I am a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes. Recently, I seemed to have rocked a few individuals within my party by saying that I am a pro-life, pro-gay-marriage Republican. So if anyone is still confused, let me spell it out for you. I believe life begins at conception and I believe that people who fall in love should have the option to get married. Lest we forget, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, grants the same rights to everyone in this country—“All men are created equal.” If you think certain rights should not apply to certain people, then you are saying those people are not equal. People may always have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, but championing a position that wants to treat people unequally isn’t just un-Republican. At its fundamental core, it’s un-American.
At the end of the day, speaking at the Log Cabin Republicans’ convention isn’t just about reaching out to the gay community—although I believe doing so is vital to the future success of the party. It’s also about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Dude.
PBoilermaker on April 13, 2009 at 10:33 AM
She’s no more a Republican than her father.
Oink on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM
This womYn is like a Yankees fan who goes to Fenway Park wearing a Red Sox cap and tells everyone she’s a Sox fan but here is a list of 100 things wrong with Boston.
angryed on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I want to marry my XBox. It is my right as an American.
Joe Caps on April 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM
yay gay.
unless that label is ‘gay’ in which case you must not call them anything else AND you MUST accept them.
I still don’t understand why this little girl’s opinion is any more important or significant than mine. When my daddy runs for office and I switch my party affiliation to support him, then it automatically labels me as ‘party leader’.
OK, no boxes or labels. Except of course, the INTOLERANT AND BIGOTED CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES. . . right?
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Waiting for Meghan’s inevitable “I’m a woman Republican who thinks Obama is Teh Cool” column.
Meghan, please, go away. You’re not helping.
crazy_legs on April 13, 2009 at 10:36 AM
And what is Fudgeball’s stand on polygamy?
“I believe that people who fall in love should have the option to get married” contains no limit of two per marriage.
Wethal on April 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM
The people in the shipping department of the company I work at listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Looks like she despises the tools of hard-working conservatives.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 10:38 AM
or age. 9 y/o was old enough for Mohammed. . . er actually 6, but who’s counting? You support love for 6 year old girls too madge?
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I am really getting sick and tired of seeing Ms. McCain constantly highlighted by HotAir.
Real sick of this……..
jake-the-goose on April 13, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Gay men have the right to marry the same woman that I can. No one’s rights are being denied.
Grafted on April 13, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Well, the result in November was pretty gay. Is that a start?
Red Cloud on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM
The hits just keep on coming.
SoulGlo on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Doesn’t she mean more faggy?
Glenn Jericho on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Meg despises boxes , no luck for you!
the_nile on April 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Bang. My. Head. Against. Wall.
Allah, please stop posting crap from this woman. If people want to subscribe to her goofy Twitter account or something to read this garbage fine.
She is not bringing anyone new into the GOP and in fact probably alienating people from it. Precisely the reason the MSM continues to give her airtime — just like her loser father.
Please for the love of Pete….stop!!!!
davek70 on April 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM
I do too. I just don’t want them to be the same sex, more than two, 5 years old, and anything other than human.
A “gayer” GOP wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
spmat on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Cheers to Meghan for that one. Well done!
Still the number one *facepalm* of an argument on this issue to date.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM
And… Reagan opposed firing people over being gay.
He’d support gay marriage too. Really!
/sarc
cs89 on April 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Ummmm. No. I think not.
CynicalOptimist on April 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Way to sway people to your side of the argument, call the un-American.
jacrews on April 13, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Yes, we sure need tips on how to accessorize.
JammieWearingFool on April 13, 2009 at 10:43 AM
The same logic could be used to oppose the Americans with Disabilities Act.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Meh. I’m cool with most of it, except the “need” to “reach out” to gays. That is pandering, and pisses off another good section of the right.
The very discussion of “labels” and “stereotypes” is repulsive to me, but I guess it’s necessary to defend ourselves yet again.
But it does not have much to do with what makes one a conservative. KISS. Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government. Maybe Strong Defense and Individual Liberty under that. But just about everything else is individual flavoring.
connertown on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM
As a reminder:
Commenters type:
Allahpundit reads:
and then he posts another article.
Hey, is there any good Meghan McCain fan fiction around?
Snowed In on April 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Which is why I identify myself with them:
——
This statement is a perfect example of why MM is not to be taken seriously. No conservative wants to take away rights or deny rights; conservatives want to conserve them. The left likes to attribute all desires as rights thus creating a false argument – a patient’s bill of rights, consumer’s bill of rights, etc. It’s rhetoric tricks. Want something? Claim it’s a right! I have a right to free vodka!
I doubt MM is smart enough to be attempting this, more likely she is just parroting what she’s been fed.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Wouldn’t gettting the state out of the marriage business be more in line with Republican values?
Gay and straight couples would get equal treatment, and churches/religious institutions could administer the religious covenant of marriage as they see fit.
It's Vintage, Duh on April 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM
The aliens at Hulu have been working on softening Meghan’s brain for a while now. I think they’ve succeeding in creating a grey matter nacho dip.
Enjoy!
darwin on April 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM
You are yielding to the government the power to determine the right to marriage in the first place. Extreme liberal view integrated into mainstream thinking. All for a tax-break.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Bingo.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 10:48 AM
+1
The state won’t get out of it, of course, as it is addicted to the licensing fees.
Snowed In on April 13, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I guess the fact that right minded blogs CONTINUE to give her DAILY press, does in fact, make her the voice of young conservatism. Maybe she can even take the daunting task of choosing our next presidential candidate. Given all this DAILY attention she gets, she must know better than the rest of us.
anniekc on April 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM
why is she still talking?
jp on April 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Labels educate us on the fat content on boxes of food.
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Megan’s problem is that she’s been surrounded by people kissing her butt for far too long. She has never been in a situation where her ideas have been challenged. She’s going to the log cabin Republican conference in support of gay marriage. . . how brave!
I went to a hippy Ashram this weekend to work on my Yoga practice. I argued in favor of capitalism in a hippy COMMUNE! with environmental lobby attorneys and 25 year long UNION officials. . . in an environment where they taught that ALL RELIGIONS WERE EQUAL I told them HOGWASH.
When she goes to a La Raza event to explain how immigration enforcement would help their community, then I’ll believe she has something to offer. Preaching to the choir is not an important skill.
I hope AP continues to link to her garbage. She doesn’t surround herself with anyone who challenges her positions. Her life is one big regurgitated talking point.
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM
“All for a tax-break”? You seriously believe that’s all this is about?
And no, I don’t want to have the state legislate rights to marriage. Just the denial of equal treatment under law.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM
If you need to “redefine what it means to be a Republican” it just might be an indication that you aren’t one.
obladioblada on April 13, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I guess if anyone hasn’t figured out by now, I’m a fighter, not a lover.
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Meghan will be as successful in pandering to gays as her father was in pandering to Latinos!
EPIC FAILURE.
Republicans never pander to anyone. We treat everyone equally. We don’t have certain themes for certain groups. I really was annoyed when McLame thought that all Hispanics cared about illegals. The Latinos that legally vote, don’t give a rat’s behind about illegals. McCain failed miserably.
Pandering is idiotic.
jencab on April 13, 2009 at 10:53 AM
How long until the hastily-called press conference where she announces she’s leaving the GOP?
JammieWearingFool on April 13, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Love it. The party of flatulent old men gets further marginalized every day.
capitulus on April 13, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Well, they’d get more revenue with domestic partnership/civil union licenseing fees, as more people could apply.
It's Vintage, Duh on April 13, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Roadmap to failure. Drawn with crayons & Mascara. STFU, sit down and stop being an attention WHORE.
portlandon on April 13, 2009 at 10:57 AM
I’m glad the rest of the conservative blogosphere is not enthralled with the musings of this twit. HA is one of my favorite sites, but I’m disappointed with the Meghan McCain obsession.
zeebeach on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM
I’m going with the day after Palin clinches the nomination. Cue Poptech.
Snowed In on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM
“All about”? No. But why did government get involved in the first place? Marriage predates all governments we see today, so it’s been yielded to the government. Why? People are happy to have government involved in something as long as there is a financial kickback.
But that was a largely snarky throw-away line. I’m not going to get motivated to give the government more power on false claims of “rights”.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Stop trying to bring common sense into politics.
Snowed In on April 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM
It’s good idea but it’s also a pipe dream. The government will not get out of the marriage ‘business’ and the most powerful and vocal gay groups don’t want the government to get out of the marriage business – they want to use government as a cudgel to beat people over the head with.
Also, I don’t support gay marriage but I do believe that this is NOT a litmus test for *true* Republicans/conservatives – I think that conservatives can reasonably disagree about this issue.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Perhaps we just need less Megan McCain.
Are you going to link every piece of drivel this panderer vomits??
Mommypundit on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Allah has a thing for her. He has dreams of midnight twitter sessions,and campaign bus cuddling.
portlandon on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM
For sure. I’m hoping the leadership of the Democratic Party goes to their final reward soon so some youngsters with an even an ounce of common decency can assume control!
littleguy on April 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM
What’s interesting is that anyone here gives a rip about what Ms. McCain has to say.
t.ferg on April 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Ha! You need to copy this comment later when this thread moves from the Hot Air attic down to the living room.
sherry on April 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM
No one is saying they shouldn’t be able to get married, that’s a straw man.
People simply believe that the government should not subsidize Gay Marriage the way it does Traditional Marriage. The fact that most people believe the government determines who is married and who isn’t just goes to show you how far Statism has embedded itself in the culture.
Kronos on April 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Uh…if I’m wrong please correct me, but I believe something called The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights outlines our rights as American citizens, not The Declaration…
Niere on April 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM
It probably would, in this way:
1.) Voters Meghan’s age are more supportive of gay marriage than older voters.
2.) Four states have gay marriage with NJ and NY on the way.
3.) The long-term trend is toward legal recognition.
The GOP can oppose gay marriage–as the Dems do–but they need to lower the priority and emphasize what they are going to actually do to make families stronger. Currently, the perception that the GOP is focused on gay marriage at the expense of other issues is hurting the party, and it will be more damaging in future years.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM
If every piece continues to get >100 comments, I’m gonna go with yes, he is. If the comments dry up, well, that’s different. But they won’t, so long as everyone wants to get their fat jokes in.
Snowed In on April 13, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Someone needs to tell her that the Declaration of Independence doesn’t grant anyone any rights.
blink on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM
nuff said…
alexraye on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM
The Constitution is clear on the importance of “due process” and “equal protection”.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Seriously, why is there ANOTHER link to a Meghan McCain post?
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 AM
The important thing people are missing here, is that she’s rich, hot, and somewhat more intelligent than Paris Hilton.
I love America.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 AM
That’s not true. The government shouldn’t be the apparatus that forces their lifestyle on people and encourages unhealthy activity.
We are saying that they shouldn’t be thrown in jail for being gay or acting gay, but the government shouldn’t grant SPECIAL RIGHTS to a particular group because they ‘want it’. Affirmative Action was a bad idea because as in Animal Farm, ‘All people are created equal, but some are more equal than others’ was practiced in AA policies. The supreme court ruled them unconstitutional.
NAMBLA wants a piece of the action too. National Association of Man-Boy Love think their rights are denied too. You going to one of their meetings in support too Meghan?
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 11:06 AM
You know, if Meghan were to just go off and marry Levi Johnson, Allah could consolidate a whole lotta threads on Hot Air…
jon1979 on April 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Let’s be accurate, Mags. The Declaration says all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Let’s not be making things up.
BigD on April 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM
It seems to me that it’s disingenuous to label McCain’s campaign as his failure instead of recognizing the failure of the Repubican Party at large. We picked him, ran him and lost. The party failed — not just John McCain and his amnesty grandstanding.
Repubs had been pushing GWB’s fiscal irresponsibility for 8 years. The war effort was bungled up until the surge. Reasonable people have many complaints about Republicans. That fact makes MMC’s posturing seem plausible and validates MSM coverage of her backbiting.
MMC is smart enough to know how to keep the spotlight on herself. She pushes her ideas and perspectives with as much media savvy as any other celeblicans. Calling her annoying and trying to detach her from her Republican roots by name-calling pretty much cements her place in the foreground while others, kicking and screaming, are relegated to the sidelines.
Laura Ingraham came out looking like trash when attacking MMC. Rush is going to be her next target. She will start in on him within a week or so, or just after his next perceived gaffe.
The Race Card on April 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM
My roomate my senior year in high school was dumb as a rock (love him to death)! He went to Cornell because his grandfather donated enough money for buildings and funding for an entire field of study. Going to an ivy league school doesn’t mean you are smart as much as it means you are connected.
Bush went to Yale. People called him dumb the past 8 years and he was just PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Okay.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness –
The Bill of Rights limits governmental power, more then it outlines rights. Ie there are more freedoms that the state and individual have then listed in the BoR.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM
And I imagine that polygamists and ‘I-know-i’m-24-and-my-girlfriend-is-13-but-we-love-each-other-and-want-to-get-married’ are lining right up behind the ‘gay’ lobby to demands their “due process” and “equal protection”. I’m not making this comment to have others devolve it into a ‘why can’t I marry a carrot/dog/whatever’ response/followup – but you have to ask yourself, if gay marriage is a ‘right’ then why not polygamy? And why can’t an adult marry a consenting minor?
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Exactly HOW is granting marriage to gays forcing any lifestyle on anyone?
Oh, and this:
We should probably rescind straight whites from marriage…since the Aryan Nation folks are made up of them, and lawd knows what would happen…
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Yeah, Meghan McCain sure is dumb, saying that gay people should be treated like ordinary human beings, when we all know homosexuals are a threat to children. We conservatives sure are smart and pro-family.
Go Jesus!
Enrique on April 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Hmm, NAMBLA is more Republican and American than me, it seems.
Daft Punk on April 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM
That would be sooper!
/Big gay Al.
rbj on April 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Totally serious, why is there ANOTHER link to a Meghan McCain post?
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Actually, I’m fairly libertarian regarding gay marriage (i.e. it should be left up to the elected officials in the state legislature to define civil marriage and issue civil contracts). We should actually give Meghan some snaps for defining her beliefs rather than witing columns which consist of vague whining or drolling over Aaron Schock.
Illinidiva on April 13, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Tasty. My favorite part was how an ad for a designer handbag protruded into this “anti-label” rant.
Irony. It’s what’s for dinner.
Greek Fire on April 13, 2009 at 11:17 AM
If you aren’t treating them like human beings, then that’s on you personally.
But the time for collective outrage is, say when they are refused an actual right. Like the right to vote. You know, an actual right.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Perhaps allowing you to choose your own spouse is what has put us on a slippery slope. Allowing the government to use statistical models to review and approve marriage might improve the average longevity of a marriage and the genetic quality of offspring. Once we allowed people to choose their own mates for whatever reason they wanted perhaps it led to a framework where gay people began to think they could do the same.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM
I agree Meghan is smart in that she knows how to manipulate the media and is apparently good at cashing in on her famous name, but she reminds me of most Gen Yers that I know (i.e. sort of vapid and entitled). As a Gen Yer myself, I feel entitled to criticize that sort of ditziness and lack of substance.
And you know the way to fix it… Nominate the squishiest RINO around (Charlie Crist).
Illinidiva on April 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM
What we need is a gayer GOP.
No, what we need is to reach out to those with conservative principles who want a strong military, fiscal responsibility, less taxes, more freedom and smaller government. If people who have those tenets happen to be gay, great.
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM
I’m truly sorry you see it that way.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:21 AM
You completely misinterpreted what I meant. My point was that since Marriage is just a covenant between two people there’s no way Gay Marriage should be illegal. Since this is already legal there is no inequality. Gay people can make an agreement to be monogamous just the same as everyone else.
And I agree that there is no conceivable reason that special privileges should be extended to married Gays as they are to married Straights.
I was simply remarking that the Government does not get to decide who is married and who isn’t so Gays can already get married in a traditional, if not a legal, sense.
Kronos on April 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Marriage is a right, or at least SCOTUS thinks so. They may be wrong but their opinions have legal standing (for everyone other than Andrew Jackson).
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Is it just me or is Megan McCain rapidly becoming the Rosie O’Donnell of the Republican party?
Personally I hope she stops kidding herself and does us all a favour and defects to the Democrat Party as soon as possible.
Dreadnought223 on April 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Thank you Chubs for restating your platform! Nobody I know gives a crap or something.
trs on April 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM
So, too, is abortion.
My point that I am attempting to make is that it’s not bigoted or reactionary, or whatever, to not willfully want to hand more regulatory power over to the government. The argument that is going on over gay marriage is not particularly different then the one over universal health care. “People have a right to universal health care!” That’s now entered into the collective consciousness.
I’m very sympathetic to people’s rights being abridged. I would rather see people move to take marriage entirely out of the hands of government and leave it natural law where it belongs.
As far as the illegal discrimination that violate equal protection. Let’s deal with those head-on instead of pretending if we just add a label (marriage) to a partnership then we have fix all the problems through the back door.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Indeed. My wife and I would have preferred a civil union but we need to ensure that should something happen to us we’re the legally recognized next of kin for each other. I don’t think the government has the right to validate relationship between adults (and for all you people claiming two dudes getting married is the same as someone raping a child you need to really think that one through a little better) but since they do all adults should have the same right to designate and heir and receive marriage tax breaks. If civil unions do that fine, if it needs to be called marriage meh.
The government can protect the right of gays to decide who will inherit their property and be their next of kin without being involved in the theological debate as to whether Church’s will recognize those arrangements. As long as Churches are protected from lawsuits who gives a rat’s ass if gays get married?
Rob Taylor on April 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM
What we need is a less Meghan McCainish Hotair.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Not sure what she’s getting at. I suppose there are some fiscal conservatives in the gay community. Perhaps other brands of conservatism too, but I very much doubt that there are many,if any, social conservatives. I doubt that any kind of ‘reaching out’–short of abandoning socially conservative principles–would work. Repealing, if you will, socially conservative principles such as those against gay marriage would most certainly bring in some limited numbers of gay GOP voters. In turn, we would lose an even greater number of the religious right. Gives new meaning to being between a rock and a hard place. Does point up an issue that the GOP will have to confront on some level eventually.
jeanie on April 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Yeah, so do the dems. Government confers rights, right? Anyone seduced by that siren song must appeal to government as the arbitrator of all grievances.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Not reading. She needs to go away. Hopefully, her book will be as popular as san fran nan’s.
becki51758 on April 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Nice dodge of the issue – my argument wasn’t philosophical and you ended up proving my point: if denying gay marriage is akin to mandating who should be married then allowing gay marriage means utlimately you cannot restrict anyone from marrying. Whether you want to recognise it or not legalising gay marriage will have consequences – if you’re not comfortable legalising polygamy or marriage of minors to adults then you should admit that this is a sacrifice you’re willing to make in order for gay marriages to be legal.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 11:29 AM
When will this obnoxious bimbo go away?!!
I tried to point out over there that Dems rarely support the cause of gay marriage. Liberals come out in support of “civil unions,” but oppose gay marriage…when they all know that marriage, in the eyes of the state, is nothing more than a civil union. See, dems are deathly afraid of the gay lobby (and nearly any other lobby.) They’re so PC and scared they will offend anyone that they straddle the fence claiming to be behind the gays, when they’re really not on their side at all…they merely want to try to have it both ways and appease everyone.
I won’t support changing the ancient definition of marriage to appease a whiny superminority. I would hope that the GOP would do the same and not kowtow to any lobby that doesn’t share the underlying principles.
I do have to wonder why McCain, who has every gripe on earth with the GOP, even labels herself a Republican? It’s like claiming to be a Christian, yet you hate the religion and ignore 99% of it.
TheBlueSite on April 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM
He’s saying that government does not grant rights. He’s right. We are born with our rights; government can only take them away or defend them.
So, the argument should be: why is the government taking away the right of 2 consenting adults to engage in a legally binding contract?
lorien1973 on April 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Let her speak her mind. Not everyone in the Republican Party believes that gays and lesbians are a deviant, satanic cabal trying to ruin the country. Just as Dick Cheney what he thinks of his lesbian daughter.
SC.Charlie on April 13, 2009 at 11:33 AM
My understanding is that the Declaration was seen as a declaration to King George that we were no longer politically tied to England and that the colonies had become a united entity. The Constitution was drawn from the ideals laid out in the Declaration, but the Declaration itself does not grant Americans rights per se.
Yes, I would agree with that.
Yes–that’s The Constitution, not the Declaration.
Niere on April 13, 2009 at 11:34 AM
The hysterical slippery slope arguments in this thread show me how little many of you have thought out this issue.
Can I marry my xbox? WTF?
lorien1973 on April 13, 2009 at 11:34 AM
As much as I don’t like Meghan “you Know” McCain I have to agree with her on this one.
Didn’t bother to read the rest, I find the Paris Hilton “Expressionism” a bit of a turn off.
Michelle Dubois on April 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Every time I see a post about this leech, I see the bitterness of her father coming out.
Just be quiet already.
madmonkphotog on April 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Right on.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM
That is exactly right.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM
A quick 100 comments for this doofus trust-fund know-nothing. Why on earth would AP stop posting her high-schooler opinions – they get great ratings.
Jaibones on April 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Currently, it is restricted to a man and a woman. There is a line. Redrawing the line at 2 people wouldn’t be more difficult to defend than the current line, and would strengthen the state’s case on equal protection grounds–where they’ve been losing in court.
Additionally, states have a stronger claim to a “compelling interest” in not allowing child brides or group marriages. Currently, it is much more difficult to demonstrate their compelling interest in preventing gay marriages.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Okay, there was good reason to have to listen to McCain’s garbage for two years: he was the candidate. Why must we hear from the even dumber daughter?
John_Locke on April 13, 2009 at 11:39 AM
when the government gets involved, you can expect that they either lose their tax exempt status or worse, get fined heavily by the government for their beliefs that the homosexual lifestyle is a poor choice for it’s constituents.
It’s already a bigger crime if you beat up a gay person than if you beat up a straight person through the ‘hate crimes’ legislation. If I get beat up, I would hope that the government would be blind enough to allow me the same justice that a gay person might get just because they are gay. The government doesn’t work like that.
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 11:39 AM
The slippery slope argument isn’t entirely without merit but some of the analogies here are without merit (UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has written some brilliant stuff on the “slippery slope” argument; just google it).
The point here, again, is that just because the state or government doesn’t recognize for legal purposes gay or same sex marriage doesn’t mean that gay people can’t get married.
Not legally recognizing an act is not the same thing as banning that act.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Or, why isn’t the government protecting equal rights in relation to gay marriage?
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM
One trick pony me: Again, gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in America. No gay couple that marry will be punished or fined or prevented from marrying one another.
It’s just not recognized for legal purposes.
Two different things.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 11:42 AM
The Declaration is far larger in scope then the Constitution. The Declaration establishes as legal authority in the [then] colonies two types of rights. Legal rights conferred by British law (of which it accuses KGIII of various abridgments) and natural law – which is also accuses Britain of violating.
So yes, it doesn’t grant rights, the Declaration of Independence is predicated on the abridgment of rights. Universal and National. Natural and Civil. The Declaration CANNOT grant these rights because it doesn’t yield that any government can grant rights.
Hence, the Constitution is, as I said, even smaller in scope because it is only addressing Civil law, not even Natural law – as the DoI has already stated that governments cannot infringe on Natural law.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM
The Media is just pimping her.
Firebird on April 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Well, the government would be “forcing” others to recognize that contract not just the two parties involved.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I think that is a stronger philosophical position for a politician or party to work from.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Because we allow children to marry adults, as long they are not of the same sex?
lorien1973 on April 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM
You’re a polygamist-phobe! Why is your heart so full of hate for these people? They love each other and just want to live in peace – or are you going to argue that allowing them to marry will be the same as a man marrying is xbox or a goat?
What reasonable standard, allowing gay marriage, could deny polygamists the right to marry? Equal protection!!!eleventy!!one11!!. Seriously, though, why don’t you think polygamy should be legal if you think gay marriage should be?
Admittedly, making it legal, without guardian consent, for a minor to marry an adult is ‘trickier’ than polygamy or gay marriage but I don’t think it would be that far behind.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
And? It’s just a legal contract. What’s the big deal.
Contracts are done between people all the time. Does it bother you or affect you in any way?
lorien1973 on April 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Because marriage is natural law and not civil law. If marriage were civil law, every time a new form of government replaced an old, they would have to pass laws that “acknowledge the legal contracts of marriage that were conferred in previous governmental structures.” They don’t do that because it has been long understood that the relationship between two people is not under the power of government.
When the government started issuing marriage licenses, etc, it got it’s hands in the pie.
Whatever the specific issue surrounding the abridgment of rights, for example the inability to hand down possession from a man to an man, these things should be addressed head on. It’s absurd that the gov should think it can determine who can give what to whom. Etc.
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Why is it “2 consenting adults”? Two is an artificial construct that you puritans have foisted upon the citizens-who-have-other-sexual-orientations-than-you.
More seriously, maybe government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. Yes, the Christian church’s idea of marriage has been an astonishing force for good in the development of our civilization, but it is often rejected now by all sorts of people.
As AP once challenged – if Judeo-Christian marriage is so great, explain Britney Spears.
I am inclined for Christians and Jews to withdraw from public life to some degree, and take their sacred holidays and family practices with them. Christmas, Easter, Passover, Yom Kippur – withdraw them as legal holidays and leave them for the practicing faithful to practice in privacy.
A guy wants to enter into some sort of agreement for a household with another guy, fine. Let them. A couple of lesbians want to raise other people’s children and play Mommies, fine, if it’s ok with the real parents. Clearly there is no test for the qualifications of biological parents as things are now.
I believe society will largely suffer from the resulting immoral culture, but that’s a hard argument to prove, given our culture now.
Jaibones on April 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
It is mostly the government itself that would be doing the recognizing. Private businesses might be affected but no more than they are now affected by straight marriages.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Ah, yes. Moderation for using the “L Word”. Too funny.
Jaibones on April 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I’m just pointing out that it’s a slippery slope and that many of those advocating for gay marriage deny this fact – for example daedalus pointing out in this thread that gay marriage is ok because they’ll just draw a new line in the sand that can’t be crossed and that will be an end to it.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Thackeragency writes, “It’s already a bigger crime if you beat up a gay person than if you beat up a straight person through the ‘hate crimes’ legislation.” Currently, Thacker there is no federal hate crime legislation.
SC.Charlie on April 13, 2009 at 11:51 AM
The hysterical slippery slope arguments in this thread show me how little many of you have thought out this issue.
Can I marry my xbox? WTF?
lorien1973 on April 13, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Oh come on, such analogy is completely off and you know it. It’s marriage between two consenting Homo-sapiens (See, we are all Homos!
). They are not a THING or an IT, and any such comparison just show your bigoted worldview when it comes to the gays.
Michelle Dubois on April 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Yes, but who is “the government”? The government would be extending protection of that contractual arrangement and “force” others to recognize and honor that contract.
Recall Berlin’s distinction between “negative freedom” and “positive freedom”? There’s a part of this – legally recognizing same sex marriage – that, it seems to me, is a “positive freedom”.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Not only do I agree with that assessment, I recall Buckley worked with people he didn’t see eye to eye on politically (as did Reagan) where there was common ground.
The question is, however, whether there is common ground. Do activists want equal rights or do they want them only if conferred by government – ie expansion of the progressive ideal. (This is not a projection on Jetboy or anyone else here’s motive – I mean activism collectively on this subject)
Spirit of 1776 on April 13, 2009 at 11:54 AM
OT: anyone else notice the new tab here named The Green Room? Has this been here a while?
carbon_footprint on April 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
The civil union solution addressed legal inequities. Now it is seen (correctly) as another stepping stone to more leftist mischief. There is no reason to believe it will stop with gay marriage.
Feedie on April 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Why not. We know the higher echelons of the Nazi party were rife with butt pirates. (Hell, Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA was an open homo) In fact, it was an open secret that the party was homo central, and by party, I don’t just mean political either, if you get the hint. The Nazis were very progressive, and very practical when it came to recognizing talent, just like Meghan. Hitler let it slide because they were very good at their jobs and found many of them to be an indispensable asset to the cause. Homosexuals, however, often go rogue, in more ways than one. Andrew Sullivan is a good example. They also constitute an astronomically higher percentage of pedophiles, geniuses, weirdos, intellectuals, and yes, brilliant killers than the general background population. This is why the Nazis attracted them in droves and why they were so dangerously effective at their jobs.
keep the change on April 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I’m guessing you think there should be. everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I gave no view on whether it bothered me or not. FWIW, if a referendum came up I’d support extending recognition of opposite sex marriage to same sex marriage.
But this isn’t about me only. It’s about laws and society, the individual and the state.
The issue is that same sex marriage is not illegal or banned anywhere in America. But if a state does recognize that contract the state is imposing its views on others who do not wish to honor that contract or legal arrangement.
The imposition in this case is not on gay or same sex couples. It’s on those who do not wish to recognize that marriage.
Let’s be clear about whose rights will be curtailed.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
lorien1973, I apologize I should have replied to Joe Caps not you.
Michelle Dubois on April 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
The government has to draw lines all the time. If we believed in the slippery slope fallacy every time we attempted to reassess where a line should be, then women might not own property within a marriage or be able to marry someone from a different race.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I’m guessing you think there should be. everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. ThackerAgency on April 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
You are guessing wrong. I also think that the other hate crime laws should be removed.
SC.Charlie on April 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
So, is Allahpundit going to the convention and going to meet his idolette, Chub-Chub?
Blake on April 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Polygamy would require states to rewrite laws on property ownership and make divorces much messier than they already are. In many cases those divorces would serve to be more destabilizing to the a home and the welfare of children than today’s divorces.
Child brides would be easier for the state to keep illegal. Children under the age of majority can’t be bound by contracts and even with the consent of a parent the state would be able to present mountains of evidence about the problems of sexual abuse of minors.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM
The idea of another man interested in what the inside of my large intestine feels like still makes me gag.
Not phobic, just nauseated.
GunRunner on April 13, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Poor un-cool un-hip Meghan. Didn’t you admit not voting Obama last election? Honey, you might as well have a NIXON-AGNEW bumper sticker on your car.
Marcus on April 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Poor un-cool un-hip Meghan. Didn’t you admit not voting Obama last election? Honey, you might as well have a NIXON-AGNEW bumper sticker on your car.
Marcus on April 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM
No it would not, partnerships and Corporations structure types would suffice. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
GunRunner on April 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I love all you kids that have been indoctrinated by pop culture to worship everything homosexual.
Sorry, but it is simply a birth defect. At this point this country is done for anyway. Have at it. “Marry” your brother/sister for all I care. Allowing women to vote caused the end of this republic…
ClassicCon on April 13, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Ron Reagan all over again.
29Victor on April 13, 2009 at 12:12 PM
So what if the GOP doesn’t become more progay, does this mean she’ll stop being a republican?
deidre on April 13, 2009 at 12:13 PM
“They also constitute an astronomically higher percentage of pedophiles, geniuses, weirdos, intellectuals, and yes, brilliant killers than the general background population. This is why the Nazis attracted them in droves and why they were so dangerously effective at their jobs. keep the change on April 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM”
Source being the “Pink Triangle” a much loved book by nutcases.
SC.Charlie on April 13, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Allah loves fat chicks. Allah loves fat chicks.
Percy_Peabody on April 13, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Sorry, Meg,
Your Daddy, upon whose coattails you shameless ride, didn’t win. Kinda hard to take advice from the electoral loser’s nepotistic daughter.
Christien on April 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Among gay people the priority of the two motives likely varies. There is probably a majority of people in the country who favor domestic partnerships with equal government benefits.
A question a lot of Conservatives ask is “why then marriage?” For some gay people the government imprimatur is sought in order to validate their lifestyle choice.
Having the government take a step back and let churches set the criteria, while the government issues the license would solve some of the problem. Having a marriage license shouldn’t convey government sanction. No one waves a drivers license around and says that it is evidence of being a good driver (and at least there there is some form of test).
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM
The state doesn’t write corporate contracts. Are you saying that every married couple would then have to write a custom contract? Gay marriage doesn’t impose that burden.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I have gay friends and they are quite fabulous and the coolest thing is that they have the same dreams and aspirations as any other human being, they even have two legs and two hands, can you believe it? You should get yourself one of those, it might do you good… after all maybe the defect is with you.
Michelle Dubois on April 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM
So you’re for gay marriage but against polygamy because it’s more legally convenient to allow gay marriage? What about the rights of the polygamists? They get denied their rights because it’s inconvenient?
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Why not keep the line where it is? You have yet to indicate why you philosophically think gay marriage should be legal but polygamy should not – you’ve only argued it might be more legally inconvenient but have yet top really give a reason.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You are aware that the definition of marriage is that of a union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. You actually want to change the definition of a word?
Also, even Hollywood (yes, uber-liberal, pro-gay, anti-traditional-marraige HOLLYWOOD) made a movie showing that two straight guys could use “gay marraige” to their benefit. So trust me, two straight men would get married just to get benefits.
A gay man has every marrital right as a straight man. A gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man. A straight man is not allowed to marry another man.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM
There hasn’t been a right identified by a court, and if there were it would still have to be weighed against the interest of the state. Legislatures are free to vote on it, but it is unlikely to have many supporters. Civil contracts are legal, but tax benefits couldn’t fairly be administered on par with monogamous couples.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Not true, Ron Jr. could dance so he had one redeeming quality.
Rocks on April 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM
But the ‘right’ to gay marriage conjured up by courts doesn’t have to be ‘weighed against the interest of the state’? Polygamists don’t fit under ‘equal protection’ because a court hasn’t decided they do (yet)? Tax benefits couldn’t be fairly administered? You sound like a lawyer or accountant trying to make the argument that you really don’t buy. Sure, these things might be some hindrance to polygamy being legal but you have yet to make a reasoned argument based on principles that allows for gay marriage but denies polygamous marriage.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Gay people are unable to partake in the institution or marriage (in 46 states). Allowing them to doesn’t create a meaningful burden on the state.
Polygamists are able to partake in marriage. Allowing them to have multiple spouses does create a burden on the state. A burden that manifests itself not just on the size and role of government but on the basic financial equity with other families within the state.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM
The way to stop these articles is to stop commenting on them.
Tacitus_SGL on April 13, 2009 at 12:51 PM
You misunderstand, with the probable exception of amnesty, it is safe to assume that Allah agrees with much of what she has to say. This is as David Frummish as you can get.
For the most part I think Allah is just being consistent. There’s nothing wrong with that.
True_King on April 13, 2009 at 12:52 PM
The lawyers and accountants would be needed frequently in polygamous marriages. Who would be the managing partner? What happens when a wife is outvoted by other wives? If she wants a divorce can the family liquidate their possessions to buy her out? What if it means selling the family house to raise the cash?
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Heterosexual marriages also provide a burden on the state (all those grubby children sucking up state resources!). So, if gay marriage was a burden on the state you would be against it? The entirety of you argument against polygamy boils down to it would be inconvenient and a burden on the state? So, the state can give ‘benefits’ associated with any right or attach a cost to the exercise of any right and all of a sudden it becomes too onerous to allow?
Again, do you have a non-bean-counter argument against polygamy?
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM
So, if a bureaucracy isn’t capable of ‘providing’ you with a right, you don’t get it?
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Oh, noes! A “definition” of a word might change!
I’ll spring for a new dictionary for ya.
And, once again, that last part there is STILL the stupidest argument on this issue to date.
JetBoy on April 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Oh man . . . so many good jokes.
fourstringfuror on April 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I wonder if Meg-Meg’s inclusiveness extends to gay conservatives at GOProud?
My guess is no.
It's Vintage, Duh on April 13, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Straight marriage imposes a burden, but the state can’t restrict licences unless it can demonstrate a “compelling interest”. In comparing gay vs poly marriages the “equal protection” claim is stronger and the “compelling interest” claim weaker for the former.
Should the state be able to deny marriage licenses to some straight couples, such as convicted rapists or deadbeat dads?
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Yes they can.
The issue on the table, again, is whether the state should legally recognize that same sex marriage.
Again, because the state doesn’t legally recognize an act doesn’t mean that that act can’t be done.
Gay people can marry. They can partake in the institution wherever they want.
It’s just that the government of the state they are married in will not recognize – for legal purposes only - that marriage.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Don’t feed the MOBY!!!
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 13, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Oh really? Sham marraiges happen all the time. I knew of several of them when I was in the Navy. I’m sure my fellow vets here could tell you the same.
Of course, we could play your game.
“oh noes! I can’t change what I currently have from “civil union” to marraige, even though legally it wouldn’t change a thing!!!! Oh noes!!!!”
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I think that argument is going to fail the equal protection test. It might be like saying they can vote but the votes just aren’t counted for legal purposes.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I’ll take this as a firm NO, as to whether you have a non-bean-counter argument. Why does a gay man have greater claim to ‘equal protection’ than a polygamist? And what ‘compelling interest’, other than saving money and hassle, does the government have in preventing polygamy?
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM
As I understand it, the right to vote is guaranteed in (most? many? all?) state constitutions.
The right to have your marriage legally recognized is limited in those state constitutions.
Re equal protection: It depends on want standard the Court applies to sexual orientation as opposed to race, sex et cetera.
For the latter, the government has to have a compelling state interest to discriminate but, as I understand it, sexual preference has a lower standard.
We’ll see.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I don’t think that’s true when it comes to sexual orientation.
On race and gender (age, too I believe) that highest standard is needed. But, if I’m not mistaken, it hasn’t been extended to sexual preference/orientation.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM
As I read through my post I don’t see a reference to financial matters–however, since taxation was integral to founding the country they aren’t extraneous to the question of rights. The financial questions and private property ownership problems are not just a question of cash but about the stability of households and the long-term well-being of mothers and children.
In the case of gay marriage marriage laws don’t need to be restructured. In the case of polygamy they need a vast rewrite. You can make the case that this shouldn’t be an impediment to polygamy, but it clearly makes polygamy a very different proposition than gay marriage.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 1:23 PM
You are right. It is an active question in the states. Without looking it up I think about a third of the states include sexual orientation.
Also, the level of scrutiny applied to states restricting marriage varies from SCOTUS decision to decision.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Most rights are free to exercise and don’t require government assistance. Where government imposes a burden on the population, say the ADA, I think practical considerations need to be applied.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 1:29 PM
A gayer GOP? Could it get any gayer than it is?
Paul-Cincy on April 13, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I’m also a pro gay marriage Republican…Has nothing to do with the religious aspect of marriage. It’s just giving gays equal rights under the law, and the same title. Not forcing churches to peform marriages…
Of course I’m 24, and I expect the younger generation Republicans to be for gay marriage..
therightwinger on April 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Please, please, please JUST STOP with Megan McCain. The girl is an idiot. Enough already!
Willie on April 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Ha +1
Willie on April 13, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I have a sibling who is gay. I will never abandon my brother and I like and care for his partner. But I don’t believe they should be married in the same way my parents and other siblilings are and certainly should not be permitted to adopt and raise children. Does that make me a horrible human being? I don’t think so. I think gay marriage and adoption is a slippery slope into other perverse forms of gov’t and socially approved “marriages” that are in fact perverse and harmful.
Willie on April 13, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence also states that equality is bestowed by our creator, as well as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you don’t believe in a Creator, you don’t have these rights bestowed upon you. If you’re gay, you either don’t believe in God, or you’re willfully disobeying him.
This chick needs to start reading that document before she quotes it.
leetpriest on April 13, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Give me one good reason to be against gay marriage that doesn’t include religion or God. It’s so silly and backwards to be against it…
therightwinger on April 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Hmm, have you ever read much of Burke? Or Oakeshott?
Why have, for example, officially atheist and secular countries not recognized gay marriage?
It seems to me that proponents of changing the definition of marriage need to show why we need to do so; not why we shouldn’t.
And once again, the issue is whether for legal purposes same sex marriage will be recognized.
No one here – I don’t think – believe that gay people should be banned from getting married.
The question is whether we will use the state to force people to legally recognize same sex marriage.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 2:03 PM
You are endowed with the rights regardless of your particular belief. Gay people may comprehend God differently than you. Is there some definition of God that the Constitution invokes?
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM
This nullifies ‘equal protection’?
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM
– dedalus
Which is why they never end up paying for food, clothing, or shelter… (necessities)?
Doh! Your legal education needs work. Anyone who trusts your judgment on matters of legal line-drawing is advised to seek a second opinion.
Fact is, once clear lines are torn down for reasons of general applicability, look for similar lines to collapse due to the legal support structure having already been stripped away. That’s how we went from cigarette litigation to hamburger litigation or from civil rights litigation to cross dressing litigation.
Beagle on April 13, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Can they point to someone being treated “more equally” than them by the government?
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Gwelf,
An argument against polygamy (as practiced) is that the current practice normally encourages arranged marriages that may include minors as spouse. This creates a victim. Polyamory (consentual non-monogamous familial relationships amoung adults) on the other hand should be recognized by law.
Dedalus,
All that would be required as far as polyamory property settlements would be that the state supervise the setting up of a Relationship LLC (via civil union processes). It wouldn’t be much different from a pre-nup. It should simply be that for the state to acknowledge the relationship as a family, a RLLC be in place.
Gotta get back to work…have fun!
Catseye on April 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Once again, on this issue, marriage isn’t being restricted.
The issue is whether the benefits extended by the state to married couples of the opposite sex should be (or must be) extended to opposite sex married couples.
When the Supreme Court rules on this, it’ll center around the equal protection clause and whether the government has sufficient constitutionally-permitted reason(s) to limit legal recognition of marriage to opposite sex couples.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Is your alternative stasis in the face of cultural or scientific changes?
Was there a legal point you were trying to get at with the age of majority?
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM
That is, to same sex married couples.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I was thinking more of SCOTUS dealing with the question of restricting marriage to some straight people as they dealt with in Zablocki v Redhail.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM
My “alternative stasis”?
I’d call it thousands of years of clear precedent, not some mangling of language designed to obscure the obvious.
The legal point is once you can’t make a clear distinction based on gender then all similar categories will come tumbling down. We see it time and again. There is a leftist constituency (Islam) pushing for polygamy with minors. I’m sure that’s next.
“Equal protection” must apply to people who are similarly situated, or the phrase becomes all-powerful and destroys any criteria you try to create. As someone noted before, you want to bulldoze the bright line and draw a new one which must be respected! It would be funny if not so tragic in the ultimate consequences.
If you’re going to steamroll thousands of years of tradition, morality, and legal precedent it should happen democratically and with persuasion. You should not use a twisted mutation of “equal protection”.
Beagle on April 13, 2009 at 2:43 PM
People are going to look back and be ashamed at how bigoted they were ten or twenty years down the road.
therightwinger on April 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM
So, 3 people wanting marry a 4th shouldn’t be allowed to do so because a different group of people wanting to get married might do something we don’t want them to?
I don’t see how any reasoning used to argue for gay marriage cannot also be used to argue for polygamy. I imagine that a lot of ‘libertarian’ folks here don’t have a problem with either – which is consistent. The reason I’m harping on this is because for people who support gay marriage but don’t support polygamy are hypocrites who simply want to use the power of the state to impose their morality – which is also true of those who oppose gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage, so, yes, in this instance I’m advocating using the power of the state to impose my morality but it would be nice if pro-gay marriage proponents admitted as much as well (instead of the old canard of just wanting equal treatment and ‘rights’ for everyone).
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM
To clarify – the hypocrisy is in claiming you want equal ‘rights’ for all but excluding polygamists.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I think it should happen democratically and the problem for the GOP is that it will. However, based on your position states might be able to exclude a particular minority group from opportunities based on a majority vote.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Well, now you’re not arguing facts but just smearing people.
A person can believe that for legal purposes and for the beneftis of society that marriage should be legally recognized as only being between a man and woman.
At the same time, that person believes that a same sex couple should be given the opportunity to have a civil union or other legal measures that give spousal rights, visitation rights et cetera.
The fact that we don’t allow 12 years to marry one another or siblings to marry one another doesn’t mean we hate 12 year olds or siblings.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 2:55 PM
What are the benefits to not recongnizing gay marriage? Again, I don’t want churches to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies. But we should be for equal rights to TWO people (of age) who choose to get married…
It’s going to happen. Some people are just desperately hanging on, for whatever reason. Delaying the inevitable. The world will continue spinning on it’s axis. The family won’t crumble. Society won’t implode. Life will go on as normal, and people who love eachother can have the same rights as everyone else. How horrible, eh?
therightwinger on April 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Among other items, the tax code is filled with such exclusions.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Because a custom LLC is required the entity is something much different than the current state marriage. If the LLC fails to address any future events parts of the family may seek court action. The courts would need to invent new standards for these issues.
What happens when half the wives object to the addition of a new wife? Is the husband free to add the wife? Does he need to create a separate LLC? In a marriage each partner has a veto and can dissolve the relationship and ask the court for a division of property. A minority partner in a RLLC is a very different proposition from being an equal partner in a marriage.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I am against Polygamy, because as it’s practiced, encourages the victimization of minors (whether they consent or not.)I am not against Polyamory (which involves consenting adults). As long as the relationship is among ADULTS with the intent of establishing a family I have no problem with 3,4,5, or 10 adults extablishing a family and feel that they should have the same rights and benefits (next of kin, insurance, medical power of attorney) as a monogamous hetrosexual family.
Catseye on April 13, 2009 at 3:06 PM
I stand corrected. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I do think the manner that the country has gone about much anti-discrimination work has been to the detriment of the country’s basic principles. Hopefully, 100 years from now the government will have a holiday celebrating that everyone is equal and then dismantle preferences in the tax code or government subsidies.
From an economic standpoint tax breaks for anything should be severely curtailed.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 3:11 PM
No one is saying (well, at least I’m not) that gay couples can’t love one another, live with one another or marry one another.
The question is whether it’s a good idea to re-define a basic institution of civiization that has served us so well in, among other things, socializing and raising children.
We have thousands of years of a wide range of civilizations – Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Humanist – all defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Why did they do that? It couldn’t all be religious bigotry snce secular governments also limited it to a man and a woman.
As a man (woman?) on the right, why do you think the left is so demanding on this issue? After all, it’s not been known in modern times to view marriage in such favorable terms.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Once again, a RLLC would have to be customized no more than a pre-nup. And because it is a variation of an LLC, it could be handled the same in court as any corporate dispute that wasn’t covered in the original agreement. These have been around long enough that there are specialists in how to develop and implement them. There are no more “what if’s” to complicate things than would be in an open marriage.
As far as equal partnership…if there are 5 people, each has one vote, just like if there are two people, each has one vote. The decision to leave a relationship because you didn’t get your way against 4 people is no greater than if you decide to leave a relationship because you didn’t get your way against one person.
Catseye on April 13, 2009 at 3:23 PM
From an economic standpoint taxes should be severely curtailed.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 3:29 PM
With 2 people the LLC is dissolved and the assets divided. Leaving an LLC with n people is different since the LLC will likely continue to operate. If assets have to be liquidated each time a partner leaves then it creates a instability for multiple families within the LLC. Can it be implemented? Sure. Is the nature of the legal relationship very different from gay marriage? Yes.
Minimally inheritance laws would need to be adjusted since there would be incentives for the LLC to continue adding younger members (not that that doesn’t appear to be an incentive already).
Could you be a member of multiple polygamous LLC’s?
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Sure. They should be lower and the government smaller.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Something we can agree on. And something that should be much more important to conservatism that ‘gay marriage’.
gwelf on April 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Yes, though my views on gay marriage are a function of my views on the role of government.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Does a multiple partnership business disolve if a single partner leaves? Usually not, they simply buy the person out. That would be a no brainer clause within a RLLC. The person leaving would receive a percentage or a set amount. Either way, they would know what they were getting into prior to becoming part of the RLLC. It would be in writing.
Could a person become a member of multiple RLLCs? That would depend on what everyone involved agreed to initially. Otherwise, see the above paragraph.
Is it different from the Gay Marriage issue? The baseline rule should be the same whether you’re talking about monogamous (straight or gay) relationships or poly relationships. Everyone should be communicating, not assuming, which is a weakness of many straight monogamous relationships. Where the courts are concerned, would you rather they make decisions based on “tradition” or a contract?
Catseye on April 13, 2009 at 4:05 PM
What about the cultural/tradition argument. To wit, that a wide range of civilizations over centuries – Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Secular – all defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Why did they do that? It couldn’t all be biblical teaching or doctrine since secular societies limited it to opposite sex couples.
I guess one could argue that it was a manifestation of the fear or dislike of “the other”. That “other” or different person (tribe, race, whatever).
But I’m not sure.
On this issue my libertarian leanings and my conservative traditionalist leanings are in tension. I lean towards the libertarian side but tradition is pulling me back.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM
I’d much prefer a contract. Few married couples have a pre-nup. The high divorce rate in-part is a product of poor planning. Forcing a couple to go through writing an agreement would probably stop a few marriages and make some others function better.
In a corporate LLC members make contributions to the entity for which they are given a share of ownership. How much of a say they have in management decisions or how much of a distribution they receive each year is flexible. Marriage (without a pre-nup) involves the contribution of all personal assets. The stakes are higher because people are “all-in”, which is what tradition has required of most for survival.
Perhaps, someone should be allowed to fund several RLLC’s if they have enough money. A man could have 3 wives on the East Coast and 3 wives on the West Coast. Perhaps both RLLC’s would have members rotating in and out with the man’s liability limited to howevermuch he funded the entity with. I could maybe go for that, but it would be functionally different than a couple pooling all their resources to buy a house and educate kids.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM
In most of those cultures it has been much better to be a man than a woman. In changing marriage laws in the U.S. to give women a more equal standing we not only were deviating from tradition but also affecting every existing marriage by the changes. It seems a riskier change than this one.
I think tradition is an important guide. Ideally, I’d like states to recognize civil unions without court intervention. Over the past 40 years attitudes toward gay people has changed not due to government mandate, but through the culture. I imagine over the next few decades the change will continue.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 4:38 PM
My main concern is twofold. 1. I’ve worked in fields where sincere adults were in non-status quo relationships, sometimes for decades, but were cut out of decisions such as medical care or being able to “claim” their loved ones remains unless they could be determined to be the sole claimant (which took weeks). Or worse yet, where a biological parent dies and the other person/people who have committed years of their lives to parenting the children have them taken away because the “state” doesn’t recognize the relationship. This is wrong. If they are in committed relationships why shouldn’t they be allowed the same benefits as traditional families? 2. We place too much emphasis on “tradition” and make too many assumptions. In doing so, we don’t communicate enough and contribute to the demise of our own relationships. We have false expectations that result in disappointment and resentment. In essence, I am in agreement with your first paragraph. From a sociologic standpoint, your third paragraph would be a great advantage for the women (gaining an alpha male), especially if they are all in agreement with the arrangement and everyone’s needs were met. Functionally, multiple adult families might not be much different. The goals are still the same only with more resources. The main dynamic that is different is that there must be better communication. Gotta go. It’s been nice chatting with you.
Catseye on April 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Likewise.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Good point. It is an interesting contrast that race relations were largely changed by government mandate and then the culture followed. Although cultural events like the integration of sports obviously played a role.
It does seem to me that if we “gave” (for want of a better word) everything that gay activists wanted EXCEPT for the legal recognition of marriage, that they would be unsatisfied.
If we created, let us call it, “carriages” for same sex couples with all of the benefits of a opposite sex couple, I’m sure they would reject that.
Because after all, this is much more for both sides than just equal treatment under the law.
SteveMG on April 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Yeah, that is were I get turned off by either side. I have a state marriage license, but don’t see it as validation or an indication that I’m a good husband. Whether my wife and I have a good marriage is a function of the (constant) effort we put into it. As I look at other couples I judge them by how much they support each other and the attention and patience they give to their kids. That’s my subjective criteria for better or worse, but just because the state will toss a marriage license at someone like Britney Spears doesn’t validate her marriages or lifestyle to me.
Government recognition of same sex couples shouldn’t and won’t validate their lifestyle for people who believe it is wrong.
dedalus on April 13, 2009 at 5:45 PM