Quote of the day
posted at 10:40 pm on January 11, 2010 by Allahpundit
“The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life’s joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution’s protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law…
“Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable ‘lifestyle’ should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment…
“Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like “betrayal” and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.
***
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: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Olson is wrong. Marriage is not something created for all. Marriage is created for the man plus the woman.
If Olsen wants another social construct, he can invent one. Then he can lobby for tax laws or whatever in that regard.
Normal people have a right to not have this construct imposed upon them, as it is now being forced upon their children as propaganda in many public schools, teaching the Bible is wrong and the State is right on such moral issues
Because that is what happens when they change the definition behind the noun, there comes a war against the religion that owns the original definition of the moral construct. Preaching that religion becomes an offense to the State, a hate crime, and children taught that religion are propagandized to reject the faith of their parents.
The State has no business changing moral definitions. They can legalize a behaviour, but have no right to steal the word ‘marriage’ any more than the State has a right to redefine ‘salvation’ or ‘holy spirit’
entagor on January 12, 2010 at 12:26 PM
We can thank educators (world wide) for this President, he’s (trying) to govern from the moon, he has little common sense and liberal ideology is what occurs to him first.
Speakup on January 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM
I still would like someone who supports legalization of gay marriage to answer my question posed above denying a judge the ability to evaluate whether the different sexes bring different things to the table when faced with deciding the adoption or custody of a child…that prohibition will be the logical conclusion of a change in definition, no?
DrRich on January 12, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Science is the process of disproving what is false. What is left might be the truth, or we just might not be thinking broadly enough.
The funny thing about Einstein’s theory of gravity is that it predicts its own failure, which is kind of novel.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Just to be clear, I was commenting on the fact that Count to 10 said there was no “constitutional support” for the Supreme Court’s decision striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriages. That is scary.
I believe that there is overwhelming support for that position in the text, intention, and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the 150+ years of constitutional interpretation since it was enacted. Saying that states have the power to ban interracial marriages can be banned consistent with the U.S. Constitution is not a conservative idea. Scalia, Thomas, Robert Bork, and every other conservative legal thinker I know would flatly reject that argument.
If you’re going to make such a bizarre claim, you need to be able to articulate a coherent reason for it–not a mishmash of of incoherent slogans.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 1:24 PM
The state’s definition of marriage differs from those of many churches. Each church deals with the other-wordly consequences of marriage. The state is limited to this world.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 1:37 PM
And how about our separate animal friends;should our pets be forever relegated to second class citizenship?
Biodiversity, that construct of the eco-left, holds that there is no hierarchy among species, therefore, why can’t I marry my boa constrictor? We have this real clingy relationship.
I give credit to whom ever is creating these sphisticated arguments on behalf of immorality and against God; Satan himself, could do no better. Come to think of it….
Don L on January 12, 2010 at 1:44 PM
On the other hand, Gay marriage would allow the terroists to win through population saturation, and the upside is the left won’t be destroying fifty million innocent pre-borns as they have.
Don L on January 12, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Like I said before, the fact that words have specific definitions is what allows laws to work in the first place. Otherwise anyone can twist any law to fit his whims, as the SCOTUS has done on many occasions.
Owning a pet does not make you a parent.
Distributing drugs does not make you a pharmacist.
Bringing a tiger to a county fair is not the same as bringing your seeing eye dog.
Even if the state says they are the same, they are not.
DavidM on January 12, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Since 150 years passed between the passage of the amendment and Loving, without intervention against interracial marriage bans, I think you are just reciting a slogan. Furthermore there has never been a federal guarantee of same-sex marriage despite frequent visits to the broad subject of sexual liberty in the past 150 years.
BTW you asserted a constitutional right to marry any consenting adult.
Please cite the authority by which you limit it to one adult.
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Is a couple that has an open marriage (say the Clintons) a marriage? Most people define marriage as something very different than the business partnership Bill and Hill have–and they aren’t the only wealthy couple to have that type of relationship.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 1:59 PM
I assume that was directed elsewhere since nowhere here have I discussed the history of the 14th amendment.
But since you’re discussing bizarre claims please explain to me your claim that because the state doesn’t recognize for legal purposes a marriage that that means that the fundamental right to marriage has been violated.
You don’t seriously believe that if states got out of the marriage business and didn’t legally recognize any marriages that marriage would be forbidden in the country?
The debate over SSM is one of equal protection and not the right to marry. I’m unaware of anyone arguing that states are violating Loving by limiting legal recognition to opposite sex couples.
Once again – if a gay couple went to a minister in California who then married them and they went on a lived a married life, the state of California would do nothing to stop that action. The minister would not be punished and the couple would not be separated.
Those actions, of course, were ruled unconstitutional in Loving which decided that a fundamental right to marry was in the Constitution. A right that same sex couples have in every state of the union today.
SteveMG on January 12, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Too real a question Doc.
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Any single topic can have many points of definition.
The only one thats on the table here is the definition that one man and one woman is what constitutes a marriage.
The state and the church have that in common….except for a couple of those weird states. And they don’t matter that much imo. They are more like the crazy aunt that lives in the basement…a funny place to visit, but who wants to hang out there for very long?
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM
They don’t have an “open marriage” imo, unless the Hill has been riding the Baloney Pony around a parking lot somewhere. They have a failed marriage. They are just to dishonest to deal with that reality.
Not the institution of marriage’s fault or failure.
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 3:41 PM
When it comes to Marriage, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. They have the RIGHT to marry someone of the opposite sex.
mrpeabody on January 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM
The only thing Hillary rides is a broom. Bill got her a Senate seat. In return maybe he gets someone warm and attractive.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM
In MA and other states straights have the same right to a gay marriage as homosexuals. It’s equal.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Keeping the state and various church definitions of marriage in sync is impossible and un-Constitutional.
Where the gender requirement has changed it hasn’t required a complete rethinking of marriage. As you point out a definition can have many attributes. Though gays can marry, straights still see value in a lifetime commitment–especially for the purpose of raising kids.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM
What planet are you from?
First, you are “unaware of anyone arguing that states are violating Loving by limiting legal recognition to opposite sex couples”? that is EXACTLY the argument that Olson is making in his lawsuit. You can say that you disagree with it, you can say that he’s wrong, but don’t say he isn’t making it. It just shows you to be the complete nutcase that you obviously are.
Second, you ask me to explain my “bizzare” claim that “because the state doesn’t recognize for legal purposes a marriage that that means the fundamental right to marriage has been violated.” Ok, let me explain it this. You can, for example, call yourself a lawyer if you want to. But unless you go to law school, pass the bar, take all your CLE courses, pay your yearly dues, and are deemed “in good standing” by the state, you’re not allowed to practice law. In fact, it’s illegal to even use the word “Esquire” after your name unless you’ve met all those conditions. Can you call yourself a lawyer? I guess so. But what good is the title without all legal rights and benefits that come along with state recognition that you’re a lawyer?
Marriage is a legal status that is bestowed upon certain people who meet certain conditions by the state. Gays wants that same legal status. Telling them they can call themselves by the same word but not get the legal status is not equal protection of the laws.
For the record, I think that state could get out of the marriage business entirely, and just have civil unions for everybody and religious marriages for those who are members of a given religion. But that’s not what we have right now. Civil marriage is a special legal status that is bestowed by the state. As long as it is, the state cannot deny that status to people unless there is a compelling state interest in doing so. I believe there is a compelling state interest in denying that status to people who want to marry a relative, or an animal, or a minor, or an inanimate object, or marry more than one person at the same time. I don’t think there is a compelling state interest in denying it to gays.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM
I don’t see how that applies to the point?
The state and the church are in sync as far as the definition of marriage goes. 1 man + 1 woman.
Its the addition of “gay marriage” that would cause a split to arise, along with all the complications, legal challenges, and addition of other groups who would then claim the same “right”.
For what? Assuage the self esteem issues of a couple of percent of the population?
Note to GM advocates:
Work for legally binding CU’s..draw up some civil contracts assuring your wishes for transfer of money and property. Power of attorney over your affairs and visiting rights.
You can accomplish all of these things this week if they are that important.
Start there and stop whinging about being victims because these safeguards are being denied you. They are not.
Just trying to help.
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Strategically, they made a mistake going for gay marriage w/o getting the tax/benefit side of things first. However, there is opposition to civil unions. It isn’t as though states or the fed have moved quickly on that front. I’d rather not see SCOTUS involved in this issue. Hopefully, the states will continue to work through marriage questions.
The commonality of the state and the church on the gender criteria is a historical function rather than a cause-and-effect. The state isn’t, couldn’t and shouldn’t be tied to religious doctrine.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM
And that history applies it to race, not to sex. Or did you think the authors of that amendment were thinking of homosexuals? Read the a paper from when they were debating the language, they weren’t.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 5:28 PM
They’re not.
They just run a parallel to churches as far as the accepted definition of marriage is concerned.
What problem..other than property and possessions issues, is addressed by gay marriage?
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM
This Atheist agrees, totally.
OldEnglish on January 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM
I think it was by design. If the things that the movement is supposedly based on..the real important things that keep them “discriminated against”, were addressed, the movement would lose its momentum towards the real goal, which, imo, is to force a redefinition of the concept of marriage…which has nothing to do with their publicly stated grievances.
They don’t want a solution that would solve the problems of being denied equal protection.
Some do, but the militants, who drive the movement and instigate tactics of intimidation towards those who simply have a different opinion keep the focus on the “evil” of those narrow minded zealots who are not as evolved as they are. And the pack just follows along barking slogans.
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Federal taxes, especially the “unlimited marital deduction”.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 6:31 PM
There’s no monolith. It’s convenient to imagine committee of zealots meeting and then sending memos out, but the ~47% that voted for gay marriage in Maine and California are as diverse in their thinking as the ~52% who voted against it.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Any others that you can think of that couldn’t be addressed by existing contract law?
Whats the “unlimited marital deduction” worth. Must be doing something wrong and don’t know anyone getting rich on being married….matter of fact, its not too unusual to hear, “If I wasn’t married, I’d be rich”, after a little of the truth that wine brings forth. : )
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Then challenge DOMA, don’t fuck with the definition of marriage.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 7:11 PM
Didn’t mean to imply that there was a monolith of militants sending out daily briefing strategies.
All I meant was, that 47% of people who voted for it can be manipulated towards a goal by a few, in the same way as any movement or belief system can create a crisis that sincere and well meaning people will just fall in step with because it is similar to other causes that seem to be the same.
If that is in fact true, I wonder how diverse the groups overall thinking and positions actually are?
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 7:12 PM
If straight people respected marriage, we wouldn’t have had the previous 50 years. Those who care about marriage have a lot areas that can yield results, other than forcing gay people to live together w/o marriage.
For better or worse, marriage is a fundamental right that any straight couple can access, no matter how bad the recent Vegas bender has been and how many ex-spouses are home awaiting child support. There should probably be a higher hurdle to marriage, but there isn’t.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 7:50 PM
What about homosexuals living together with civil unions? Oh, that’s right, you desperately want to be seen as “normal” so you aren’t content with that. My bad.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 7:53 PM
The unlimited marital deduction means that when one spouse dies the other gets what’s left to them tax-free. Unmarried partners pay tax.
It’s a big deal for couples that own houses together, where the death of a spouse could create a large tax bill for the half of the house inherited.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 7:53 PM
Some straight couples don’t care about the sanction that marriage provides, and they live together w/o marriage. However, most straight couples get something out of the official commitment that marriage offers–or at least mom’s with daughters do.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Not that big a deal for the average schmoo or schmooeria is it…then again, maybe its a one time big hit. Put it in a trust? don’t know. But..that point is never brought up by gay marriage advo’s. They always play the victim card. Could that be in part to keep the support crowd tethered to their “cause”? Don’t know..just wondering.
Good thing these groups supported George Bushs plan to kill the inheritance tax…oh wait!
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 8:28 PM
There are a lot of dopes in the gay movement, especially those who see the Dems as the party of inclusiveness and rights creation. Obama is screwing up. If the GOP adopts a federalist approach on gay marriage it can pick up a lot of votes who otherwise like the GOP’s low-tax & pro-business philosophy.
dedalus on January 12, 2010 at 8:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5