above listed repulse you in any way? If you answered yes to any of these then you will understand that some people feel the same way about sexual relations between people of the same sex! (Note: Repulsion and fear are not the same thing so use of the term Homophobia is a misnomer) Since marriage is a regulated legal device, many people want their legislatures to ban such unions.
Now what these people do in their own home I dont care. I do care when they come outside the house and demand said rights and a cut of the economic benefits that married people enjoy today. I do mind when they pass laws that force schools to teach that their chosen lifestyle is normal in public schools to my child in direct contravention to my teaching.
I can only hope that George can get 3 or more pro-life, strict constructionist, libertarians/conservatives (yes they exist) on the bench before his term is up. Hopefully very healthy 30 somethings that will put this and other such rights to BED (pun intended.)
Again we will see the total collapse of the safety net as it is currently constructed when this is taken to its final conclusion ( polygamy with full benefits to all one hundred souls living in the house)
I say bring it on. I could probably find some single, drug free, honest women with children living in near poverty that I could marry out of conveniance. We could all move in to a nice mansion with my real wife and child. With the combined income and social benefits I would never have to work again, live in a nice mansion, drive a fancy car, have health care insurance, and etc. All I would have to do is watch the kids. Oh wait if the pooled income is sufficient maybe I could hire an illegal alien as a nanny and sit out by the pool all day while my wives are out working. At least until it all collapses under its own weight.
Choosing ones Diety is a gauranteed right under the constitution.
Posted by: bill_j at March 19, 2005 07:07 PMAgain let me re-iterate marriage is NOT a RIGHT. Read your constitution buddy.
When you use a belligerent tone with me, do not presume to be my “buddy”.
There are many benefits and yes, rights, that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution that are granted to citizens. However, society and the government grant many benefits (someone has counted over a thousand) that I receive because I am straight that others do not receive. In the constitution, that is considered a violation of equal protection, so the constitution is involved.
The argument of the slippery slope is a very weak argument for this issue. Would gay marriage be the beginning of the slippery slope? Or did the slope first start to slip when we realized that it was acceptable for white people and black people to marry each other. After all, there were people at the time who felt the same revulsion over that issue that you feel over homosexuals. They were wrong then, and the issue isn’t different now.
I do care when they come outside the house and demand said rights and a cut of the economic benefits that married people enjoy today.Why? How does it improve your life at all to deny others the same benefits you receive? How does it benefit you to prevent someone from passing an estate to a partner of 50 years without having to pay taxes? How does it benefit you to prevent a loving partner from being able to make medical decisions in a time of emergency?
You obviously care, but I have no idea why it’s in your interest to hurt fellow citizens that aren’t hurting you.
Choosing ones Diety is a gauranteed right under the constitution.
Yep, and that’s why my question is merely hypothetical and not something we actually have to deal with. Could you answer the question, or will you just dodge it again?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 19, 2005 08:49 PMThe “slippery slope” argument has been used by opponents of many changes in law. If the slippery slope argument was correct, we would now be putting to death infants (Roe v Wade), taken over by communism (fall of South Vietnam), banned every gun (assault rifle ban), and many more hypothetical situations that never came to pass. This is a scare tactic used by some, to convince the majority, that their position on a subject is morally superior.
Maybe we should take a deep breath, relax, and watch Canada.
Sharon
I hate to revive the slippery slope slant of this debate, but I must point out another issue not mentioned under the “rights” arguement.
Lets say that same-sex marriage does become legal with full rights under the law.
How can anyone at that point argue against 2 brothers or 2 sisters marrying ?
They can’t produce children without someone eles help.
The same arguement could be used for father/son and mother/daughter marriage.
Please don’t try to argue against that because of religous views or tradition because that arguement was removed by the same sex marriage ruleing that allows the now legal gay marriage.
Its not beastality, poligomy, or marrying your car or silly stuff, its based on “rights”, how can you now deny that under the law at this point?
If same sex marriage becomes legal based on equal rights or civil rights, I can’t see how you could argue against that in a court of law.
How many other laws and benifits will now have to be changed or adjusted?
I’m not a homophobe or being silly, I’m serious.
I think those argueing that it affects no one else if being nieve.
Posted by: Beagle at March 21, 2005 11:47 AMBeagle,
How can anyone at that point argue against 2 brothers or 2 sisters marrying? They can’t produce children without someone eles help.
Such potential problems already exist within heterosexual marriage. A man with a vasectomy wouldn’t produce offspring if he married his sister, and a post-menopausal woman wouldn’t produce offspring if she married her brother.
We already treat family as a special case within marriage law. We have a law that bans marriage between relatives even if there is no risk of genetic problems. It wouldn’t be different if there were gay marriage.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 21, 2005 01:00 PMLawnboy,
Good points that support exactly what I was saying.
Once this passed the laws you stated would be null and void.
( you can’t site old laws governing marriage useing laws that would be voided by the new one)
Posted by: Beagle at March 21, 2005 01:37 PMWhy would they NOT be null and void?
How could anyone aruge to support them at that point?
Quite often a major ruleing on a law voids many other laws, if the ruleing stands the conflicting laws are deemed void.
They wouldn’t be null or void automatically, that’s for sure. Someone would have to contest the laws based on the new precedent, and then the courts would have to decide whether the state has a public interest in preventing non-procreatory incestual marriage.
However, someone could contest the law on the same grounds today, and it would probably have about the same chances either way.
Allowing gay marriage doesn’t really change anything on this.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 21, 2005 01:55 PMLawnboy,
If same sex marriage were passed useing equal rights as a basis, no competent attorney would ever waste their time trying to argue against the types of marriages I sited.
What could possibly be the basis at that point?
The things you sited as factors would have to have been deemed illegal or non factors for a judge to have ruled favorably for same sex marriage under equal rights.
Once changed it will become “case law”, along with the arguments used in fighting the origional law/ruleing that changed said law.
If the USSC ruled for same sex marriage based on equal rights, they wouldn’t hear another case against other types of marriage that used arguements against, for the one they just ruled for in another case.
Posted by: Beagle at March 21, 2005 02:46 PMBeagle,
That’s just not true. Marrying relatives, multiple people, animals, inanimate objects, etc. is qualitatively different than marrying another single consenting adult, so the cases would have to be tried. There are enough lawyers and enough deep pockets that any other modifications to marriage law would be fully considered by the courts.
It’s also very possible for courts to rule that the other forms of marriage would be against the public interest where a marriage between two consenting, non-related adults wouldn’t be.
You’re jumping far ahead of what the courts would accept.
If the USSC ruled for same sex marriage based on equal rights, they wouldn’t hear another case against other types of marriage that used arguements against, for the one they just ruled for in another case.
SCOTUS will hear whatever case they want whenever they want. If they want to hear a case about polygamy, they’ll hear a case about polygamy. And the issues are different enough there’s no reason to assume they wouldn’t.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 21, 2005 02:58 PMEither that, or the decision on the first marriage case they hear will be explicit on what precedent it does or does not set for other marriage issues.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 21, 2005 03:13 PMLawnboy,
You could be correct in your arguement if you add cases that I wasn’t talking about, but if you stick to the cases I was talking about, how would you rule against those ?
Posted by: Beagle at March 21, 2005 03:14 PMBeagle,
I wasn’t sure which cases you were talking about, so I had to guess. I went off your mention of beastality, poligomy, or marrying your car, but it seems I minunderstood.
Please restate your question so I know about which cases you are talking.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 21, 2005 03:22 PMLawnboy,
I could retype everything, or you could just read my previous posts that you responded to the first time.
I could also cut/paste everything, but that would be like adding spam to watchblog, I won’t do that unless its bringing up a small point from a post.
I love to debate, refuse to just argue, if we are at a point beyond debate, I’ll just bow out and say you won.
Posted by: Beagle at March 21, 2005 03:43 PMBeagle,
I honestly don’t know which cases you wanted me to discuss. We were talking about some incest cases, and I thought we were done with those situations. Then you mentioned “types of marriage I cited,” so I tried to figure out which ones those were, and I looked in your post for the other types.
I don’t think we were arguing, so you don’t need to bow out and forfeit. I’ve simply gotten confused between the various situations that have been mentioned and the vague references to “my previous posts.” No one would consider a clarification as a result of a specific request o be spam, so feel free to clarify. We are not beyond debate.
However, if you’re not willing to help me communicate with you when I’ve gotten confused by what you’re trying to say, then we’re done.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 21, 2005 03:52 PMIn answer to your question: lets assume there is a pie and it is to be divided amongst a group equally. If there are 4 of us then we can all get a pretty good share. If there are 30 then the crumbs are not hardly worth the effort. Now we could make the pie larger to insure that everybodies peice is larger but it will require more contributions from the group. Now lets say there are special dispensations for families. Their overall burden is greater than an individual but the scale is not one to one. They are discounted. Now why should I want the definition of family changed for this group when I am perfectly fine with how it has been defined since the inception of the country. That is PART of my secular answer. I have many more objections from this angle.
Maybe I also fear for my country. Have you heard of Sodom and Gomorah? That is my religious answer. The religious perspective is much more concise.
Let me re-iterate for the umpteenth time that marriage is not a right. Using your interpretation of the 14th admendment, then blind people should be allowed to get a drivers license. I feel homosexual marriage is a danger to marriage as currently defined and hence a danger to society.
I can gaurantee you that the framers of the constitution and the crafters of the 14th admendment never had homosexual marriage in mind. I am a firm believer in following the original intent of our founders laws. This SCOTUS (conservative judges included) have “chucked” that whole premise.
Now I would like the courts to sit there and honsetly think about the intent of laws by those who created them. Had they been doing this over the last 60-70 yrs we would not find ourselves in this situation. It would not even be debated. Law is not about current mores.
Now I have a perfectly constittutional solution for you but you would not agree to it. Propose a constitutional admenment to define marriage as between two persons. Get it ratified and then this debate of legality would be over with no slipery slope.
Judges should be very careful about their current willy nilly attitude on the constitution. It does not mean what they feel it should mean or what foriegn mores dictate society should be like. They are alienating the red states and will soon find themselves behind the choke of article 3 and I doubt it would be a measured response. Congress could make the court a 1 man outfit with Clarence Thomas as lone justice. They can take away judical review concerning a whole host of laws. They can eliminate whole circuits. They can re-arange them.
If it happens I would suspect a large amount of wailing and nashing of teeth in the Blue States since they would feel they were in hell.
The courts do not have police, or military. They can not tax or spend. Their strength lies in the respect they hold with the people. Once that respect is gone they can and will be run over roughshod by the other 2 branches. Their only hope is to return to a more strict interpretation of the law. Their current bent of forcing minortiy views on the majority with nebulous interpretations of the constitution especially the catchall of privacy and overly broad interpetations of the 14th adm. is eroding their respect. The red states will not long suffer such subversions of their “values” by such means.
In answer to your question: lets assume there is a pie and it is to be divided amongst a group equally…Of course, a great many of the benefits accorded to spouses have nothing to do with a general pie. Being able to make medical decisions in emergencies, for example, doesn’t take from a general pie. So for denying those benefits, you’re just being mean.
But let’s look at the benefits that have a tangible benefits. As you say, the benefit to you of restricting the benefit to others is quite small, just pennies on the dollar. So, let’s get rid of more marriages. If your real concern is your personal wealth, let’s ban inter-racial marriages and second marriages (whether due to divorce or death). After all, by eliminating more marriages, your share of the pie would get bigger, no matter how much pain you’re causing to others. And you’ve said that marriage isn’t a right, so there’d be no reason for those people to complain, right?
Maybe I also fear for my country. Have you heard of Sodom and Gomorah? That is my religious answer. The religious perspective is much more concise.I’m very confused about this answer. What about “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” or “whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me”? It seems to me that the Bible is very clear that you should not be in favor of hurting other people in order to increase your piece of the pie.
Or perhaps you’re saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they are sinners. If that’s really your standard for how our civil law should be, we should just dismantle the whole concept of marriage, because no one would qualify. Or are you saying that only those your particular denomination believe would go to heaven should be eligible for civil marriage? I guess we’d need to put your pastor in charge of all civil marriage licenses, but I think that’s a violation of the Constitution, don’t you?
So, Christianity likely says homosexuality is wrong (though there is debate on this), and you focus on that instead of “Love your neighbor as yourself”, which Jesus himself says is more important than laws on homosexuality (Mark 12:31). It’s definitely more important than you increasing your share of the pie (all religions would agree that hurting others out of greed is wrong). Why should be base civil law on this?
Let me re-iterate for the umpteenth time that marriage is not a right.
Repetition does not make accuracy.
Using your interpretation of the 14th admendment, then blind people should be allowed to get a drivers license.
Not at all. The courts allow the state to balance individual rights and equal protection against societal harm. The societal harm of allowing blind people to drive greatly outweighs the right to drive.
I feel homosexual marriage is a danger to marriage as currently defined and hence a danger to society.How so? This is often stated, but never really defended. How does gay marriage harm the institution of marriage or society? Marriage has survived Jennifer Lopez and Scott Peterson, so it would definitely survive including more people who love each other and want to make a committment to living their lives together.
The only societal harm you have stated is that your share of the pie would be reduced, which is just a result of the benefits of marriage. In effect, you’re saying the harm of allowing gays to be married is that more people would be married. So, your problem is with marriage itself. Do you really think that marriage is such a threat to marriage?
The standard for societal harm has to be higher than bill_j not liking something.
The job of the courts is to rule on current issues based on the Constitution and precedent. If the majority view disagrees with the Constitution, the majority needs to deal with it instead of throwing out the Constitutional balance. I know this upsets you as a representative of the red states, but it’s how the system works because that’s what the Constitution put in place.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 22, 2005 10:43 AMOf the european nations, canadian providences and US state where same sex marriage is already legal, where are the polygamy, beastiality and incest cases?
Is it perhaps that the challenges to piggyback these issues on same sex marriage don’t exist, or is it that in these places in the world, polygamists and incestists (is there a term for this? if not, accept this one for now) choose not to set up residence?
The United States isn’t the first entity to tackle this matter. If this “slippery slope” routine has any grounding in anything tangible, other than to incite fear in the gullible, and muddy the issue enough to take attention away from the real points, I’d be interested to see it. Surely Vancouver must be eyebrow deep in polygamists chomping at the bit? Surely a man and his horse must have applied for a marriage license somewhere and slipped through under the gaping cracks left in the wake of same sex marriage legislation?
Following this slippery slope logic, one could conclude that since we’ve had a chimpanzee in the oval office for 5 years now, that it’s not long before farm animals conduct a bloodless coup and we live out our days in a literal redition of Animal Farm.
SSM will happen eventually. I’d be extra proud of my country if it happened in my life time, but either way, I still believe common sense and equality will prevail in the end.
Posted by: Taylor at March 22, 2005 01:50 PMOf the european nations, canadian providences and US state where same sex marriage is already legal, where are the polygamy, beastiality and incest cases?
Is it perhaps that the challenges to piggyback these issues on same sex marriage don’t exist, or is it that in these places in the world, polygamists and incestists (is there a term for this? if not, accept this one for now) choose not to set up residence?
The United States isn’t the first entity to tackle this matter. If this “slippery slope” routine has any grounding in anything tangible, other than to incite fear in the gullible, and muddy the issue enough to take attention away from the real points, I’d be interested to see it. Surely Vancouver must be eyebrow deep in polygamists chomping at the bit? Surely a man and his horse must have applied for a marriage license somewhere and slipped through under the gaping cracks left in the wake of same sex marriage legislation?
Following this slippery slope logic, one could conclude that since we’ve had a chimpanzee in the oval office for 5 years now, that it’s not long before farm animals conduct a bloodless coup and we live out our days in a literal redition of Animal Farm.
SSM will happen eventually. I’d be extra proud of my country if it happened in my life time, but either way, I still believe common sense and equality will prevail in the end.
Posted by: Taylor at March 22, 2005 01:50 PMI expressed my religious views in less than 10 sentences yet that seems to be all you focused on. So be it. Jesus said and I paraphrase it that he did not come to overturn the law. Leviticus is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Exodus is clear that Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed in part because of their sexual immorality. Jesus would have never sanctioned a homosexual marriage as that would have created an ongoing persistant state of sin. When he spared mary m. he told “now go and sin no more” Now if ones immortal soul is edangered by such unrepentant activity is it not more compassionate to discourage such activity and save the persons soul? I dont hate gay people and have worked with many and had a friend “come out” to me. He knows that I still consider him a friend
but will never accept his lifestyle as normal or proper. He himself struggles with it.
Now on to the real arguements. The rulings of judges in constitutional matters have nothing to do with precedent but with original intent and written law. Just becasue that is how the have chosen to deal with it does not make it right but merely expedient. Otherwise Dred Scott would have never been undone. As for the pie it was one analogy. I have no propblem with contracts being created by individuals to allow one to “inherit” from another non-relative, or a legal request to allow hospital visitation. I do have a problem with society creating a union or marriage that automatically gains rights to social security benefits and would force businesses to give homosexual couples the same benefits that their other married couples enjoy or be forced to offer them to no one. As soon as that legal definition is given then businesses will be forced to do these thing under law. As a business owner, if i had employees, I would have to not offer any benefits. There is no way I would offer benefits to people that are engaged in activity that outrages my sense of morality. I would not knowingly hire a gay person under those circumstances either; wheras, without these issues I would not care. As for the slippery slope arguement, it is valid here more so than in say europe because of the nature of our courts and constitution. Once marriage is determined to be a right and not a privilege governed by the states then it is only logical that other arguements can be made against other groups facing discrimnatory laws that prevent them from exercising that right.
As for it being a right, it is not and has never been treated as such. Again looking at original intent and religious nature if the founders we know they would not have granted it and it is they that wrote the laws. In the founders day marriage was monogamous and between a man and woman. Adultery and Sodomy were universally illegal. As time changed the states changed these things for good or ill but it was still the decision of their populaces’ duely elected represenatives.
Congress creates the courts, regulates their makeup and can even restrict their jurisdiction. As they continue to create rights not enumerated or invisioned under original intent and in direct cotravention of popular will, they run the risk of having article 3 used against them. This would then put our real rights in jeopardy.
My state will soon be voting on a constitutional admendment to clarify the issue. Both options are to be voted on. So either it will be codified as legal or banned. I live in the south so I am pretty confident that this red state will vote to ban it. This should be a case of tenth admendment rights of the states to decide but I know that the courts will pull out the “privacy” sham and/or the overly broad interpetation of the 14th adm to force this upon the people. They overturn our will to grant a right not envisioned by the founders or the writers of the 14th adm. becasue they are politcally predisposed toward it and becasue they can. Again the talks of using article 3 have begun . It is perfectly constitutional and would effectively neuter the judiciary. Then we would be at the mercy of the other branches. They have a right and an obligation to determine the constitutionality of any laws they pass. But they have shown since FDR that such scrutiny is no longer exercised. They have abused the general welfare and commerce clauses to no end. Even though the founders warned against using those clauses in the manner they are today.
I believe putting strict constructionist on the bench is what is needed before the courts commit politcal suicide. Without respect the court has no real power. The executive must uphold their rulings and we all know about Andrew Jackson. I do not know were you live but down here in the south the federal courts and SCOTUS are losing respect.
Posted by: bill_j at March 22, 2005 03:35 PMbill_j,
OK. I see that for you it’s nothing more than a matter that you hate gays (The “I have friends who are Jewish” approach to defend yourself is sad) and think your religion hates them, too, so you would refuse them the right to be happy or make a living or be members of society in any way.
How can I argue against that? Your heart is hardened; you don’t care who it hurts. I’ve tried to debate on legal, religous, and moral grounds, but none of that matters because you pa