Video: Palin supports Federal Marriage Amendment
posted at 3:53 pm on October 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Normally I’d call this another reason for the base to love her, but the implications for federalism make me wonder how reaction will shake out. Althouse, who’s been pretty high on her (but isn’t a member of the base, needless to say), finds it “genuinely dismaying.” I find it more perplexing than anything else given that she’s on record recently as supporting a federalist approach to abortion. I can understand the opposite position, of banning abortion at the federal level via amendment (as Huckabee wants to do) but letting the states handle marriage on grounds that the dire moral imperative in protecting innocent life should trump normal conservative inclinations towards state rights, but what’s the argument for Palin’s vice versa? Is it simply a question of identifying which issue federal judges are more likely to tinker with at this point and taking that issue out of their hands before they can act? McCain shares that concern — but thinks that any amendment can and should come after a problematic ruling, not before. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
No one will be forced to gay marry. Also, I doubt anyone who is straight married will decide they’ll want to gay marry instead.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
We discriminate against crazy people by not letting them buy guns or fly planes. So?
Any man is allowed to marry any woman he chooses, and versa vice. You included. There’s no discrimination there.
Allowing men attracted to one another’s anuses to get married is not included within the definition of marriage. Sorry. No wonder you prefer rule by judges to rule by The People, since we haven’t yet figured out how to keep crazy people off the bench.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Is that enough to back up your statement? No.
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM
because of the full faith and credit clause…its just a matter of time before the supreme black-robed thugs rule in favor of gay marriage.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:47 PM
sure this isn’t Fey speaking?
vinman on October 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Christopher Hitchens has even admitted recently that things like Human Rights are Absolute, non-changing(non-evolving) Rights that exist and Transcend us. Basically the same thing Christian Theist beleive yet he doesn’t realize it AND can’t explain where the Rights transcend FROM.
a guy at the Corner called him out on that one recently. good stuff
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Marriage is actually a covenant for many. Legal contract is secondary or even tertiary, but I can see for a same sex couple that would appear as primary. One more existential distortion a Gay couple would need to right in order to see the reality of marriage.
Hening on October 20, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Murder and theft are not moral under humanist because they take away freedoms and property from others.
As for humanism, just because you don’t understand a philosophy don’t go around discounting it as rubbish. I understand Christianity. I understand its history, its arguments, its strengths and its weaknesses. I don’t begrudge it as a fairly solid base for moral action. I just find its premises of divine revelation false.
As for monotheism (or triune theism), I can turn your simplistic argument of relativism back on you by asking what makes Muhammadan morality any less valid than yours?
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM
again gay marriage takes away religious freedom from christians. we’ve seen it already. it takes property away from a church in NJ by forcing them to allow gay marriages in it.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM
I’d like to see that! ^_^
God, it would be so funny. A comedy routine suggests itself. Actually, I think a Simpson’s episode had this very thing. The Movementarians cult took over Springfield and had mass marriages. Comic-Book Guy married Otto the bus driver. Otto said “Remember, I’m the man!”
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM
sounds like the Middle East and Sharia law, so may happen in the US at some point. It was “Moral” to the Prophet Muhammed to marry a 6 yr old and screw her at age 9, an example many muslims today take to heart.
according to the Secular Humanist there is absolutely no reason we should oppose such a thing being legal in the United States. If they followed their logic consistently that is, instead they will borrow their worldview from another source to claim such a thing as being “Immoral” and “Wrong” most likely.
jp on October 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Leaving no space for Fey to go over-the-top with…
tomg51 on October 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM
So you’ve looked for God everywhere and couldn’t find him, eh? Maybe He’s just hiding from you.
No? Then go here.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM
What??
JetBoy on October 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM
So Jefferson was hoping that the country would evolve morally to the point where slavery could be abolished. Though at some point he knew it wouldn’t happen in his lifetime and he’d be required to hold onto his slaves for financial reasons.
My original point was that Jefferson knew that moral views evolve within a society. Slavery, and his views on it, would seem to support that.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM
The Full Faith & Credit clause has been interpreted to mean that anyone who can legally be married in any state is therefore able to be legally married in all of them. Furthermore, income tax forms and other instruments of the US national (not “federal”) government treat people differently based on their marital status. That means that the US government is involved in the issue, unless and until they stop making one set of rules for singles, one for married couples, and another for widow(er)s.
The Monster on October 20, 2008 at 4:54 PM
A prediction on gay marriage as a process, alluded to above when I called it Roe v Wade part II.
If Obama is elected, especially if twice, he will nominate two, perhaps three very young activist judges. Once seated several attempts to bring tangential cases relating to but not exactly dealing with gay marriage will be brought up through the lower courts. My guess, the 9th circuit out of San Francisco will be in the forefront. Who knows it could be a fertility/custody/divorce dispute between two married lesbians and the gay man who donated and changed his mind. Whatever, someone in question crossed state lines from California to Utah shall we say. From a state that says OK to a state that doesn’t.(I have no idea about Utah-I picked them at random)
It lands on the docket at the Supreme Court. First they have to decide if they even want to take it. Let’s say they do. It loses 4-3. Whew. But the ice has been broken. Sooner or later I think it will pass. Why? Because a large majority of people under 30 support it. Each case will bring it closer and the cases will keep on coming. It’s a California thing…..
Roe v Wade part II
patrick neid on October 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Marriage licenses in CA are already omitting “Bride” and “Groom” in favor of “Partner 1/2″. So changing marriage is not just allowing buggers marital privileges, it means changing marriage for everyone is as yet unheard of ways.
Gotta go. Thanks for your civility.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Man, this stuff is funny. “Men attracted to other men’s anuses”? I can’t even read it with a straight face. What if gay men don’t care for rear landings? What if they only care for fellatio? What if they are autosexual? Asexual? Who cares?
As for me marrying a man, yuck! Can’t see a reason other than to have someone to do heavy lifting and yard work.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:56 PM
One tends to condone what one does. Unless Jefferson was a hypocrite. I believe I did a good job of discounting him as an authority suitable for appeal.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:58 PM
+1
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:59 PM
The main difference between your scenario and gay marriage is that for some reason we don’t have thousands of groups of “twenty individuals of mixed or same gender” wanting to get married. We do have thousands of gay couples wanting to legalize their status.
factoid on October 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I’m glad to see much more reasoning in this thread compared to the last same-sex marriage thread. I guess the two main offenders are still in their padded cells.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Ah, but think of the slippery slope. I’m of the “leave be who will leave me be” ilk, but after watching Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts be required either to offer abortions to their employees or to cease business, I’m not so sanguine anymore. Once something becomes a right, what is to stop the state from requiring private parties to actively support that right, even when it is against their personal ethos? Watching what happened to the Boy Scouts due to their resistance to gays becoming scoutmasters is instructive. Watching what happened to my own Church when some of its gay priests exercised their hypersexuality is instructive.
Do I want to be required to rent to a gay married couple. No I don’t. But that’s the slippery slope, as Mass. has shown. So their rights cross mine, and I’m going to vote in favor of my rights.
unclesmrgol on October 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I’d be willing to give it a go, to be sure.
And if incestuous marriage were legalized, nobody would be forced to marry their siblings or their children either.
I can still say with certainty, however, that I’d be firmly against it.
Bottom line: I’ve never had a problem with civil unions or equal rights, but I DO have a serious problem with redefining language.
Misha I on October 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
this is the kind of disgusting BS rhetoric that makes reasonable people shudder at the ‘conservative mind.’ Ugh. Are you married Akzed? Were you simply attracted to your wife’s vagina?
Grow up.
Grow Fins on October 20, 2008 at 5:06 PM
You abused the English language and slandered Jefferson is what you did.
Jefferson, like many men of his time, was troubled by slavery and hoped it would die out. The worse you can say, well, let me rephrase, the worse you can say truthfully, is that he might have been paralyzed by not seeing a way out other then the gradual death of slavery because of it’s economic ramifications.
Of course, you didn’t say that. You said he condoned it. [to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless - a good enough definition for here].
Moreover, Jefferson is an authority on moral law, being a great natural philosopher, but more to the point, he penned the Declaration of Independence which set the boundaries for government with regard to natural (or moral) vs. civil law. Which, of course, is the founding document of our country.
So, no. You have not discounted him.
Spirit of 1776 on October 20, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Catholic hospitals in MA are required to offer abortions to their employees? When did this start?
SnarkVader on October 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM
There is already substantial anti-discrimination law preventing you from discriminating against gay people–whether they are straight or married.
I agree with your point about private organizations, and allowing them to practice their moral beliefs, though the line between public and private can be hard to draw and subject to debate.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Ugh.
First thing I’ve heard from her that I don’t like.
Opposing Roe on Federalist grounds means accepting that states can do all kinds of crazy things, and the federal government has no business taking a position.
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution barring the citizens of the several states from defining social issues as they see fit?
Ugh.
Chalk this one up with a Flag Burning amendment and Prohibition as totally atrocious ideas.
Maybe McCain can convince her on this one, while she’s convincing him on ANWR.
ClintACK on October 20, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Anecdotal: I’m in a liberal college town in SoCal — there are lots of Yes on 8 signs here — at least as many as Obama signs and many more than No on 8 signs.
Personally, I am ambivalent about gay marriage. A big part of me doesn’t care. Even from the financial arguments (such as the costs to employers of extending benefits to domestic partners), it seems to me the horse was out of the barn a long time ago and it was heterosexual couples with common law marriages that helped open that barn door.
On the other hand, I truly fail to see how polygamy can be outlawed if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. (I think the arguments for polygamy could potentially be stronger if they involve religious traditions, in fact.) I’m not sure I’m ready for a society that promotes polygamy.
My husband is strongly for Prop 8, so we’ve had a few discussions about it. We agree on a personal level about the moral issues surrounding homosexuality, but we disagree to some extent about how/when laws should regulate it. Because I respect my husband’s opinion, I’ve listened to his point of view, but I confess it was not his arguments that swayed me towards voting for Prop 8.
I believe it was at GayPatriot that I read a good analysis of the situation (written from someone who is against Prop 8, but is a good listener). The “Yes on Prop 8″ folks have formulated their argument as being more about fair play and the will of the people, than about gay rights. The ad that I’ve seen consistently run is described below:
I may or may not be riled up about extending marriage rights to gay couples, but I certainly do not approve of such blatant disregard for the will of the electorate.
Y-not on October 20, 2008 at 5:11 PM
We redefine language all the time. Marriage has already changed based on the rights of women, race, and divorce.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM
True blue America might be a thing of the past if Palin and McCain don’t make it. America loves her. We do. They should have her on on more channels more often from here on out. Go with what sells, Obama is.
johnnyU on October 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM
DOMA already circumvents both. And that statute will not be altered by the Congress any time soon.
Focusing on gay marriage issues is silly, anyway.
lansing quaker on October 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM
David Brody is teh Ghey!
Seven Percent Solution on October 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I rather the state stay away from dealing with marriage at all. Just deal with legal civil unions.
One question I have about legalizing gay marriage. What kind of conditions/limitations will the government put on it. For example can two brothers or two sisters marry? how about 2 friends who plan on being celibate? Will the government dictate that people have to have sex to get married? just wondering.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM
I admire McCain for having a running mate with whom he has substantial differences — shows he’s strong on his own positions.
chiefeditor on October 20, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Strike 1, Sarah.
I’ll only give you, oh, say, 13,426 more before my unconditional love of you weakens.
VolMagic on October 20, 2008 at 5:28 PM
I guess you don’t read. I realized the link didn’t come up and I corrected it. FYI, you wanting to bag on a Gov that obviously is at more favor then yourself, doesn’t mean you can’t use google. Idiot.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 5:28 PM
The same as always.
Can a brother and a sister marry? No.
Can two opposite-sex friends? Yes.
A “Sex” litmus test? No. (And — are you kidding me on this one? Ha!)
I dunno why so many people think a same-sex union somehow changes the entire nature of the contract. Consenting adult, not a relative, et cet.
lansing quaker on October 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Eh. Put it down to the inconsistency we’re all subject to. Here’s a rare case where I disagree with her: it’s a state issue, falling under the 10th amendment provisions. But I don’t think it’s a crisis point, either.
irishspy on October 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Hi lansing quaker -
I think it’s because some of the traditional restrictions on heterosexual marriages originate from aspects of procreation… two close relatives cannot marry because of fears about problems children arising from their union might have.
Purely as an intellectual exercise, since abortions are legal and prenatal (genetic) testing is so widespread, might we someday see a day when restrictions on two close (heterosexual) relatives marrying might be lifted?
I think gay marriage is similar to abortion rights — passing laws about it before society has had a chance to really grapple with these issues is problematic. I am strongly pro-life, but I recognize that overturning Roe v Wade would not instantaneously eliminate abortions. People need to come back around to believing abortion involves taking a human life — just outlawing it will not be sufficient.
I’m sure it’s hard to be patient when you are personally affected; however, Newsom did a lot of damage with his behavior. Prop 8 may pass.
Y-not on October 20, 2008 at 5:39 PM
It really comes down to this: “Is the definition of marriage determined by the individual or by society?”
If you say that the individual decides the definition of marriage, then that’s final. You have no say if their defintion includes things that are repugnant to you. You must allow for gay marriage, incestual marriage, polygomuous unions, bestiality, the whole gambit. The moment you say: “no, that’s too far. That’s beyond the pale. We can’t allow THAT, then you have conceded that the definition of marriage is not left to the individual.
So what is “too much”? What is “too far”? That’s where society’s right to define marriage comes in. The definition of marriage is decided by the mores of society. So how is that manifested in our country? Through the participation of people in their government. We express society’s definition of marriage by having our voice heard and acted upon by our representatives and by direct referendum.
Courts are acting either coverty or overtly on the proposition that marriage is an individual’s definition and they are working towards that goal one state at a time.
So if you believe, as I do, that the defintion of marriage should be decided by society, then why not just end this? Let people vote through the process of a Federal Marriage Amendment?
PackerBronco on October 20, 2008 at 5:42 PM
See my note above. What is your legal rationale for denying one form of marriage over the other? Is it not the mores of society? And if so, why not let society vote? But if you believe that society does not have a vote in this, then societal mores don’t enter into it and you have accept everything.
PackerBronco on October 20, 2008 at 5:45 PM
December 9, 2005
unclesmrgol on October 20, 2008 at 5:45 PM
If you go to the other extreme and assume that each of our marriages exists primarily for the benefit of the state you can justify arranged marriages, genetic testing, fertility testing and mandatory limits or minimums on the number of children.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 5:48 PM
dedalus,
I think PackerBronco’s original point was about who determines what marriage is, not who benefits from it:
From a personal standpoint, I don’t feel particularly “threatened” about the “definition” of marriage. Obviously having the option to marry a woman would not have changed my mind about marrying my husband or cause me to divorse him now (anyway, Sarah Palin is already married - ha ha).
And, in my opinion, legalizing gay marriage (or not legalizing it) doesn’t change the fact that some people are homosexual and that some of those people enter into long-term committed relationships. I’m not even sure that it would affect how many people practice homosexuality… although I do think that there has been an effort to promote homosexual lifestyles in schools and that may be leading to more experimentation by young people. (Whatever — I don’t have kids so I will selfishly not worry about that.)
But I do think that there are a surprising number of things to consider with respect to the “definition of marriage,” more than might be apparent at first blush — including questions about polygamy and marriage between relatives. So I think it is in everyone’s best interest to slow down and let society discuss this issue and come to some sort of consensus. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened here in California.
Y-not on October 20, 2008 at 5:58 PM
In Colorado, March 17, 2007
The Transgender Slippery Slope in California, January 18, 2008
My viewpoint.
Again, if they would leave be who leave them be, don’t ask, don’t tell, whatever…. But we are way past that point.
unclesmrgol on October 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM
“Federalism”? I don’t think so. She supports a Constitutional amendment, which is the right way to do what she wants. What conservatives object to is not rights granted to the federal government through the Constitution or amendments to it, but the federal government taking rights that it doesn’t have by the Constitution.
Whether one thinks that marriage should be defined fedrally is one question, but via Constitutional amendment is the correct way of going about it and shouldn’t bother anyone who wants to see the Constitution respected and followed.
progressoverpeace on October 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Er … I meant ‘powers’ instead of ‘rights’ above.
progressoverpeace on October 20, 2008 at 6:04 PM
You should brush up on your reading comprehension before you call someone an idiot. Let me type this slowly so that maybe it’ll sink in: What…has…Palin…said…about…immigration…since…
…being…chosen…as…McCain’s…running…mate?
SnarkVader on October 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM
How does requiring all hospitals in MA to provide emergency contraception to sexual assault victims equal forcing Catholic Hospitals to provide abortions for their employees?
SnarkVader on October 20, 2008 at 6:30 PM
What does “give it to the states” mean? Let the people vote on it? We did here in Ca and we were sued. This is how the courts got it and 4 judges imposed this on us. We have domestic partnership laws that give hiomosexuals all the same rights. But no they have to have the word “marriage”. I asked a gay friend if she could explain this to me and even she thought it was stupid and would backfire on gays. The word marriage, as I understand it came from God and Jesus, who both very clearly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. So what do homosexuals get out of stealing this term? The only opinion that counts is God’s and He is not going to change His law. So why are we fighting it then? Because of our childen who we don’t want to see confused or indoctrinated into accepting something that God, not man, said is unacceptable. No MA here in CA! So on this too I agree with Sarah…again…
CCRWM on October 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I think that before anything is done one way or the other. We need to revisit what is the interest that the state has on marriage. Originally the state’s interest had to do with recognizing the value of the family to society and with issues such as inheritance rights, etc. With the preponderance of divorce, single parent families and alternate domestic arrangements the constitution of the family has changed significantly since a lot of these laws were written. The family is no longer, universally, the self sufficient and stable unit that raised new citizens and required some specific laws to protect the non working spouse (usually the wife). The state is now much more involved in the business or supporting families through welfare and other programs, pre-nuptial arrangements take the place of inheritance laws, and mixed families add more complication to legal issues.
I think than instead of simply having the government define what constitute marriage, they should get out the marriage business all together, clearly define the state interest in domestic arrangements and replace current marriage law with a set of laws that are focused on those specific interests of the state.
Personally I believe that marriage is a sacramental union between a man and a woman and I don’t care how the state defines it.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Most in straight marriages assume that they possess a fundamental right to marry who they want and wouldn’t want that right taken away by the state, even if it benefitted the state.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I agree with you. I think churches should decide on what is a valid marriage and that the state should decide what contracts are enforceable and what, if any, tax benefits people are eligible for.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Another disingenuous red-herring. It’s like comparing not accepting teh gheys with slavery. There is nothing akin to those topics. You can tell by looking at someone their ethnicity but not their sexual proclivity. On top of that, until a study saying that being teh ghey is a biological fact that is not controllable then it’s a choice you make. I hardly believe any scientist can do that since you have all sorts of other diversions like bi-sexuality and the like. The difference between say abortion being handle via the Federalist Approach as opposed to teh ghey marriage is that if California agrees to legal abortion and Utah doesn’t, I as a citizen of California cannot go to Utah as request that the apply and accept California State law in Utah. If someone gets married in another state and comes rocking over to your state and goes to the Supreme Court for the right to have their marriage recognized in their state, at some point especially with a Liberal Congress and Obama as President, the Supreme Court will make a decision about a social topic on behalf of the entire nation. It’s not a matter of whether it WILL happen, it’s a matter of WHEN.
Sultry Beauty on October 20, 2008 at 6:57 PM
gay marriage is all about ending religious liberty:
link
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 7:06 PM
If you can find anywhere in my post that I said that marriage exists for the benefit of the state, I’ll give you $100. Don’t bother responding to my post with a strawman involving something I never said or even implied.
What I said is that you have two choices: marriage is defined by each individual for himself or herself, or, marriage is defined by society. Nowhere did I mention the state which may or may not reflect the mores and sensibilities of the people.
As this is a friendly conversation, I’ll give you a better counter-example than the ones you offered about the limits of letting society decide: marriages b/w people of different race. Certainly society’s view on that in years past would be to condemn it and there were laws on the books strictly prohibiting mixed marriages. So those anti-miscegenation laws offer a powerful argument AGAINST society alone deciding the definition of marriage. In fact, I seem to recall there were proposals to make anti-miscengenation part of the constitution through a constitutional amendment in the late 1800’s.
The unconstitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was not finally settled until 1967 in the Loving vs. Virginia decision.
I think however, one key difference is that by 1967 Supreme Court ruling laws against miscegenation were being overturned by the public (not the courts.) So while the Loving vs. Virginia case was settled on solid constitutional grounds (appealing I think to the 14th Amendment), it was also reflecting the growing consensus of society to expand the definition of marriage to include relationships that only 60 years prior were seen as taboo.
So upon, relection, I’ll step back a bit from my stance that the definition of marriage is an either/or proposition.
PackerBronco on October 20, 2008 at 7:28 PM
I have a compromise. Just a constitutional amendment saying that any judge at any level that finds grounds for gay marriage in any document more than 140 years old will be presumed incompetent and not allowed to operate as a judge until a popular election at the appropriate level approves him by 60%.
snaggletoothie on October 20, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Or cases such as this that say no matter what you believe you have to do the procedure, even if you said, ‘Sorry, can’t do it but here’s a list of others that will.’ So the couple refuses to go anywhere else because they want to force their own personal sexual lifestyle down a doctor’s throat. Which amounts to an assault on the constitutional rights for individuals to practice their religious faith as they see fit. It’s not like this was the ONLY doctor available to this couple, it was purely that this was the ONLY doctor this couple wanted to use. Why was this couple so particular? That’s the real Truth. They don’t like your christian faith and they’re going to attack anywhere they can and they’ll use discrimination laws to do it every single time. Forget being able to practice any aspect of your religious value system in the public square ever.
Sultry Beauty on October 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM
and this is what its really all about. the gay lobby is all about imposing a version of gay sharia law on this country. where theirs is the only voice to be heard. they don’t want to hear their lifestyle is sinful, so they’ll silence anyone who disagrees.
right4life on October 20, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I agree. But since I view gay sex as about the same ethically as murder (AIDS has more than proven my case there — nearly all of my gay friends and relatives have fallen to that disease), I’ve taken my rental unit off the market. They cannot force me to rent. I would not discriminate on the basis of sex, creed, or ethnicity, but I reserve the right to discriminate on the basis of practically everything else. Since I also follow the law, I cannot rent.
unclesmrgol on October 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM
I didn’t read your link, but this idea that everything has to be accessible to everyone, any time they want, is a cancer on our society. It is what leads to these moronically loose requirements for so many important things (like voter registration, where forcing someone to get off their butt and go fill out the forms is deemed ‘torture’) and turns us slowly into a lawless society, with nothing ever being requested of the individual but everything given to him at the time and place of his choosing. It is infuriating every time I hear another case argued along this vein of ‘access’.
progressoverpeace on October 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Marriage between heterosexuals is regulated. First cousins cannot marry, siblings cannot marry, minors under a certain age cannot marry, men/women cannot have more than one wife/husband. Western literature is rife with tragic couples who could not consummate their relationship through marriage.
I think quite a lot of us on this thread are not looking to interfere with the ability of homosexuals to enter into committed relationships, including conferring legal rights between them. At least I’m not. What many of us are struggling with is why those committed relationships need to be “marriages” as our society has been defining it (one man, one woman). In my case, I have come to realize that it would be best for us all to really grapple with what “marriage” is (secular marriages), because I really do think that we need to anticipate other non-traditional groups’ claims on the same “right” that homosexuals are claiming — that includes polygamists, particularly ones with a religious tradition of polygamy.
I haven’t heard yet why polygamy would not be acceptable.
Y-not on October 20, 2008 at 8:10 PM
I agree with your points on interracial marriage and Loving. In my response to your original post I equated society with state and in a representative democracy the state tends to reflect the will of society. Like most straight people, I married my wife because I wanted to spend my life with her and would have done so regardless of society’s opinion. The question for the courts is whether there is a right to marry that supercedes society’s decision–as there is with free speech which is guaranteed regardless of how worthless the speech is to society.
As you point out with Loving at times society and the courts work in tandem, and judges will refer to societal standards in interpreting law. By the time Loving was decided interracial marriage was less controversial than it had been, but does that mean that the Supreme Court would have been wrong to issue a similar ruling 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier?
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 8:20 PM
She doesn’t want to sit and judge anyone’s behavior, heaven forbid, she just wants to enact Federal laws that criminalize it.
I think Jon Stewart put it about right.
sanguine4 on October 20, 2008 at 8:21 PM
I thought there were exceptions to anti-discrimination laws if you were renting a single unit and/or inhabited the building. I think it makes sense that renters of individual units should be allowed discretion over who they rent to while commercial operators who rent multiple units should comply with anti-discrimination laws.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 8:26 PM
I probably agree with you on domestic partnership and I’m not hung up on the word marriage. I’m married and don’t particularly care what words are written on my marriage license–I haven’t looked at it in several years and actually don’t know where it is. I’m more interested in the quality of my relationship with my wife and whether we are doing a good job as parents.
As far as polygamy goes, I think there are two issues:
1.) Few people want it, since divorce and remarriage is preferable.
2.) There isn’t an equal protection issue since the prohibition applies equally to all.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 8:39 PM
The prohibition of men not being allowed to marry men applies to all men, equally, too. Gay marriage is not a case of equal protection under existing law. It’s a case of new law being written.
progressoverpeace on October 20, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Gay men don’t have the ability to marry women. It would be like saying there is no need for the Americans with Disabilities Act because everyone has the same opportunity to climb stairs
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 8:55 PM
That’s just incorrect. They may not have the desire, but they have the ability.
progressoverpeace on October 20, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Desire is a big part of making a marriage work. Some gay men can’t maintain an erection with a woman.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Dude, don’t even bother. The dude and his pastor, SaintOaf, are utterly and completely hate-filled and insane.
Personally, I’m not surprised to find myself disagreeing with Palin on this issue. I prefer state-to-state mandates rather than federal law one way or another.
MadisonConservative on October 20, 2008 at 9:30 PM
A statement that rapidly reduces to drooling idiocy. If morality is just a personal choice, and not an absolute outside of personal choice, than any personal choice is by definition moral. Any action becomes moral, as long as you have a good reason. Growing lobotomized babies for body parts? A moral choice expressing value for those who were chosen to become humans! The execution of dissidents? A moral choice to protect the soundness of a government and prevent more from dying due to war and civil unrest!
Obviously, your statement that morality is a personal choice can not be an absolute. It’s basically an excuse to reject any morality you don’t agree with.
I know from other comments here and in the past that you consider yourself able to construct a sense of morality without reference to God. Certainly, that is possible. Having done that, though, it is not possible to reject any one else’s personal moral choices, no matter how repugnant, because their personal opinion is every bit as valid as yours. Somewhere, you have to be able to reference a moral reality larger than your own opinion.
You can try to find a substitute for a standard larger than yourself, such as “society” or “government.” Certainly, those are better than none. But even those standards are ultimately just not much bigger than your own. Abortion was once despised, and is now accepted. Society’s standards changed. If the modern acceptance of abortion is right, then the previous rejection of it was wrong. And vice versa. And how can slavery have once been moral, and now immoral?
theregoestheneighborhood on October 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I am wrong; it does not. I was relying on old data related to the Holyoak hospital merger in 1995.
It is clear that federal monies cannot be spent to coerce any institution or individual in providing contraceptive services (including abortion) — that prohibition is contained in the Church Amendment. As to whether the Church Amendment would withstand a combined Democratic executive and legislative branch is unclear, as both NARAL and Planned Parenthood are on record as desiring its repeal, and Obama has a 100% NARAL rating.
With respect to state employment law mandating that Catholic hospitals offer abortion, I find no current data indicating that this is the case. In fact, it appears that Catholic hospitals are successfully fending off pro-abortion nurses unions, and that the states are respecting the federal imposition of the Church Amendment with the exception of Massachusetts.
Sadly, that situation is reversed in the case of pharmacists, who may be required in several states to stock and dispense certain medicines against their conscience (in the case of the Washington rule, a federal court has stayed imposition of the law).
My point about the slippery slope stands. This battle is nowhere near being over.
unclesmrgol on October 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Your statement is contrary to known fact. Judy Garland, for example, was notorious for marrying gay men. She had children by some of these gay men.
You seem to be operating from the premise that being gay is caused by your own biology. It’s a huge mistake to make big decisions based on beliefs that have not been proven true. The very strongest tie that has ever been found between homosexuality simply pointed to some biological differences in the brains of those who had been homosexual for some time. It was never proven that those differences caused homosexuality, and is equally plausible that those differences were caused by homosexuality.
What we do know with certainty is that there are two sexes in the world: male and female. Homosexual men are not a separate sex: they are male. Homosexual women are not a separate sex: they are female. To restructure the entire concept of marriage in order to accommodate the unproven idea that homosexuality is entirely biological in origin is the height of foolishness.
There are also huge implications for religious freedom. As soon as homosexual partnerships are recognized as marriages, it will become a crime of discrimination to refuse to recognize them as full marriages, even if your faith proclaims homosexuality to be an abomination.
The Christian faith believes firmly that God created us male and female, and “for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall become one flesh.” For the state to accept and require others to accept gay marriages is to proclaim that the government has the right to redefine your religious beliefs at will.
It would not end well.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 20, 2008 at 11:14 PM
And marrying gay men seemed to work out really well for Judy Garland, who killed herself with years of pills and booze by the time she was 47.
The notion that straight marriage is a viable alternative for homosexuals is not only unfair to them, but also to straight spouses who might only find out later that they are married to someone who doesn’t feel a sexual attraction for them.
I don’t think “restructuring the entire concept of marriage” is required, or that allowing gays to marry would have a material adverse effect on straight people. Interracial marriage was feared as race-mixing at one time, now it happens without people noticing or caring.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Which means ….. ?
It’s not like I’m recommending Judy Garland as a moral exemplar, here. But face it: marrying gays was far more symptom than cause of her short and unhappy life.
Regardless, it would be foolish to assume she was the only person who ever wound up married to a gay man. So the premise that marriage to a woman is impossible for a gay man is already disproven.
Why does it matter? Because a homosexual man is still a man. Simply because he’s not interested in marrying a woman doesn’t mean we are somehow obligated to redefine marriage to include someone he wants to marry.
You’ve already assumed the legitimacy of gay marriage by talking about “straight marriage” as if there was another kind. In effect, you’ve already redefined marriage to include two men or two women.
I don’t accept this redefinition, and there’s no reason I should be expected to. Unless, of course, it becomes a matter of law. Then I would be required to accept it.
Redefining marriage to include two men or two women will require restructuring many things in society. The religious implications alone are huge.
theregoestheneighborhood on October 21, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Maybe they’d be happy if we turned the clock back to when there was no discussion - just death by stoning.
It has long been recognized by various societies that sex practices outside of marriage is both disruptive and destructive. Still true today.
platypus on October 21, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Prison sex is possible. Some gay men can be aroused by a women others can’t. My contention that straight marriage is impossible for a gay person is based on the importance of sexual intimacy and the physical expression of love within marriage. It is impossible to share that intimacy if one of the partners isn’t attracted to the other’s gender. Sham marriages are possible, but it doesn’t seem to be in anyone’s interest to promote sham marriages.
dedalus on October 21, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Yet accepted today and common practice among our political leaders.
dedalus on October 21, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Multiple serial marriages are legal, but Churches aren’t required to perform those marriages. Some churches don’t perform interfaith marriages. They shouldn’t be forced to perform marriages that don’t conform to their doctrines.
dedalus on October 21, 2008 at 12:58 AM
its called projection dude. thanks for posting the link, they can view your spittle-laced rants and idiotic ravings. you have no idea how stupid I made you look, and how easy it was….but thanks for the laughs…dude
right4life on October 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM
The Monster pegged it. Palin’s correct. A federal amendment is the only way to ensure the traditional view of marriage remains the law.
rcl on October 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Well done, Sarah! Millions of people are yearning for this type of leadership. Even though Hollywood and the Media continues pushing us to be “tolerant” of all sorts of immoral behavior (Judges 21:25) their’s a silent majority in America that actually wants politically incorrect truth to be told for a change. Don’t be afraid to side with God on the issues. “And they spake the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31). He will protect you. The people will come.
apacalyps on October 21, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]