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 2 3 4 5 Next »
It is the word. The word signifies America accepting their relationship as normal. 2 % of America’s population wants to change the definition of a centuries old sacramental ceremony. If the American people were accepting of this reclassification, the overwhelming majority of Obama’s 57 states would have passed it by popular vote.
kingsjester on January 12, 2010 at 8:35 AM
The govt moved in 1867 to end slavery, end discrimination based on race, and guarantee liberty to all citizens. That was done by Amendment. (somebdoy was right to point out it’s the 15th not the 14th that mentions race and color–all three were enacted at the same time). Until that was done, there was no basis to demand marriage regardless of state laws on race. Until it is done for sexual orientation, there’s no constitutional basis to undermine state law regarding gay marriage.
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM
That has nothing to do with the law and with Constitutional protections.
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 8:36 AM
Then don’t call it a marriage. In the religious sense, it certainly doesn’t meet the criteria for a marriage.
However, in the LEGAL sense, two consenting adults asking for legal protections and entering into a monogamous, binding relationship are entitled under the Constitution to protections. You can’t “wish” their rights away.
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 8:38 AM
Look, I dont mind gay marriage. Doesnt bother me. Go nuts.
But who is stopping anyone from getting married? Go get married! Find someone to marry you and you’re married, congrats. What you’re arguing for is not marriage, it’s the federal and state benefits conferred to you by the government RECOGNITION of that marriage! So the argument that, you know, it’s impeding the “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 …” is BS as far as I can see.
Dash on January 12, 2010 at 8:41 AM
I find it HIGHLY ironic that Bleeds Barf is quoting from “Loving v. Virginia” just now, a case that upholds and affirms marriage between one man and one woman.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Wrong a church is not compelled to marry anyone. Where is their a law that a church has to marry anyone? That would already be against separation of church and state.
Ed Laskie on January 12, 2010 at 8:43 AM
In Caligula’s mind, he had a “right” to make his horse a Roman Senator.
kingsjester on January 12, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Yes.
THAT’S the issue. And the law can’t discriminate when it comes to legal issues in this regard. Again, this effects visitation rights, inheritance, custody disputes, divorce proceedings, tax fillings, etc. All of that changes when one marries. Gays are trying to ensure that they’re not LEGALLY seen as two entities. The social question is a separate one from the legal question. Many HA commentors are concerned with the social question. They seem unconcerned with the legal question.
Gays are making sure that the law doesn’t discriminate LEGALLY. Whether this brings about social acceptance or not is another question.
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM
We’re not Rome. Rome had slaves.
We’re the United States.
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 8:46 AM
Exactly, Chris. You are on fire this morning!
In Minor v. Happersett , the United States Supreme Court rejected a Fourteenth Amendment challenge against a law that prohibited women from voting, while men were permitted to vote. It took the Nineteenth Amendment to prohibit denial of suffrage on the basis of sex.
Why is the Fourteenth Amendment insufficient to overturn laws denying suffrage on the basis of sex, but sufficient to overturn laws to deny marriage on the basis of sex?
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 8:46 AM
Why not we have an Ass for president.
Ed Laskie on January 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM
They don’t have that right. I can’t wish away something that doesn’t legally exist.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 8:48 AM
They don’t have the right to have legal protections of their consensual, monogamous relationship when they petition the state for recognition of their union?
Why not?
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 8:51 AM
Its never been about civil rights. If it was, they would challenge DOMA, instead of dancing around with state laws. Its especially true in California which grants all of the rights of marriage to domestic partnerships.
Gays don’t want rights, they want acceptance of their devient lifestyle. They want to be able to show up at their parents’ houses on holidays, and say, “See, we’re married just like you.” They are trying to use the courts to give them what mommy and daddy never would.
The funny thing is that even if they do win this battle, they still will not become mainstream. They will see be seen as devient married couples instead of devient couples.
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Because marriage is defined to be between ONE man and ONE woman.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Here’s the definition of deviance to atone for my horrible spelling.
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 12, 2010 at 8:56 AM
And, besides, they already have recognition of their union, their civil union.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Plus the easiest way to resolve this would be to stop voting Democrats and Liberals to office and let the Consrrvatives abolish the tax code, social security, and department of education and we’re all good.
The ACLU wants to keep religion out of school but force parents to allow non-religious non-familia to raise the kids in social morals that are antithesis to their views. It is a subtle way of replacing one’s own childrearing with yours without forceably invading your home. Then the Teacher’s Unions scream about not having parents with teaching credentials educating children and want to forceably remove the children to public schools. You can’t have it both ways. Do you honestly think the reason polls show people less religious is because they went to Church, read the bible, then studied science books then came to an educated decision to be areligious? When Liberals in school and government stop trying to force their views on me and my children by legal means this fight and others as well will be over.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM
A tradition which continues to this day.
OldEnglish on January 12, 2010 at 9:00 AM
A tradition which continues to this day.
OldEnglish on January 12, 2010 at 9:00 AM
No kiddin’.
kingsjester on January 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM
And the legal protections and benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples?
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 9:03 AM
They have the same benefits (seriously, do you live in California?) but I don’t know what you mean by legal. It’s a contract, just like any other.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 9:09 AM
They don’t want rights?
They want legal protections.
You call their lifestyle “deviant.” They’d call it normal for them.
What business is it of yours?
I think you’re afraid that if they are granted legal protections that any man-woman couple can get that they WILL become a part of accepted mainstream life in America.
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 9:10 AM
Ted, I don’t think the “betrayal” means what you think. It has nothing to do with right/left or gay/straight. It has everything to do with judicial philosophy. You were thought to be a champion of the school of thought that interpreted the Constitution as it was meant when drafted — an originalist. Now, you are advocating to create a right that did not exist when the document was drafted and did not exist in the 200+ years since. You are advocating for judicial advocacy. You have betrayed us.
tommylotto on January 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Right on, Ted! Right on.
lostinjrz on January 12, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Bohica22 hit the nail on the head. It’s about mocking God and religion. God created woman for man. Just another way for the liberals to demean religion and separate believers from non-believers.
Kissmygrits on January 12, 2010 at 9:31 AM
Your level of ignorance of the law is breathtaking. The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress and sent on to the states on January 31, 1865. The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress and sent on to the state on June 13, 1866. The 15th Amendment was passed by Congress and sent on to the states on February 26, 1869.
So your theory of constitutional interpretation is that you should ignore the actual text of the 14th Amendment because three years later another Amendment specifically mentioned race?
Why don’t you actually read about some of these issues before you start throwing demonstrably incorrect statements around?
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 9:36 AM
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 9:37 AM
I find it interesting that Liberals who under the guise of taking care of and helping out the “welfare” of the citizens of the United States like income tax and Social Security to fund the Welfare State by FDR who also used SCOTUS to revise our views that these things are fundamental rights as the continue to do with health care then turn around as use these very “general welfare” rights as the reason to provide “other fundamental” rights to people lest the be denied their part in the “social welfare” income redistribution scheme.
It’s not as subversive and quick as Chinese, Cambodian reeducation camps at dismantling a society and it’s history but it seems to be working.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 9:38 AM
He’s not wrong. They had no basis to do that until the Constitution was amended, just like now homosexual marriage.
You can’t use Due process or the 14th amendment (as I believe you’ll all find out when the case gets to the SCOTUS) on it, which is why you need to make a new amendment. Good luck getting enough states to go for it, though!
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Wow iPhone chewed that up and spit that out. Bottom line: gays say they can’t get same tax breaks, and access as married couples. But those are a Liberal construct to begin with that the Franers never intended. Let us reverse course of the New Deal and these issues are mute. The New Deal “benefits” are what allowed them a foot in the door.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 9:43 AM
The discussion on this board has for the most part been fair minded and thoughtful.
SC.Charlie on January 12, 2010 at 9:46 AM
That’s a new one: the TVA brought us gay marriage.
The income tax predates Roosevelt by 20 years, btw.
Bleeds Blue on January 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Then you need to eliminate the legal benefits of marriage, not extend them.
Still, though, certain legal formalities are appropriate for a child barring heterosexual mated pair that are not appropriate for a sterile homosexual pairing.
To top that all off, we should not be using the authority of the government to encourage homosexual behavior, particularly exclusive homosexual behavior.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Why not
amendsodomize the Constitution?What a fraud Olson turned into.
Akzed on January 12, 2010 at 9:53 AM
That’s because conservative sites like Hot Air actually have discussions and opposing viewpoints on difficult topics. The left would much prefer to call opponents racist and call it a day.
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 12, 2010 at 9:54 AM
That’s technically true, but ignores what he did to the tax rate, which is more important.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Actually, “homophobic,” in this case.
Bleeds Blue on January 12, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Good LT.
The question was “equal rights”, which has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.
If the law says I can walk a dog in public but someone comes along and says I have a gorilla and “I can’t walk him in public”, his civil rights are NOT violated based on his pet choice.
The law is clear and it applies to both parties equally. The law isn’t being enforced differently for different people, nor is it being interpreted differently for different parties.
This IS equal protection under the law.
Disagree with the law all you like but stop the nonsense about “equal treatment”. Everyone IS getting equal treatment, you just wish all versions of “marriage” are equal- and they aren’t.
DavidM on January 12, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Not saying FDR gave us income tax just that it is a Liberal construct. So is the Department of Education. I live in CA and the main reason for the Prop 8 situation is specifically that. CA IS LIBERAL. Yet when it comes to allowing strangers to talk to your small children and educate them on life preferences and issues, even Liberals dislike that kind of blatant social control.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Actually, I’m quite sure you’re wrong. No sitting member of the Supreme Court believes that the 14th Amendment only applies to racial minorities. Not Scalia, not Thomas, Roberts, Alito, etc.
I don’t know where you’re getting this from. Instead of getting your constitutional law education from blogs, why don’t you try actually reading some Supreme Court cases.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 9:59 AM
That’s jumping to conclusions a little bit. Most of the supporters of gay marriage are religious. What they are actually attacking is the sense of public morals that disapproves of homosexual behavior — which is not the same thing as religion.
They aren’t trying to separate believers and non-believers, they are trying to bend the rest of the believers to their will.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 9:59 AM
Remember: If the states, as some propose, got completely out of the “marriage business” – that is, did not recognize for legal purposes marriage – nobody’s fundamental right to marry would be taken away.
The fact that the state does not recognize marriage (or a contract or an act et cetera) does not mean that that the right of people to undertake that act is being banned.
FWIW, I’m in favor or extending the same benefits that heterosexual married couples receive to same sex couples. I just don’t believe that it’s a question of Constitutional rights being violated if they aren’t.
SteveMG on January 12, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Actually, it’s a historical fact. I’m unclear on the Department of Education point but Carter did indeed create and Reagan promised to kill it off, but forgot to.
As to strangers talking about alternative lifetsyles with children, I don’t think that’s part of gay marriage.
Bleeds Blue on January 12, 2010 at 10:01 AM
I personally wish we’d just make marriage legal. I can’t see the virtue of denying that.
AnninCA on January 12, 2010 at 10:02 AM
That’s certainly not limited to any one group. My relatives, hard-core Dems?
Way homophobic. It’s odd to hear, frankly.
AnninCA on January 12, 2010 at 10:04 AM
So gay marriage was guaranteed in 1867? That’s YOUR construction? Ridiculous and you know it.
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM
I disagree. On the other hand, it seems fairly likely that governments have been handing out too many special benefits to those who register for legal marriage. I’d go with cutting those benefits back to just what is functionally related to producing biological children (which someone who practices homosexual behavior could still do with a member of the opposite sex).
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM
To paraphrase Scalia, if the Court is faking it, might as well turn to the top 9 names in a phone book.
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 10:08 AM
what’s the Greek word for “prosperity”, so I know what to call Democrats?
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 10:09 AM
What we would be doing is encouraging homosexuals to marry and be monogamous. Instead of what happened forty years ago. Declare them mentally ill, in need of some treatment to fix what was supposedly wrong with them.
SC.Charlie on January 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM
No? Go look at some of the YouTube videos on Prop 8. They have tried twice and now are trying a third time to ram this down our throats. They don’t want praying or church groups on campus but you can’t stop them from expressing their political religious views to the contrary because it’s a legally sanctioned institution. Teacher MUST discuss their lifestyles with Kindergarteners or face legal issues. And yes one gay couple will sue the school to teach your child about their lifestyle because they think it should be normalized and your simply religiously and ethically wrong. End of discussion.
Coming from Long Beach, CA I can say that gays are afforded much higher degree of acceptance in the public square than religious folks. In Long Beach they even control a stretch of blocks of businesses. The City even puts up rainbow flags on the lightposts and they have a Pride Parade every year. All for the recognition of what the do in the privacy of their sęx bed.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 10:13 AM
I’m kind of shaky on how ‘homophobic’ is defined. If taken in the spirit of other phobias, it would be an irrational fear of homosexuals — something that would normally have no baring on a person’s political decisions (acrophobics don’t lobby against airlines and skyscrapers, for instance). If you expand on the irrational part, you can imagine ‘homophobes’ creating convoluted logic to retroactively justify their pre-determined conclusions and bigotry.
However, ‘homophobe’ is used to describe any judgment against homosexual behavior, no matter how dispassionate and logical.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Why?
I’m not sure I would call it a mental illness, exactly, but I would put it right up there with bad habits like obesity.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:17 AM
No, my position is this. The 14th Amendment enacted a principle of equal protection under the law for everyone. As a nation, we did not live up to that principle for a long time. We were willfully blind to obvious violations of that principle all around us. For example, well into the 1950s and 60s, we were segregating schools on the basis of race and effectively denying blacks the right to vote. We started living up to that principle in 1955 with Brown v. Board of Education. I think that Ted Olson’s lawsuit is an attempt to make us live up to tat principle in a different sphere.
Would a legislator from 1867 who voted in favor of the 14th Amendment agree that gays have a right to marry? Probably not. But those legislators also thought that racial segregation was permissible (in fact, the same Congress that voted for the 14th Amendment voted to segregate D.C. schools). It’s the principle they enacted that binds us, not their own cramped interpretation of that principle.
Fidelity to the Constitution means fidelity to its principles–wherever they lead us, not fidelity to the cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty of a past generation.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Interesting discussion. I empathize with GoodLT position, but DavidM is correct. I posit this question often to people who discuss this issue; you are a judge and have a same-sex couple and a hetero-sexual couple in front of you with the decision of into which family a child should go. The intervention of the Supreme Court into this process (or by Amendment for that matter) would mean a judge could not allow gender differences to enter into the determination at all Biology dictates that mothers and fathers bring different things to the table when it comes to the rearing of children. While that may not be the overriding factor in every case, to disallow that function of biology is to deny the essence of our species. True, there are exceptions to this; but this is the reason why the ERA was shot down by Schlafly and Co…men and women are different. Stable societies need mothers and fathers to stay together and that is why government recognition of heterosexual marriage is sensible,legal and should be protected. Still, I am an admirer of Ted Olsen, who suffered much when his wife was lost on 9/11, and do not denigrate him or his argument. I just respectfully disagree.
DrRich on January 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM
Its all the same to them. In their minds, they believe what they believe because they are intelligent, informed and enlightened. Anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant and filled with hatred. That’s why everything, EVERYTHING, can be tied to the 1950s civil rights movement.
I think you are on the right track.
Although I do have one question. If many gays are religous, why don’t they form their own church, then sue to say they are having their first amendment rights violated?
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM
If marriage is a “fundamental right” as the author declares, then we definitely need Congress to move swiftly on marriage reform legislation. There are millions of Americans who have no marriage. And while it is true that many Americans do not particularly want to be married, there are many millions who would like to be married, but who have been unable to get a spouse.
Since marriage is a fundamental right, government has a responsibility to provide spouses for all Americans who are not married. And personally, I think that the legislation should include a marriage mandate with a fine or jail time for those who refuse to get married.
And it is clear that there is a need for competition with the greedy match making services. I call for a single match maker service run by the government that will assure that all Americans get equal access to marriage.
And because Americans are so stupid, the government should choose everyone’s spouse because, of course, we can’t trust Americans to make the right choice on their own. But the really smart people in government will be able to choose spouses for everyone on settled scientific grounds of eugenics and can then decide who should and who should not have children. After all, if the government has the responsibility to provide marriage to all Americans, the government should have some say in who has children, since the government will also have to provide spouses for all of those children.
This is clearly a crisis. Congress must act immediately. There is no time to lose.
/sarc
Ordinary American on January 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Finch, read my post(s).
Stop saying “equal protections”, GAYS HAVE equal protection.
DavidM on January 12, 2010 at 10:21 AM
I have listed Supreme Court cases. If you don’t want to scroll up, it’s not my problem
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Ordinary Anerican, I love it. A sarcastic example of what I am trying to say. To liberals health care, marriage, jobs, homes, abortions, college educations are a fundamental rights that must be sanctioned and financially fostered and overseen by the government. But truly Americans understand that these are “manufactured” rights.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM
+1. Kind of like Ed’s post about the right to legal counsel. Love it!
mwdiver on January 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Blame AmericaLast, you cited Minor v. Happersett, a 1874 decision that is no longer good law. That is no different that citing Plessy v. Ferguson for the proposition that racial segregation is constitutional. You are ignoring the 136 years of constitutional law that has come since then because that 136 years of constitutional law disproves your point. That’s called intellectual dishonesty.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 10:27 AM
First, they probably see themselves as faithful to their own church (a la Jetboy), and second, forming their own church would defeat the purpose, as it would not gain them the acceptance in the wider public that they are looking for. For that matter, the population density probably just isn’t there to make it effective.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Your argument is analytically no different than people who argued that laws banning marriages between the races were constitutional because they affect blacks and whites equally. You have the right to marry any consenting adult that is willing to marry you. Gays do not have that right.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 10:31 AM
I think you just uncovered one of my character flaws for me. I was actually tempted by that last paragraph. Very disturbing.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Bohica,
They have formed their own churches. They are called Episcopal, Presbyterian(PCUSA), and Lutheran(ELCA).
ConstantSorrow on January 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM
How is Minor v. Happersett not good law? It’s exactly germane to what Boies/Olson is attempting to do here.
And it’s exactly how the SCOTUS should rule.
BlameAmericaLast on January 12, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Proponents of homosexual perversion have managed to convince a large segment of the vast heterosexual majority that this is a “rights” issue.
Depressing.
pugwriter on January 12, 2010 at 10:33 AM
The laws banning the recognition of interracial marriage really weren’t the problem — it was the laws that banned cohabitation and such between unmarried pairs. But the Supreme Court is not perfect, so they took the easy (but not constitutionally supported) rout of striking down the marriage laws without touching the other ones.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM
You’re probably right. One of my biggest problems with the gay marriage movement is that they are too afraid (or weak) to confront problems directly. If their problem is with their chuch, they should be messing around with the government. If their problem is with federal laws and federal benefits, then they shouldn’t be challenging state laws.
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 12, 2010 at 10:35 AM
If you think Minor v. Happersett is still good law, and the same result would be reached today, then you’ve proved my point. Thank you.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 10:39 AM
I’m not sure that isn’t the defining characteristic.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM
– http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Nor does your sister. She can’t have you in all 50 states.
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Wow! You think that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are constitutional and the Supreme Court was wrong to strike them down under the 14th Amendment!!!!
I think I am officially leaving this discussion board and this website. This is isn’t funny or entertaining anymore. It’s scary.
Anonymous Finch on January 12, 2010 at 10:45 AM
If I declared I had a right to the mineral wealth of the Moon, you would search in vain for a Supreme Court precedent proving I don’t.
That would not prove I have the mineral rights to the Moon.
It would demonstrate that I had created my “rights” out of my own mind.
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Finch, you are saying EXISTING LAW is not being equally applied and I am saying it is. That is not the same thing as saying “the law is discriminatory”. The current law is being applied equally- you just don’t like what it says.
And it’s not “wrong” unless you subscribe to this idiotic notion that its immoral to somehow limit the definition of the thousand-old term to men and women.
Immoral in some new-age enlightened fabricated BS, but nowhere else.
Your argument (vis a vis morality) is like saying its wrong to tell people cobras don’t make good pets. Or drug use is destructive.
PS. The law was CHANGED to stop the racial marriage bans, and it was not by a changing definitions of religious words.
DavidM on January 12, 2010 at 10:49 AM
That’s the issue, friend.
The UNEQUAL treatment of gay relationships under the law.
Yes?
Good Lt on January 12, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Since the Supreme Court cannot be compelled to even hear any case, let alone rule a certain way, I’d think you’d be more afraid of the Supreme Court, and of movements that hold its wisdom superior to popular democracy.
Chris_Balsz on January 12, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Just because I think those laws were wrong and dumb does not make them unconstitutional. As I said, it was not the states choice of which marriages to recognize that was unconstitutional, but the consequences that stemmed from that recognition — and neither truly ran afoul of the 14th amendment, but with free association.
I am going about this in a methodical, rational matter, not with knee jerk bigotry. How about you?
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Interesting discussion. I empathize with GoodLT position, but DavidM is correct. I posit this question often to people who discuss this issue; you are a judge and have a same-sex couple and a hetero-sexual couple in front of you with the decision of into which family a child should go. The intervention of the Supreme Court into this process (or by Amendment for that matter) would mean a judge could not allow gender differences to enter into the determination at all Biology dictates that mothers and fathers bring different things to the table when it comes to the rearing of children. While that may not be the overriding factor in every case, to disallow that function of biology is to deny the essence of our species. True, there are exceptions to this; but this is the reason why the ERA was shot down by Schlafly and Co…men and women are different. Stable societies need mothers and fathers to stay together and that is why government recognition of heterosexual marriage is sensible,legal and should be protected. Still, I am an admirer of Ted Olsen, who suffered much when his wife was lost on 9/11, and do not denigrate him or his argument. I just respectfully disagree.
DrRich on January 12, 2010 at 10:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA&feature=youtube_gdata
CA Prop 8 made simple.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Good LT.
I guess you don’t understand logic.
Please explain to me in precise terms what I can do that a gay man cannot.
And don’t say marry the person of your choice: thats about as generic as “be happy with his life”.
Civil rights exclude one group from doing something while allowing another to do it. Two men marrying is not the same as man-woman marriage, because the word marriage is defined as such ( which is your problem ).
You want the work marriage, and you won’t get it. No matter how many faux-morals you come up with.
DavidM on January 12, 2010 at 10:56 AM
The fallacy here is to assume that there is perfect parity between same sex and opposite sex relationships. This is somewhat understandable, given how many heterosexual couples model their interaction after homosexual ones.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to raise healthy, happy, productive children. That is why it is important to promote it and not the latest gay fad.
Blake on January 12, 2010 at 10:58 AM
No you don’t. Two straight old men can’t marry for property or benefit rights. Neither could two loving, straight, but libidoless women…and euniches! lets what about those guys? Straight gays that can’t have sex.
Unless you think that the most important issue concerning marriage revolves around having sex?
The ones who are really able to work the system is those damn bisexuals. Why do they have special rights? They can get married and be gay.
Itchee Dryback on January 12, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Why do gays want to jam this down our throats…er, I mean shove this up our a**…er, ah…never mind.
/sarc
mwdiver on January 12, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Probably, given how much effort has been made to reduce marriage to “permission to have sex”.
Count to 10 on January 12, 2010 at 11:26 AM
What a strange argument – and completely false.
Same sex people have the fundamental right to marry anywhere in the country. No state can ban or prevent them from marrying each other.
The question is whether the state must recognize that marriage. If the state doesn’t recognize a marriage – whether gay marriage or straight – that doesn’t mean that marriage is banned or that the right to marry is being denied.
If the states got out of the marriage business and didn’t recognize heterosexual marriages, that wouldn’t mean that heterosexual people couldn’t marry.
Proponents of same sex marriage are arguing just crazy points.
SteveMG on January 12, 2010 at 11:38 AM
The bottom line is, the US Constitution doesn’t address treating homosexuals differently than heterosexuals, with all other things in their life being equal. How do you test whether someone is genuinely gay anyway? If they look or sound gay, does that make them gay? So, the current situation, treating homosexuals just like everyone else, and limiting all people, gay or straight, to only marry members of the opposite sex (in order to have a state validate it,) can only be changed by a legislative process. Either state by state law changes, or by starting the long process of federal constitutional amendment. Just twisting the existing US Constitution into knots won’t get you there.
RBMN on January 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Please, stop the theatrics.
A recent poll showed that 60 per cent-plus of self-identified Democrats believed that judges should decide cases on the concept of fairness and not the law or Constitution.
That’s scary but not someting to run away from.
SteveMG on January 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Most important reason Gay Marriage shouldn’t happen and is immoral: God Forbids it
jp on January 12, 2010 at 11:43 AM
I can’t marry my sister, my mom, my daughter, even if they are consenting adults. I also can’t marry multiple consenting adults, simultaneously.
mwdiver on January 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Give it time, at rate we are going down the looney train you’ll have those ‘rights’ in no time.
jp on January 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM
I predict SERIOUS and VIOLENT anti-gay backlash if this measure is forced down our throats.
Pun intended.
omnipotent on January 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM
It happens.
The government has no business indoctrinating our children one very serious change that must be made is to force education away from anything that’s not the three Rs and science, the politics, moralizing and socialist agenda mus go.
Speakup on January 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Hey. You got a point there. I think that’s because that was all the agnostic/atheist got out of bible study when they were young.
Mom and dad don’t want me running around town drinking, smoking pot, cursing, beating up the geeky neighbor kid, dressing like I’m ready for a pole dance, and having sex. I mean, what kind of life is that really for a sixteen year old to deprive them of such pleasures? Church is all about controlling your ability to party and socialize the way you want to do it. /sarc
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM
I agree. There are so many things being taught to our kids as truth using science as a justification. Then the kids are forced to say whose right, my teacher and the textbooks are my dad who is a car mechanic and only graduated high school?
I go with the easiest example since I have personal experience, Earth Week. My oldest son came home horrified in fourth grade, the year that the information he was getting started to make a wider sense to him, that the world was coming to an end. Let me put it this way: I wouldn’t appreciate the Jehovah Witnesses at the end of my block coming in to the school teaching my kids that the world is on a death spiral. I STILL don’t appreciate the scientific global warm freaks coming in doing the same dang thing. Keep the stuff to yourself, and be reminded that the process of science is constantly changing and even scientists say that Einstein’s theory of relativity isn’t proven it just hasn’t been unproven and so far works for our purposes of understanding. You science freaks need to stop worshipping that alter and provide a level of measure and debate.
Sultry Beauty on January 12, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »