Green Room

Requiem For An Ideal

posted at 1:19 am on August 6, 2010 by

California’s Proposition 8 added a provision to the state constitution, declaring “only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.”  Its supporters fought a hard campaign in 2008, and passed it with seven million votes.  Now federal judge Vaughn Walker has knocked it down, citing due process and equal protection concerns:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

We’re on the last few steps of the path leading to the end of our traditional understanding of marriage.  Soon Anthony Kennedy will stamp it null and void, imposing a new understanding of “marriage” as any long-term monogamous relationship between two consenting adults of any sex.  Imposing is exactly the right word.  The full power of the State will be turned to ensuring the new definition is universally accepted.  Centuries of culture, deeply held religious beliefs, and the objections of a majority will provide no protection.  Not long ago, it was suggested we should get government out of the marriage business.  Now, as the Anchoress notes, the government will own it completely, and it’s religion that needs to think about closing up shop:

My first thought: the churches–any of them who wish to remain able to practice their faith in relative freedom–will have to seriously consider getting out of the business of acting as “duly recognized” agents of the state in legalizing marriages. The alternative will be inevitable lawsuits charging “discrimination” for disallowing church weddings, a diminution of our constitutional right to free worship, and a further emptying of church coffers as settlements and fines are levied.

These are stark terms to express the victory of gay marriage proponents, but I suppose they must grimly nod in agreement.  This is how it had to be, since marriage is a fundamental human right, guaranteed by the Constitution.  Sincere proponents of gay marriage, desperately seeking betrothal to beloved same-sex partners, no doubt regret the anger and confusion of traditionalists.  They weren’t looking to hurt anyone’s feelings, or insult their profound religious beliefs.  Oddly enough, that’s how most defenders of traditional marriage feel about same-sex partnerships.  As Kathleen McKinley notes in her plea for the compromise of civil unions, the two sides were always close enough in spirit.  They will now be pressed together by force, rather than united in understanding.

Plenty of hallowed old traditions have been modified, or swept away, during the last few hundred years.  Some of them were pretty awful.  Tradition is not an absolute defense.  Because something has endured for a long time, it doesn’t necessarily endure forever.  Old trees fall to make way for new roads.

It is an old tree we’re cutting down, though.  It has deep roots, grown through countless generations.  Its strong branches have supported mighty civilizations.  Marriage was not invented at a Rotary Club meeting in the 1950s.  Why shouldn’t its age be introduced as evidence in its defense?  Why do so many people cling to such an antique concept, when reproductive science has reduced the need for men and women to partner for procreation… a battalion of experts testifies that same-sex couples can do an equally good job of child-rearing… and the comfortable modern lifestyle has eliminated the importance of marriage as a survival strategy?  Why did seven million people push so hard to pass Proposition 8, when accepting the re-definition of marriage would be so easy?

What, exactly, are the traditionalists defending?  Marriage has already become a tattered quilt of no-fault divorce and pre-nuptial agreements.  A majority may express support for it, but a minority takes it seriously.  It’s a faded old photograph of families wearing forced smiles, posed before fairy-tale backdrops hiding sordid realities, framed in the tarnished silver of a romanticized ideal.  We should be glad to hand the old thing over to gay couples, and hope some of them care about it enough to polish it up a bit.

It is a terribly important ideal.  The silver beneath that tarnish is priceless.

No amount of progressive willpower can erase the biological history of the human race.  No level of comfort provided through technology can eliminate the special need men and women have for one another.  No advance in artificial insemination will wipe out the need for a vast number of natural births.  Cultural survival requires a substantial number of couples to undertake the entirely unreasonable task of raising large families.  They achieve this by forcing reason to submit to love.  They speak outrageous words like “forever” from the depths of their souls.

Individuality, so important to responsible citizenship, is nourished by the support of an extended, multi-generational family.  Men do great things in the name of their fathers, grandfathers, wives, and children.  Women work miracles for their children and husbands.  Together, these men and women present their grandchildren with the priceless gift of the past.

It doesn’t all fit within the boundaries of a spreadsheet.  Some of it defies logic.  To require calculated evidence in defense of marriage is to demand timeless honor be rendered in minutes and seconds.  You might as well ask a wounded Marine why he volunteered for another tour of duty, and require his response to be written on an index card.

Marriage is not sanctified through its association with religion.  It is important to all religions because it is sacred.  Why else would passionate religious believers find joy in the marriage of committed atheists?  Why would any atheist see power in marriage, beyond the force of a simple legal contract?

Should we offer subsidies for traditional marriage, but deny them to same-sex couples?  We have too many damned subsidies and penalties, wrapped around our ankles as we sink into bankruptcy.  Judge Walker wrote that “California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians,” but it is keenly interested in discriminating against lots of other groups.  The entire concept of the leviathan State rests on targeted discrimination.  I’m all in favor of eliminating it.  No one should be paid, fined, or prevented from entering legal contracts because of their sexuality.

Does that mean we should we change the definition of marriage, so it no longer refers to a special union between men and women?  Perhaps it’s impossible to convince a mechanical, legalistic State that it has no right to do so… or that such a change is truly not in its best interests, for reasons better rendered in stanzas than sub-paragraphs.  Many of us failed to live up to the ideal of marriage, but our children deserve their chance to try… and they should understand why it’s important to take that chance.

Many of us have lived up to the ideal, cast in beloved old rings and cherished in vibrant memories of the day they took each other as man and wife.  They don’t want to “discriminate” against committed same-sex partners.  They have no appetite for penalizing them, and every reason to salute their fidelity.  They only wanted to retain the word “marriage,” and the radiant idea described by those humble syllables.  The same people who assure us marriage is a dusty old bit of poorly tended nostalgia also understand its true power.  That’s why they believe it must be expanded… and therefore diminished.

Meanwhile, society must hope men and women continue to discover the unique bond between them, and form the special union upon which the future is built, even though official reverence for that union has been forbidden by law.  Arrogant judges will insist the promise of eternal devotion between man and wife is no different than heartfelt compacts between any two people.  May the men and women of the future join hands, with the spirits of a thousand generations in attendance, and cheerfully ignore them.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

Doctor Zero: Year One now available from Amazon.com!

Recently in the Green Room:

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

They speak outrageous words like “forever” from the depths of their souls

and proceed to prove that those words were not empty ones.

hillbillyjim on August 6, 2010 at 2:19 AM

The judge would have done better to direct the state to strike every reference to “marriage”, “marry”, “married”, “wed”, “wedded”, “spouse”, “husband”, and “wife” from the statutes and regulations of the state, and forbid the state from recognizing such antiquated relics as spousal privilege, intestate succession, presumption of paternity, and all the rest.

cthulhu on August 6, 2010 at 2:29 AM

Damn, Doc, that was a really great post. I know that I will probably never be a writer, as I have been struggling to discuss this issue with friends and family and only now through your words can I see why it is so important to me. Keep up the amazing work.

Living4Him5534 on August 6, 2010 at 2:50 AM

We’re on the last few steps of the path leading to the end of our traditional understanding of marriage. Soon Anthony Kennedy will stamp it null and void, imposing a new understanding of “marriage” as any long-term monogamous relationship between two consenting adults of any sex.

How long before polygamists call for their right to marry multiple spouses?

Disturb the Universe on August 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM

or shepherds and their sheep?

WashingtonsWake on August 6, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I’m not going to weigh in on the legal thorniness of a judge imposing this on citizens regardless of their wishes. I take that very seriously as do many advocates of gay marriage, as does Dr Zero. I think the blowback will be worse than the cure, and going slower and gaining acceptance was a better idea.

As for the societal issue: Marriage is everything you describe here. Gay couples want to be able to use the word and concept “marriage” precisely because it is sacred and precious and has psychological and societal power beyond merely “civil union.” In fact, gay couples who feel that way do get married in religious ceremonies by sympathetic clergy and consider themselves married. Good for them, to take their relationship and its responsibilities that seriously.

I have said this before about “tradition” and say it again here. Anyone who claims that marriage between one man and one woman has been traditional and sacred in Western Civilization for millenia, ignores the fact that polygamy has been normal for much of that time, including in the Bible. if you want to say that gradually this idea fell out of favor over the last 2000 years in Europe, yes, that is true. But I read much more sweeping statements than that from people defending “traditional” marriage.

I am not advocating for polygamy to be legalized, just asking that we look at the history of religious sanction for marriage with honesty. You want to imagine an ideal past to bolster your claims.

YehuditTX on August 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Why requiem?? Marriage is not dead and there are no limits on ‘traditional’ marriage. It is up to the couple how they manage their relationship.

If two people fall in love and want to marry and remain faithful and raise children… they still can and indeed they should.

The recent ruling lifts a restriction on marriage… it does not introduce any. The fewer restrictions on two people who love each other the better.

The fact that gay couples want to marry so badly should illustrate that the idea of marriage is very much alive in our modern world.

lexhamfox on August 6, 2010 at 1:47 PM

The judge would have done better to direct the state to strike every reference to “marriage”, “marry”, “married”, “wed”, “wedded”, “spouse”, “husband”, and “wife” from the statutes and regulations of the state, and forbid the state from recognizing such antiquated relics as spousal privilege, intestate succession, presumption of paternity, and all the rest.

cthulhu on August 6, 2010 at 2:29 AM

Exactly.

Count to 10 on August 6, 2010 at 3:10 PM

lexhamfox on August 6, 2010 at 1:47 PM

It’s kind of sad that you don’t get it. The idea of marriage is dead, and in its place stands “good sex”.

Count to 10 on August 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM

It’s kind of sad that you don’t get it. The idea of marriage is dead, and in its place stands “good sex”.

Count to 10 on August 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM

It’s sad that you think that is case. Good sex and marriage aren’t mutually exclusive. Sex isn’t the reason why people want to be married. It’s usually for love and security.

lexhamfox on August 6, 2010 at 3:38 PM

What, exactly, are the traditionalists defending? Marriage has already become a tattered quilt of no-fault divorce and pre-nuptial agreements.

No fault divorce is the best example -until now- of how govt meddling in marriage has greatly weakened it. You want more govt meddling? One judge who’s a sex perv himself overturning the results of a referendum doesn’t bother you?

And prenups are as old as the hills.

Marriage is not to be considered as between two straight people, excluding sex pervs: it is properly considered as between a man and a woman. The former argument concedes the field to the pervs and their allies.

What are traditionalists defending? The institution of marriage.

You are normally cogent.

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Soon Anthony Kennedy will stamp it null and void, imposing a new understanding of “marriage” as any long-term monogamous relationship between two consenting adults of any sex.

Not necessarily. “Marriage” will be ‘open to interpretation’. Sooner or later some other vocal group will chime in for their version of ‘marriage’.

GarandFan on August 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Sooner or later some other vocal group will chime in for their version of ‘marriage’.
GarandFan on August 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM

The MASS ruling granting homo “marriage” specifically retained the language against polygamy.

Repealing that will be the next capaign.

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 4:54 PM

What are traditionalists defending? The institution of marriage.

You are normally cogent.

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 4:51 PM

Arsonists complaining about the speed of the deliberately hobbled volunteer fire service are usually incoherent, if not completely rationally and morally bankrupt.

They’ve beaten it to death and dumped it in the gutter and now they have the vilely hypocritical gall to complain about blood in the street.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 4:54 PM

The MASS ruling granting homo “marriage” specifically retained the language against polygamy.

Repealing that will be the next capaign.

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Precisely, there is far more historical/cultural precedence for “overturning” the ban on polygamy than there is for this present abomination, the pathetic lies of the likes of Andrew Sullivan to the contrary.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 4:56 PM

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 4:54 PM

It boggles the mind.

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 4:57 PM

centuries of culture, deeply held religious beliefs, and the objections of a majority will provide no protection.

Such was the case with race relations. Don’t ask me to lament the fall of a deplorable cultural hangup.

ernesto on August 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Precisely, there is far more historical/cultural precedence for “overturning” the ban on polygamy than there is for this present abomination, the pathetic lies of the likes of Andrew Sullivan to the contrary. ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Half the world is polygamous, and always has been! Plus, couples with girlfriends will be taking them in to share the tax breaks and gain social acceptance for their “swinging.”

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM

Such was the case with race relations. Don’t ask me to lament the fall of a deplorable cultural hangup.
ernesto on August 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM

What “gay” society has existed for thousand of years, Che?

This “hangup” includes all manner of perversion, including coats and cows. Is that deplorable, Che?

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Those last two words – ignore them – are what the church must do.
The state commands me by law to perform same sex marraige?
Ignore them.
They sue?
Ignore them.
They fine?
Ignore them.
They say we must shut up and shut down?
Ignore them.
If thousands upon thousands of individual churches of all denominations and creeds did this what would our self appointed betters be left to do?

Sefton on August 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM

The founders of western civ didn’t exactly outlaw the practice you know. That we’ve culturally restricted homosexual relations to the strictly sexual kind is no argument for its continued restriction. You’re just regressive, and when your generation passes no one will miss your prejudice, in the same way that no one misses the bigots who opposed interracial marriage.

ernesto on August 6, 2010 at 5:10 PM

What “gay” society has existed for thousand of years, Che?

This “hangup” includes all manner of perversion, including coats and cows. Is that deplorable, Che?

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM

It wouldn’t be so bad if they honestly confessed that they wanted to make the term and the concept of “marriage” a dead dirty word to be spat upon.

Statements like this:

“What, exactly, are the traditionalists defending? Marriage has already become a tattered quilt of no-fault divorce and pre-nuptial agreements.”

indicate their real tu quoque-loving disregard for anything more than a joke level of commitment to genuine life-long relationships.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Oh please!

Gay activists purposely targeted marriage for destruction, as a poke in the straight world’s eye.

Ten years ago gay activists weren’t thinking of marriage rights. The notion was laughable. Marriage was for boring “breeders”.

But having run out of toys to break, they finally reached for the biggest one.

fivefeetoffury on August 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Now that it will soon be the law of the land that two humans of any sex, or even undetermined sex (transvestites and bisexuals) can be married showing that the word ‘sex’ is without importance in the political definition of marriage let’s move on to the next word to be modified, namely ‘two.’ Polygamy and polyandry are coming sooner than you imagine. Informally, it is already the case in places like Dearborn, MI where Muslim men marry one woman legally and take others in private’ religious ceremonies. Eventually they will get their foot in the door on the basis of religious discrimination.

Annar on August 6, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Oh please!

Gay activists purposely targeted marriage for destruction, as a poke in the straight world’s eye.

Ten years ago gay activists weren’t thinking of marriage rights. The notion was laughable. Marriage was for boring “breeders”.

But having run out of toys to break, they finally reached for the biggest one.

fivefeetoffury on August 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM

You’ve correctly noted that people like Ernesto equate marriage and slavery.

Destroying marriage is as virtuous in their minds as destroying slavery was.

There just isn’t a word for how evil and benighted that is.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 5:20 PM

The more I debate this with colleagues on the “gay marriage” side, the more Orwellian they get. Virtually every word they use in this debate signifies something other than its meaning — “judge”, “constitutional”, “rights”, “discrimination” — and the entire intent of their cause is to change the definitions of “homosexuality” (from an action into an attribute) and “marriage”.

What I’m fighting for has nothing to do with banning homosexuality or even preventing gays from pretending to be married. What I’m fighting for now is TRUTH. I want the words “constitutional” and “legalize” to retain their meanings. Gutting words of true meanings is what the left is after.

joe_doufu on August 6, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Eventually they will get their foot in the door on the basis of religious discrimination.

Annar on August 6, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Note that the enemies of interracial marriage used exactly the same justification for their evil that entities like ernesto do, namely that the institution of marriage should be sacrificed to their social prejudices.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM

We don’t have the authority to change the definition of marriage. One can travel the world over, visiting its darkest, most forlorn corners and find the marital relationship organized the same way it has been organized since the time of the Neanderthals. No poofter judge can change the formula of the basic human relationship. It’s mirrored in the biology of the furtherance of the species which requires the egg from a woman and the spermatozoa of the male.
If it will make them happy and end the dramatics, let the homosexuals have everything they require; everything, that is but calling it marriage. Call it gayriage if you wish but we Americans share the same understanding of what a marriage is composed of with the peoples of Asia & Europe down to yet undiscovered tribes in the South America or Africa.

thegreatbeast on August 6, 2010 at 5:23 PM

No level of comfort provided through technology can eliminate the special need men and women have for one another. No advance in artificial insemination will wipe out the need for a vast number of natural births.

You’ve got it backwards, Dr. Zero. The immovable biological fact is that all children HAVE a father and a mother, and they’re better off being raised by them.

The purpose of adoption is not to provide offspring for adults but to provide children with parents. Likewise, the purpose of marriage is to bind children to a mother and a father, because children need BOTH.

Same-sex couples, regardless of how they acquire their kids, will automatically deprive those kids of either a mother or a father. There is no reason that society or the state should see that as a good thing.

No matter how butch a woman is, no child will regard her as a father; no matter how effeminate a man is, no child will regard him as a mother. No boy can look to a woman as a role model for How To Be A Man nor can he look to two women to see how men ought to treat women.

The idea that the sexes are fungible in parent-child relationships comes out of the progressive universities and is designed to destroy the home so that it can be replaced by the tender machinations of the Mother State.

Again, marriage is not about adult living arrangements, adult affection, or adult preferences: it’s about making sure that children have both kinds of parents.

If you can’t provide a home with a mother and a father, DON’T BRING THE CHILD INTO THE WORLD. To do otherwise is to put your own “need to experience parenthood” above the welfare of the child.

We’ve already changed expectations about marriage to skew toward adult concerns at the expense of children; what say we not do it anymore?

dicentra63 on August 6, 2010 at 5:27 PM

The chief problem that a court-imposed solution causes is that these are precisely the kinds of things that should be resolved by us. Even if it takes awhile, there will be a far better outcome than if unelected, unaccountable looselugnut librul judges determine that they know best and, in Justice Scalia’s trenchant words, are “impatient of democratic change”.
-
There are always going to be laws that we dislike and some are even unfair, but not all such laws belong in the courts. If gays can make their political case over the course of time, then that’s how it should be done. Nothing good will come out of this if the Supreme Court short-circuits the political discussion and….once again….impose a solution that will bring decades of bitterness and political street fights.
-
I think that the most odious part of this turn of events is that the Court has recently expressly said that laws that are the expression of moral disapproval of a politically disfavored group cannot form the rational basis for state action that singles out that group. And of course, whenever that is discussed, it is accompanied by some snarky reference to religion and hayseed bitter clingers. It’s inevitable that other laws regarding prostitution, incest, bestiality, statutory rape, public nudity and bigamy are immediately open to challenge on the same grounds. What about drug laws?
-
However, will the court apply the same determined rigor to laws that are the result of leftie moral outrage? In a time in which the top 2% of earners pay 50% of all taxes but are routinely hectored to pay yet more out of “fairness”, someone else observed that the great moral question of the day has to be just how much more should the wealthy be required to pay so that we can all agree that they are finally paying their “fair share”.
-
What about compensation restrictions on “greedy” executives and their “obscene” bonuses? How about “windfall profit” taxes on Big Oil? Aren’t all these expressions of moral disapproval the foundation of laws that are, in Justice O’Connor’s words, “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”?
-
Will the leftie court be willing to toss those laws too as open expressions of hostility to the rich who must be thrashed like a red-headed step-child?
-
Of course not. The resolution of those kinds of disputes belongs in the public arena and so does same sex “marriage”.

………………..

Krumhorn on August 6, 2010 at 5:39 PM

am curious how the SCOTUS will rule because the judical argument is that the Federal and State have NO right to make moral laws. it was pointed out that polygamy, animal/bestiality marriage, group marriage, child pornography would all be Constitutional under this reasoning. comments??

mathewsjw on August 6, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Doc, I respect your past posts, and you have always proved to be concise, cogent, and insightful. But on this marriage issue you are all wet. No measured tones of reasonableness will do here. No compromise. This is the State stepping over into tyranny, and I’m in no mood to hear how we need to work it out. There is no working this out. We are talking about losing the most sacred of human relationships, the protective coccoon of marriage, the most basic building block of human society. Civil disobedience is called for here, not soft-spoken responses of why it has to be this way. If DOES NOT have to be this way if we as a society and culture decide that it WILL NOT be this way. If we do not turn back, our beloved America is doomed.

gajaw999 on August 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Wow, Doc. Amazing post. I’m tearing up a little.

This is my concern, too. All my liberal friends scoff at the “slippery slope” argument wherever it is applied, but it’s really true: it’s not that they’ve made gay marriage legal against the will of the people…. it’s that, when it gets to the Supreme Court and is then enshrined in federal law a la Roe v. Wade, the state will DEMAND that we accept it as a natural and equal union. It will not be enough that we obey the law: they will want those of us who stood in opposition to behave as though there is no difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual one.

I simply can’t do it. Everything I understand about science and religion tells me that, regardless of the morality of it, homosexuality is not natural (I don’t mean that it’s a choice, I mean that it is an anomaly, and not the way humans are designed by God and evolution to behave). It is not the same, and I will not behave as though it is. I won’t mistreat a gay couple just as I don’t mistreat them now, but I will not pretend that their union is the same as mine. It really sucks, because I can see this causing rifts between me and some gay friends of mine in the distant future. It’s so sad.

Anyone else having visions of the Fall of the Roman Empire these days?

Animator Girl on August 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Until you manage to change the statistical definition of “normal”, you will not solve the central problem. Within nature, the two sexes have one purpose… procreate.. continue the species. No legislation will change the simple facts of nature nor the statistical breakdown involved. The folks involved have fought for years for social acceptance. To a large degree, they have achieved that end. Unfortunately, their efforts to seek being normal (in the statistical sense) will never be achieved.

CC

CapedConservative on August 6, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Anyone else having visions of the Fall of the Roman Empire these days? Animator Girl on August 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Sure. But the Church is still here, and nothing Satan or “Dr Zero” can make, do, argue, or change can alter that. There are no more worshipers of the Roman gods, but Christ remains King and Lord of all. At one point that looked really implausible.

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 6:39 PM

The founders of western civ didn’t exactly outlaw the practice you know. That we’ve culturally restricted homosexual relations to the strictly sexual kind is no argument for its continued restriction. You’re just regressive, and when your generation passes no one will miss your prejudice, in the same way that no one misses the bigots who opposed interracial marriage.

ernesto on August 6, 2010 at 5:10 PM

You actually started out with a cogent argument. But your third sentence finds you falling into the same liberal trap; Call your opponent a name, minimize him and call him a racist.

You lose any credibility you may have had when you do this.

BierManVA on August 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Akzed on August 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM

The founders of western civ didn’t exactly outlaw the practice you know. That we’ve culturally restricted homosexual relations to the strictly sexual kind is no argument for its continued restriction. You’re just regressive, and when your generation passes no one will miss your prejudice, in the same way that no one misses the bigots who opposed interracial marriage.

ernesto on August 6, 2010 at 5:10 PM

You are wrong. our culture has long winked at same sex couples, as long as they kept the sex in the bedroom, and did not scare the horses.

How many of us have/had two “Maiden Aunts” with only one of them even looking at all like us, or an uncle who always showed up with the same “Friend”.

Slowburn on August 6, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Eventually they will get their foot in the door on the basis of religious discrimination.

Annar on August 6, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Note that the enemies of interracial marriage used exactly the same justification for their evil that entities like ernesto do, namely that the institution of marriage should be sacrificed to their social prejudices.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM

The racist opponents of interracial marriage never Denied that what those “perverts” wanted was Marriage. They denied that they wanted to marry a Human.
Equating stamping out racism, with homosexual marriage is dishonest, and stupid.

Slowburn on August 6, 2010 at 9:33 PM

The racist opponents of interracial marriage never Denied that what those “perverts” wanted was Marriage. They denied that they wanted to marry a Human.
Equating stamping out racism, with homosexual marriage is dishonest, and stupid.

Slowburn on August 6, 2010 at 9:33 PM

They had to change PREEXISTING ANGLO-SAXON LAW because there was no original restriction against “interracial” couples marrying. It was purely a case of tampering with the institution in order to meet a perverted and perverse “social need,” just as “Ernesto” and his ilk are doing now.

ebrown2 on August 6, 2010 at 10:31 PM

am curious how the SCOTUS will rule because the judical argument is that the Federal and State have NO right to make moral laws. it was pointed out that polygamy, animal/bestiality marriage, group marriage, child pornography would all be Constitutional under this reasoning. comments??

mathewsjw on August 6, 2010 at 5:45 PM

The language in the ruling is clear. I would encourage you to look at it since the ruling is a rather long one.

‘two consenting adults’ is the bit you seem to be looking for and it is there.

lexhamfox on August 7, 2010 at 12:16 AM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on August 7, 2010 at 1:08 PM