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.

The Monster pegged it. Palin’s correct. A federal amendment is the only way to ensure the traditional view of marriage remains the law.

Dude, don’t even bother. The dude and his pastor, SaintOaf, are utterly and completely hate-filled and insane.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2008 at 9:30 PM

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

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

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.

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

Yet accepted today and common practice among our political leaders.

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.

theregoestheneighborhood on October 21, 2008 at 12:13 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.

It would not end well.

theregoestheneighborhood on October 20, 2008 at 11:14 PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Redefining marriage to include two men or two women will require restructuring many things in society. The religious implications alone are huge.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Morality is a personal choice, not some sort of absolute.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 20, 2008 at 4:19 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?

What??

JetBoy on October 20, 2008 at 4:54 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.

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.

Gay men don’t have the ability to marry women.

dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 8:55 PM

That’s just incorrect. They may not have the desire, but they have the ability.

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

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.

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 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.

unclesmrgol on October 20, 2008 at 7:52 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.

I think Jon Stewart put it about right.

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.
PackerBronco on October 20, 2008 at 7:28 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?

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

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.

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.

Sultry Beauty on October 20, 2008 at 7:35 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’.