Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

My compliments on such a principled and illuminating post.

Mitt knows many things but McCain knows one big thing, i.e. Iraq, and when push comes to shove the GOP wants to win the war above all else.

— Allahpundit

Therein lies the rub. If not for that issue, Ron Paul would be front and center conservative candidate number 1. Too bad.

The Governor has gone to the dark-side to join the likes of Fabian Nunez! He’s done a lot of stupid things, but this takes the cake! Give him a call and tell him NO on 93!

List of 42 legislators who will be termed out if Prop 93 is squashed
You have the opportunity to rid state government of “Colostomy Bag” Lloyd Levine, Mexican Socialist Fabian Nunez, “1 bill” Gil Cedillo, Don “Crackers” Perata and more!

Sacramento State Capitol
Phone: 916-445-2841

Power of attorneys, on the other hand, address control rather than rights, and can be for a single specific purpose, or a general power of attorney that is extremely broad.

But you don’t have to duplicate all the rights and privileges of marriage in excruciating detail to see that homosexuals have no need of official marriage on practical grounds. It’s all about the recognition and the validation of being able to say “We’re married, too, just like you are.” And that is a social recognition, which means it’s not about them, it’s about others having to accept them.

Which means that, even if they were to get everything they want in terms of “gay marriage,” they will not be satisfied with it. Simply put, recognition of them as “married” will still not really force others to accept them. So the end of all this effort is essentially unachievable.

But no matter how you try to justify it, the fact of the matter is that the state only has the power to recognize marriages. Marriage was not created by the government, and since the government didn’t create it, it has no power to redefine it.

Properly speaking, there should be no need for a marriage amendment. Properly understood, the suggestion that the government has some say in the definition of marriage should just be laughed at.

But instead, we’re going to have groups of people turn this into some sort of crusade. And the only way to make the whole issue go away is to either specifically allow it, or specifically end the whole discussion with a law that says, in effect, “No, and don’t ask again.” And since the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the right to declare any law to be in conflict with the Constitution, that’s going to lead us further and further along the path of a Constitutional amendment just to put this issue to rest.

Great. Just great.

It’s not like any man, gay or straight, can’t name another man as a beneficiary or assign him a power of attorney.

Not quite. A power of attorney doesn’t address leaving an estate or survivor benefits. In medical emergencies power of attorney can take time for hospital administrators to validate. Also attorney time can be expensive for some people.

In other words, the whole point of “gay marriage” is to force full recognition from others.

Is it possible that some don’t look to the government to validate their personal choices? Is it possible that some people want to get married for each other rather than as a demonstration to others?

Churches don’t have to perform weddings they don’t want to, even straight couples get turned down by churches.

This whole push for so-called “gay marriage” is about exactly one thing: forcing people to recognize “gay marriages” as equal in every way to traditional marriage. In other words, the whole point of “gay marriage” is to force full recognition from others.

Once “gay marriage” is legally required and mandated, we will start seeing lawsuits against those who refuse to recognize them. I suspect some of the first lawsuits will be against churches which refuse to perform such “weddings”, or against Christian schools which refuse to accept students from a “gay marriage” home.

Actually, not necessarily true in all states. Landlords have in fact been victorious in defending their rights to refuse to rent to “un-married couples” on religous principles. This includes heterosexual couples as well. But this is besides the point, because again you’ve gone off topic.

It’s not a “benefit” given to married couples to “rent apartments.” A benefit would be a “reduced rate” or “discount” based on being legally married.

Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Agreed that it varies from state to state and that the size of the building usually comes into play–if you are renting a room in your house it is different than running a high-rise with hundreds of apartments.

My topic is the role and scope of the government, in this case as it relates to marriage.

As it relates to this post, I think the conservatives within the GOP can do better by focusing more on issues that make life tangibly better for people. Married people with kids care more about a safer more prosperous country than whether the gay homeowners nearby are married or just living together.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Thanks, that’s kind of you. I did wade through, but the argument interests me enough to warrant it. :-)

My ideal world would have marriage simply be a cultural/religious ceremony with no state licensing. Our tax code would then have to change to something much simpler.

I completely agree.

Unbelievably good post, and I agree wholeheartedly. I’m actually amazed you waded through the whole thread to comment. My ideal world would have marriage simply be a cultural/religious ceremony with no state licensing.

Completely agree with your point on state licensing and on Spirit of 1776’s excellent post–really a very good read.

Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Unbelievably good post, and I agree wholeheartedly. I’m actually amazed you waded through the whole thread to comment. My ideal world would have marriage simply be a cultural/religious ceremony with no state licensing. Our tax code would then have to change to something much simpler.

But that will never happen because so many Institutions of Gov’t require the state’s “blessing” to verify married status. Oy vey.

If you are a landlord, you’d be legally obligated to rent to them in many states whether they are married or not. Gay people individually have many protections from discrimination whether they are married or not.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Actually, not necessarily true in all states. Landlords have in fact been victorious in defending their rights to refuse to rent to “un-married couples” on religous principles. This includes heterosexual couples as well. But this is besides the point, because again you’ve gone off topic.

It’s not a “benefit” given to married couples to “rent apartments.” A benefit would be a “reduced rate” or “discount” based on being legally married.

Good post. You’re correct about Ninth Amendment, of course. But I believe we’re in agreement that a marriage license is not a right but rather a privilege bestowed by State governments. Individuals are allowed to form whatever relationships they like — they can even have a marriage ceremony to commemorate it. But at the end of the day each State has their own laws when it comes to recognizing the legitimacy of a marriage.

HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM

There are two things at work here, theory and reality. In theory the government has no power over marriage. As an institution is not a promise to the state. It is a promise from one individual to another (and if religious) a covenant to God. Nowhere in there is there any appeal or authorization by the state.

Now, in reality, the state has assumed some authority already. I think that marriage licenses began to be issued in the early 20th century, I believe. Unlike a certificate, a license interjects the state into the equation.

As such, I see three possibilities. I’ll answer yours first. Marriage defined by state. I think this is fundamentally flawed because I, like the founding fathers, don’t believe the state has authority over natural law, but in the situation in which we find ourselves, it requires no further abdication of freedom. In other words, the state has already absorbed power to regulate marriage with it’s licensing.

Second, marriage defined by the federal government. Having already invited the state into a covenant of which it is not involved, this answer involves yielding more power to the government. In a sense, however, an amendment would legalize what the marriage licenses have already assumed. As Lincoln said, of, by, and for. Amendments certainly represent that. That is it would make marriage the exclusive domain of civil, or common law, instead of the quasi shared situation it now has. That would fundamentally change what marriage is.

This to me is akin to yielding Czechoslovakia after yielding the Rhineland. Having given up some power already, the hope is that the complications that have arisen from that abdication can be resolved by given up more power. The hope is that the restrictions will stand, but I think that is the most dangerous of the positions because if the mood of the country changes and such an amendment is appealed, the grounds for recourse to natural law (by religion etc) have been already yielded. I don’t care for it at all. John Adam’s once said that our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. That means a pre-existing situation. I don’t care to yield the ability to regulate moral and religious power to an instrument that depends on it’s pre-existence to function well.

The third is to remove marriage from the jurisdiction of government sphere, to return it to its original place. This seems to me to be the far best situation. That would be what we had pre-early 20th century. I highly doubt the fathers foresaw the absorption of the state to define marriage. That would have been categorically dismissed as an encroachment by the state on religion. The problem is, of course, the monetary issues involved. Having integrated marriage into our tax code, inheritance laws, etc, it’s probably near impossible to remove now. Hence my opening comment on theory and reality.

That’s the long answer to say, yeah, the states are probably best equipped to deal with the freedom that has already been ceded, but the FMA is probably of great legality, and neither is the right solution in my estimation. I hope have communicated this clearly.

At least, not until they tell me I have to allow them to come into my business and that I have to treat them the same as a husband and wife with three children.

If you are a landlord, you’d be legally obligated to rent to them in many states whether they are married or not. Gay people individually have many protections from discrimination whether they are married or not.

Unfortunately, you’re arguing that we should make gay marriage the business of everyone.

Actually, I’m arguing from a practical standpoint that my neighbor’s marriage is not my business and they don’t stick it down my throat. If they decide to build an addition to their house that violates the setback ordinance of the town, that’s another story whether they are a straight or gay couple.

I’m arguing that we stop looking to the government to tell us what is morally right or wrong, but rather to protect our individual liberty to pursue our live without interference from our government, our fellow citizens or foreigners.

What people do with their personal lives is their business.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Actually, that’s my point. Unfortunately, you’re arguing that we should make gay marriage the business of everyone. How many times must I repeat this? Gay people can hook up and bond with anyone, or anything they like. I don’t care. A man can buy a ring, put it on a goat’s penis, and live as a couple with that goat until death do them part. Doesn’t concern me. At least, not until they tell me I have to allow them to come into my business and that I have to treat them the same as a husband and wife with three children. I won’t, and I don’t want anyone telling me I have to.

I think you would be hard pressed to argue that divorce is being shoved down the throat of the “AMERICAN PEOPLE.”

What people do with their personal lives is their business. I may think divorce and remarriage is wrong (since you took a vow ’till death) and I may be in the minority, but whether 1% or 99% of the people agree with me about divorce it is hard for me to make a case that another couple’s divorce is going to threaten my marriage.

If gay marriage were dilutive of my marriage, if, say, I had a stock certificate in Marriage, Inc. and someone just started issuing more certificates that made mine worth a smaller percentage, then OK. But gay marriage, straight marriage, gay or straight divorce leaves my marriage in whatever shape my wife and I produce.

Of course. The race card. That works.

Looking at history works when one is evaluating an appeal that tradition must dictate how we live our lives today. Most of the time I’ve seen the race card played it has been over black and white relations, but interracial marriage restrictions affected Chinese people as well and so my point isn’t related to a particular ethnic group.

righ now the majority probably agrees with extending hospital visition rights and other practical rights to gay couples. Certainly many Fortune 500 business are already extending these kinds of recognition.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I have absolutely no problem with people, businesses, or organizations who want to “voluntarily” recognize gay “couples” for whatever reason. This doesn’t change the fact that they are not “married” and it’s far different than having a court or government mandate that we MUST recognize it as legitimate.

Yes, it is unreasonable, because “the state” and “the people” do not recognize those couples as being a legitimate legal marriage.

And if that changes by a majority, then so be it? I probably don’t disagree with that.

The majority of people in most states agree with you with regard to marriage. I think that is changing over time, but righ now the majority probably agrees with extending hospital visition rights and other practical rights to gay couples. Certainly many Fortune 500 business are already extending these kinds of recognition.

The government supports divorce. If I’m not in favor of divorce and remarriage are other couples sticking it down my throat when they end one marriage and begin another?

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:50 PM

I believe you would find that support BY THE PEOPLE is overwhelmingly in favor of recognizing divorce, don’t you think? I think you would be hard pressed to argue that divorce is being shoved down the throat of the “AMERICAN PEOPLE.”

What about interracial marriage? When the laws against that were struck down wasn’t that unfair to people who find it disgusting?

Of course. The race card. That works.
Same argument. What percentage of the AMERICAN PEOPLE do you think would vote that they find interracial marriage “disgusting?”

The fact that most homosexuals are not interested in marriage for the obvious reason does not therefore entitle them to the creation of a new form of marriage more to their liking.

Make no mistake: gay marriage is not just extending marriage to gays, it is redefining marriage itself. That is the opposite of conservatism.

In fact, once marriage is redefined to include two men or two women, the same argument works just as well for defining marriage to be three women, or three men, or two men and a woman, or two women and a man, or four …..

When you attempt to force us to recognize that “personal bond” for the purpose of obtaining government benefits, you’ve gone too far.

The government supports divorce. If I’m not in favor of divorce and remarriage are other couples sticking it down my throat when they end one marriage and begin another?

What about interracial marriage? When the laws against that were struck down wasn’t that unfair to people who find it disgusting?

It is not unreasonable for the state to provide gay couples the ability file taxes together, inherit property or collect survivor benefits.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Yes, it is unreasonable, because “the state” and “the people” do not recognize those couples as being a legitimate legal marriage.

Two other people marrying doesn’t force their belief down other people’s throats.

dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM

No, but forcing legal action to require us to accept it does indeed do exactly that.

Currently, a marriage license is issued only to members of the opposite sex. You’re not asking for the laws to remain the same. You’re asking for it to be “changed” in order to allow something to take place that the people of this country have overwhelmingly been opposed to. Yes, you are forcing it down our throats.

At the same time, this forced recognition in turn puts a requirement on other private parties and private businesses to honor your personal choice. Banks, hospitals, and any person or group who recognizes the Institution of Marriage of a bond between a man and woman would now be forced by law to give the same recognition, benefit, or acknowledgment to two people of the same sex.

Also, it continues to be ignored that there’s a big difference between a “legal contractual” marriage and a personal choice to bond with another person for life. There are absolutely no laws which prevent homosexuals from making a life commitment with another person of the same sex.

When you attempt to force us to recognize that “personal bond” for the purpose of obtaining government benefits, you’ve gone too far.