Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
A threat that rises to the level of flag burning
Bush just announced that he wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep gay people from getting married.
The greatest laugh line from his remarks:
America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.
|2.24.04 @ 1:12AM|#
What about the threat that all these childless couples will then engage in the latest fad: adopting Chinese children? Presumably many of these kids will grow up un-gay, have Chinese-looking kids, and soon we'll be a nation of little yellow people! Yer damn right we need one of them ammendment things!
|2.24.04 @ 1:14AM|#
It'd be funny if Edwards and Kerry support an amendment, and then Dean wins the rest of the primaries, even though he's not campaigning.
|2.24.04 @ 1:24AM|#
Supreme court could impose gay marriage on the entire country.
Look at Roe Wade. Nothing in the constitution about abortion yet
it's now the law of the land. Court could just use the equal
protection clause and bingo, gay marriage is the law of the
land.
I don't see anything wrong with Bush doing this. The real problem
is out of control judges and this notion of a living breathing
contitution. IT'S A DEAD DOCUMENT!!!
|2.24.04 @ 1:27AM|#
JimBob,
If it's a dead document, then why in the hell waste time trying for
this type of amendment augmentation?
|2.24.04 @ 1:33AM|#
It's a DEAD Document. The founders wanted to make it very
difficult to be changed. The Amendment process.
The living breathing crowd, ie Sandra Day O'Connor who see's a
compelling state interest in discriminating against whites and
asians in favor of blacks and hispanics.
Judges are out of control and for the most part we are living in a
judicial dictatorship.
|2.24.04 @ 1:39AM|#
JimBob,
That's great, but it's not what I asked. I didn't ask about judges,
and I didn't ask about a living breathing crowd. I asked why a DEAD
document needs any sort of augmentation. It's DEAD, isn't it?
Either explain why you feel it's necessary to fiddle with a DEAD
document, decide suddenly that it's not DEAD, or just walk away.
But don't cum in my salad and try to tell me it's dressing.
|2.24.04 @ 1:49AM|#
Got a brain? A dead constitution is the opposite of a living
breathing one.
The living breathing crowd says the constitution has to change with
the culture and the times.
Well NO it doesn't. It's a dead document. If it has to change we
have an amendment process.
The liberal left and left looney libertarians like the people at
Reason magazine are part of the living breathing crowd.
|2.24.04 @ 2:00AM|#
JimBob has a point. America's Other Bible is just a piece of
paper, and it has the amendment clause for that reason. The court
does not make law...at the end of the day in cases where amendments
come to pass, it is we in the vast majority who have the FINAL say.
Of course, on a federal level, the sentiment is as meaningless as
the notion that those 500+ silly fucks in the capitol truly
represent us.
If homosexuals want to get married, they're likely going to have to
convince us, not some court or justice. You don't have to like it,
and personally it makes no difference to me, but that's the way it
is.
|2.24.04 @ 2:04AM|#
JimBob,
Got a brain? Not sure, I've never seen it if I do.
Once again, I didn't ask about a living breathing crowd (note, I'm
still not). My question is, why do you need to change, alter,
adjust, manipulate or in any way add to a DEAD document? You say,
"if it has to change." Why would this change be necessary for a
DEAD document? For the changing culture? For the changing times?
Wouldn't this make it not DEAD, but living? Seems you are in the
same crowd you speak of so lowly. I know I know, but an amendment
process. I don't care about the method, I want to know why you want
to fiddle with the DEAD.
|2.24.04 @ 2:09AM|#
My personal favorite line:
"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of
our country, without bitterness or anger."
As we proceed to enshrine your status as second-class citizens in
the founding document of our nation, we'd appreciate if you'd
refrain from expressing anger or bitterness.
This will go down as a real low point in American politics.
dio the band|2.24.04 @ 2:14AM|#
i'm pro gay marriage, pro civil union, or pro legal incidents of marriage conferred upon three men and their pet gerbil if need be, but i think jimbob has a point about judicial activism and the havoc it wreaks by short-circuiting the natural progress of public debate. i haven't read the opinion by the massachusettes supreme court, but, from what i hear, it was based on "no separate but equal" - the idea that civil unions would be inadequate to satisfy the rigorous equal protection built into the mass state constitution because the only reason to call them "civil unions" rather than "marriage" would be to stigmatize the gays. well, that reasoning blows, and we have the mass sup ct to thank for this bullshit from bush. if i were a gay couple, "civil union" would suit me just fine, and, even if i lived somewhere that allowed "gay marriage," i'd be just as "stigmatized" by the word "gay" prefixing the word "marriage". cruel children would point and say, "look, jeb! them there's one of them 'gay' marriages! let's go anoint them with stones!" the mass sup ct set off the shitstorm from the religious right that led bush to back this amendment to define a fucking word in the fucking constitution. since when is the constitution a fucking dictionary? thanks to the mass sup ct, bush can plausibly make the argument that good, right-thinking folks have to define words before those ultra liberal lawyers do.
|2.24.04 @ 2:16AM|#
I know these arguments have been made before, but please allow me to drag them out again. Can someone out there tell me, in the name of baby Jesus, why do we need to fuck with the constitution to "protect" an institution that has a 50-60% failure rate? Also, how does the bonding of two consenting adults pose any harm whatsoever on anyone?
|2.24.04 @ 2:29AM|#
How is a marriage amendment going to stop the bonding of 2
consenting adults, Mr Nice Guy? What consenting adults do behind
closed doors is none of my business. If fact, if 6 consenting
adults want to jump into bed together behind closed doors then it
sure isn't any of my business either. Shoot, I'd like to jump into
bed with 6 good looking women.
But the gay marriage argument falls apart with the above example.
Why limit marriage to just 2 people. If Andrew Sullivan wants to
marry 7 men to keep his life exciting, why on earth should he be
discriminated against?
Lifestyle libertarians want to throw out thousands of years of
tradition for very selfish reasons IMHO.
|2.24.04 @ 2:31AM|#
Here's the basic premise our president stated:
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and
natural roots without weakening the good influence of
society."
gays are un-natural? what an effing bigot!
What percentage of the population is homosexual? Much less than
10%, maybe less than 5%? and what percentage of gays would like to
be married? Half, or maybe less than half?
The only consequences of gay marriage on society are in the minds
of those who express bigotry against gays.
Bush isn't protecting marriage, he's empowering bigotry.
|2.24.04 @ 2:32AM|#
"if i were a gay couple, "civil union" would suit me just fine,
and, even if i lived somewhere that allowed "gay marriage," i'd be
just as "stigmatized" by the word "gay" prefixing the word
"marriage"."
Well that's kind of the point: once it is recognized it will no
loger be prefixed by the adjective "gay", it will just be called
marriage. SF's new forms don't say "gay" anywherer on them.
One can theorize about what should or should not make gay couples
happy, but there are facts on the ground. And I don't understand
how anyone who saw pictures of the 6000 Americans who got married
in SF in the past days (the large najority of whom were from the SF
bay area), and listened to them describe how they finally felt like
the gov't was treating them like human beings, could not be
disgusted by today's speech from the President.
|2.24.04 @ 2:37AM|#
5,000 years of tradition is over rated. Hell if our ancestors
were all concerned with tradition and such we'd all be subjects of
the Queen, who's family, by tradition, has ruled the United Kingdom
for lots & lots of years.
Shove tradition up your nose!
|2.24.04 @ 2:38AM|#
Leave it to states. As for the state's requirement to recognize marriage of other state's licenses, why is this a requirement? Many states do not recognize driving licenses from other states and ask you to get a new license based on criteria unique to the state. So if a gay couple moves to another state that does not recognize gay marriage, that state can deny license for gay couples. Where is the need for federal amendment?
|2.24.04 @ 2:40AM|#
JimBob:
It was only recently that the Supreme Court struck down laws that
DO "stop the bonding of two consenting adults". Though I admire
your view that what happens behind closed doors is non of your
business, this amendment proposal comes from the exact same social
engineers. You're either with them or against them.
As far as "tradition".. fuck tradition! That is collectivist
thinking. It's impossible to live in the past. You're living now.
You have freedom to live your life, whatever people in the past,
living or dead, may want it. Evolve.
|2.24.04 @ 2:41AM|#
isn't this entire moron debate a word game?
as others have suggested on this board, i'd really enjoy someone
asking all these defense of marriage people about laws against
adultery and divorce (usually the domain of the thumpiest of
bibleteers) and catch their responses to that, since that would be
even more effective at stopping any threats to marriage by making
it a literal lifetime sentence. gays only make up a small amount of
the population, compared to cheating bastards and divorcees.
it would be quite entertaining to see someone toss that out at our
current president, the battlestar tardtastica...the 60 seconds of
malaprocalypse to follow would be delightful.
|2.24.04 @ 2:44AM|#
Alma.
Well SF resident and gay libertarian Justin Raimondo has a
different point of view on this entire gay rights nonsense.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=207&sortorder=articledate
|2.24.04 @ 2:44AM|#
Yes. Gays are un-natural.
Unnatural? Gays are completely natural; have you seen the animal
kingdom lately? Homosexuality is a biological reproduction
control...a certain segment of a population will not (barring
assistance) reproduce.
Dio - the Mass SJC decision ("Goodridge") was based primarily on a
1976 amendment to the Mass Constitution - an overbroad sentiment
that seems to fly in the face of other Mass statues, such as the
sex offender registry, smoking laws, etc. It's the notion of "equal
protection" gone awry.
the gov't was treating them like human beings
Marriage is hardly a human right. You're thinking of
reproduction.
|2.24.04 @ 2:45AM|#
It maybe a tradition of a "thousand years" , but it didn't come under government scrutiny until the late 18th century as fun new form of tax revenue for the Crown. Before that, it was considered a strictly private matter between families.
|2.24.04 @ 2:45AM|#
Right JimBob. And by the way, did you know that the fossil record shows that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that evolution is a humanist hoax?
|2.24.04 @ 2:48AM|#
heh. so selfish to work against tradition. the tradition of
slavery, the tradition of serfdom, the tradition of....oh, bugger
all.
literally and figuratively.
|2.24.04 @ 2:48AM|#
This will go down as a real low point in American
politics.
Gays comprise a vast, vast minority of American culture.
Heterosexuals are largely indifferent to their plight in re the
marriage aspect, secondary to prejudice and a knee-jerk reaction to
gay culture (a laughable bit on its own). I doubt that this will
even register in the annals of history. Sorry, but people in
general do not care about "gay rights" as much as you perhaps would
like them to. Feel free to enlighten, if you desire, but the
impetus is simply not there.
|2.24.04 @ 2:51AM|#
Tradition isn't collectivist thinking. Perhaps to some of the
fag hags at Reason like Virginia Postrel it might be, but rest
assured most sane people don't think so. Most sane libertarians
don't think so either.
Why
the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn�t Work
|2.24.04 @ 2:51AM|#
dio the band,
hey, man, i appreciate your sentiments, but i think you have the
reasoning of the mass court wrong--they claim that separate but
equal arrangements have seldom been equal. civil unions won't cut
it because of the likelihood of continued unequal treatment by the
gov't, not because of stigmatization. there probably are many gay
couples that would settle for civil unions, but why should they
have to?
JimBob said "Yes. Gays are un-natural". Fuck you, JimBob
|2.24.04 @ 2:51AM|#
Has it occured to anybody that most weddings already have at
least one gay man involved? Between the florist, the caterer, the
Catholic priest, the tailor for the tux and/or dress, and the
musicians, the odds are good that at least one of them is
gay.
Seems to me there ought to be some sort of eligibility plan for
them: Work on X number of weddings, then get married to the man of
your choice.
|2.24.04 @ 2:55AM|#
they care about them in the sense that it annoys or repulses a
large number of them.
much in the same way petty ideas like equal application of notions
of privacy, free speech or civil rights annoy and repulse them.
|2.24.04 @ 3:02AM|#
yay...i'm a fake libertarian!
check out my metal joints! beep beep!
seriously, i had to go get a marriage license this past friday and
that fucking offends me. but so long as this trend of gov't
sanctioning our personal relationships, i see no reason why gays
shouldn't be invited to the statist party.
a class of special rights called "gay rights" may very well be
nonsense - but the notion that the government has not the first
fucking right to interfere in the sex lives of consenting adults
doing no unwanted harm to others seems fundamentally aligned with
my understanding of liberty. if this be insanity, then i gladly
step up to the crack pipe of freedom and drool on the rock of
tradition.
|2.24.04 @ 3:07AM|#
Welcome Freeper conventioneers!
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
dio the band|2.24.04 @ 3:11AM|#
scott -
i'm not going to embark on any debate about the mass court's
reasoning w/o having read it (and the quick turnover of blog
commenting prevents me from living up to a respectable standard of
consistency), but to say that separate but equal is not good enough
because it hasn't been good enough in the past (ie segregated
schools) ignores the context.
the "separateness" in this case is only in the terminology, or, as
alma has suggested, in the forms you fill out. in brown v board of
ed, it was an actual physical separateness: separate buildings,
separate teachers, etc.
the point of civil unions in my understanding was a work-around the
perception, stupid as it is, that the gov't is "redefining"
marriage: just give it a different name, and confer all the same
rights and obligations, etc.
as for the question why should they settle? because it's better for
them in the long run. libertarians should ask, why settle for this
herky jerky fiddling with marriage laws when the state has no
business defining personal relations at all? but that is apparently
an impracticable position in today's political reality.
incrementally, we can achieve a marginally less repressive
government.
i forgot to mention in my previous post the stupidity of the mayor
of san francisco. he is also to blame for this. he lit the fuse on
this amendment. now the right wingers can plausibly claim that
proponents of gay marriage are "lawless" (and only libertarians
will know that that is a good thing).
|2.24.04 @ 3:12AM|#
dhex -
www.freerepublic.com
It's like Reason, without all the analysis or intellegent
conversation baggage.
|2.24.04 @ 3:12AM|#
dhex -
www.freerepublic.com
It's like Reason, without all the analysis or intelligent
conversation baggage.
|2.24.04 @ 3:21AM|#
JimBob,
I may be playing word games, but they're your words. Plus, you are
invoking Justin Raimondo in your arguments now, so I'm pretty sure
I now get any and all high ground of any type available. I'm just
hoping that loon pops up soon (I'm pretty sure he's got synthetic
meta-filter crystals that let him know when anyone in any comments
section invokes his name) and gives us a taste of arm flapping and
knee knocking, Hoodee Hoo.
That said, you still haven't answered my main question, or any
subsequent ones. I take that as a walk away with a little over the
shoulder mumble. Since you won't bring yourself to say where you
stand, I'll say it for you. You are one of those folks who wants to
see the constitution altered on your terms, and interpreted in your
way, but not any one else's. Anyone who tries to interpret things
different from those ways you like is a living breathing crowd
member. You're not one of these, cause you think it's a DEAD
document, despite the fact that you want to change it just the
same. It just seems like you are setting yourself apart in
startling fashion by invoking DEAD as opposed to living breathing,
even though it really doesn't matter it's just a word game you are
playing. Kind of like "church and state aren't in the constitution"
or "mess hall isn't mentioned in the Marine handbook," it sounds
like you are saying something, but it doesn't constitute an
argument.
|2.24.04 @ 3:28AM|#
dhex, you didn't need to get a marriage license. Keep filing
separately, hire a lawyer to create mutual power of attorney forms,
etc etc etc.
What's that, you want the government protections without all that
hassle? Then please spend 5 minutes filling out a damn form.
Oh, and Congratulations! Marriage was the smartest thing I ever
did.
|2.24.04 @ 3:33AM|#
Someone asked a question earlier in this thread that I�m
wondering about too, and I didn�t see a decent answer to it: How is
it judicial activism to say gays have the right to state-recognized
marriages if straights do?
It�s not like every conceivable situation is presented in the
Constitution. Obviously a judge who makes decisions on the
constitutionality of some law has to interpret the Constitution to
apply the general principles therein to the question at hand. How
is that judicial activism? Is there something I'm missing?
|2.24.04 @ 3:35AM|#
I am out of my pay-grade when it comes to much of the legal
doctrine, but I have noticed that a lot of the commentary on the
threads assumes that some version of the FMA is unlikely to
pass.
I believe some version of it will pass, and probably fairly
quickly.
Some "social issues" divide Americans more or less evenly: abortion
is the classic example, with almost equal numbers of Americans
adamantly on one side or another, and most uneasily straddling
mixed feelings.
Some "social issues" are controversial only in the sense that
elites have an agenda that differs from the mainstream majority:
the death penalty commands the allegiance of a solid majority of
adult Americans, but is distasteful to elites.
Perhaps some issues fall a bit between the two: support for fairly
innocuous forms of gun-control rises immediately after a Columbine
incident...to perhaps around 50% (enough room for the Feinsteins)--
then subsides, leaving most Americans broadly in favor of the right
to gun-ownership.
Newly-crafted Gay "entitlements" are extremely unpopular with a
majority of Americans. I forsee some form of the FMA passing before
the end of the year, and going out for a remarkably prompt
ratification by the states before the end of 2005-- the pace has
been dictated by the activist courts.
Even with a President behind it, formal recognition of gay service
in the military failed. With a President opposing it, Gay marriage
and civil unions are doomed.
Bush wins easily on this one. Kerry gets hurt no matter what he
does...I can't really say what would be wisest for him-- some times
it is just as smart to take the losing side on a particular issue,
and that may be the case here.
I can't claim any misgivings about any of this. I don't want gay
marriage...I think it's stupid.
Mo|2.24.04 @ 3:36AM|#
J,
A couple of definitions:
judicial activism - Courts ruling in a way I disagree.
sound jurisprudence - Courts ruling in a way I agree.
|2.24.04 @ 3:38AM|#
Why does anyone believe that two gay people want to get married
for any reasons different that why two straight people want to get
married?
As an exercise. Imagine you are gay. Finish this sentence:
I want to get married because [I want to throw out thousands of
years of tradition for selfish reasons]
Does that make any sense?
Warren|2.24.04 @ 3:42AM|#
Bush just announced that he wants to amend the U.S.
Constitution
Blood in the water! Blood in the water!
|2.24.04 @ 3:58AM|#
joe: thank you for your congratulations...11 days to go...
your rather sensible answer assumes a particular which i've found
often doesn't exist in the real world - ideological romance to
match the emotional bond. my darling dearest, in addition to having
a love of roman catholic forms (without much function, like a lot
of american catholics, i think) resulting in pre-cana fun, site
fees and all manner of priestly chit-chat, views being married all
official and real and stuff as being "very important."
[insert fist waving and fire breathing here]
anyone who has ever stirred the waters of childhood fantasy in
themselves or in others knows just how quickly the whirlpools
form.
i'm sure there are people out there who use political dating
services or have certain ideological requirements beyond some basic
agreements on lifestyle, interference in the affairs of others,
etc. i was not one of them, and having been with her for 7 years
now...well, there are just some lumps ya gotta take. most of the
functions of our government amuse or offend me in some way anyway,
so it's sort of par for the course.
this issue interests me in particular because my favorite aunt has
been with her girlfriend/partner for about the same amount of time
liz and i have been together...complete with houses and property,
etc. but for some reason their bond is too cool for school...very
sad, really.
|2.24.04 @ 4:09AM|#
dhex-
Congratulations!
I got married last summer, so as a man who's recently gone through
the hell of a fancy wedding, let me also extend my sympathies.
There's a big difference between a wedding and a marriage. A
wedding is a bunch of nonsense that women do because they've always
wanted to wear a fancy dress and be the center of attention. (I'm
not saying anything here that my wife hasn't already heard, and she
loves me anyway, proof that we're compatible.) A marriage is
everything that happens after the big party is over.
I still regret not eloping, but I don't regret the marriage for
even a nanosecond.
|2.24.04 @ 4:19AM|#
"A wedding is a bunch of nonsense that women do because they've
always wanted to wear a fancy dress and be the center of
attention."
Smartest thing I've read all day.
|2.24.04 @ 4:19AM|#
Andrew,
I find it surprising that you, "Mr. Liberty in Iraq" would relish
denying liberty to your own countrymen. I think its a rather clear
indication that all your statements about "liberalism" in the
middle east are lies.
|2.24.04 @ 4:34AM|#
So dhex, letting ride on the back of your hog and calling her
"my old lady" isn't cutting it with darling dearest, eh?
What you're doing is both important and awesome, and deserves an
elaborate ritual and a huge party.
|2.24.04 @ 4:44AM|#
Andrew,
You specifically referred to "activist courts" in your 3:35 PM post
(I assume referring at least in part to the MA supreme court), so
I'll ask you directly - how is it judicial activism to rule that if
straights can have state-recognized marriage, so can gays?
I really don't understand this - one could argue that the gov't has
no business recognizing marriages, but given that it already does,
how is treating a gay couple the same way as a straight couple with
regard to marriage some sort of radical reinterpretation of equal
protection?
|2.24.04 @ 4:44AM|#
Joe-
Speaking as a guy who detested the wedding, I had no problem with
the party. I had no problem getting all our friends and relatives
together. Here's what I minded:
1) I had to wear a tux. But at least I managed to veto wearing any
flowers (bouteneir, or however it's spelled).
2) I had to pose for pictures. A lot of pictures.
3) I had to dance. Fortunately I was able to bargain it down so
that I only had to dance once with my wife, and not at all with my
mother. Nothing against them, I just don't dance. Period.
Especially with a crowd watching.
4) I had to do the cake-cutting thing. Why can't people just hang
out and eat cake? Why do we have to do some elaborate ritual of it
with the photographer hovering over us?
At least I managed to avoid tossing the garter. I refused to make a
show of pretending to undress my wife in front of everybody.
As you can imagine, I was the groom from hell. Love, honor, and
cherish till death do us part? No problem. Wear a tux and dance?
That's pushing the envelope for me! :)
Fortunately, my wife understood.
|2.24.04 @ 4:46AM|#
dhex writes:
seriously, i had to go get a marriage license this past friday
and that fucking offends me. but so long as this trend of gov't
sanctioning our personal relationships, i see no reason why gays
shouldn't be invited to the statist party.
a class of special rights called "gay rights" may very well be
nonsense - but the notion that the government has not the first
fucking right to interfere in the sex lives of consenting adults
doing no unwanted harm to others seems fundamentally aligned with
my understanding of liberty. if this be insanity, then i gladly
step up to the crack pipe of freedom and drool on the rock of
tradition.
I recently asked in a comment on this blog where the libertarians
with any stones have gone to on the issue of gay marriage. I
withdraw the comment as to dhex. Bravo.
|2.24.04 @ 4:46AM|#
P.S. I might add that gay guys would probably love to dress up and dance, hence I'm all in favor of letting them get married. They'll enjoy weddings more than I did.
|2.24.04 @ 4:53AM|#
joe: i agree. it's just a lot more traditional than i would have
cared for, and certainly a lot more religous than i would have
cared for. at the very least we got to write our own vows, which
i'm quite thankful for. and to be fair, she both knows all of this
and i regrets a lot of her earlier rashness now, which of course
does us no freakin' good whatsoever :) but at least it's good to
know.
i think it's very difficult for some women who have grown up with
this pretty princess center of attention fantasy to move away from
it, even when they tend to be extremely untraditional in many other
ways. peoples' fundamental imprints get in the way of our actions a
lot more than we'd probably care to believe - there's probably more
than a few libertarian types who are attracted to the politics in
part due to formative experiences of being at the mercy of larger
parties, etc.
i don't really mind tuxes, and i was able to get friends of mine
gigs as djs and performers so most of the music won't suck too
hard, nor will it offend any of our older and more stalwart guests.
and i love dancing, so it's not really going to be a problem - i
look goofy as hell (6'4, 250lbs, you do the math) but i have no
shame, which helps.
i'll just be glad when it's over and nothing disasterous has
happened and none of her redneck (northern ny style) relatives do
anything stupid, since we're going to have a few non-traditional
types (gay couples, tatooed weirdoes, etc) and i'd really hate to
have to interrupt the wedding by dragging them outside and beating
the everloving fuck out of them.
thankfully, this is the sort of classy joint that would help cover
up the assault afterwards :)
|2.24.04 @ 4:54AM|#
"You are one of those folks who wants to see the constitution
altered on your terms, and interpreted in your way, but not any one
else's. Anyone who tries to interpret things different from those
ways you like is a living breathing crowd member."
Wrong Gordy. You are clueless. There's nothing in the constitution
about marriage. Nothing. Period. Thus matters of morality have
always been left up to the states ie the people. Now we have
elitist judges forcing their morals on the people. They're reading
stuff into state constitutions where none exist, thus bypassing
state legislatures ie the people. This is called judicial activism
or tyranny. Either one is fine.
The Texas sodomy case opned up pandoras box. Scalia warned this
would happen and the evidence speaks for itself.
|2.24.04 @ 5:03AM|#
How often do I get to wear a tux? Or how often do I
have to wear a tux?
Being a scientist who works in blue jeans, my idea of dressing up
is dockers and a tie. That's fancy dressing, mind you.
And I'm one of the better dressers in my lab. I won't even describe
my colleagues.
|2.24.04 @ 5:14AM|#
Joe, care to point out where it says anything about Rump-Riding marriage in the Mass constitution?
|2.24.04 @ 5:21AM|#
I had the sinking feeling he would do this to 'energize the base'. This election gets worse every minute ...
|2.24.04 @ 5:35AM|#
JimBob said:
"Joe, care to point out where it says anything about Rump-Riding
marriage in the Mass constitution?"
I'm not Joe, but let me ask you, JimBob, why does it matter if
marriage (gay or straight) is specifically mentioned in the
constitution? If there's an equal protection clause, and two
straight people can have their relationship recognized by the gov't
and be given the benefits that go along with it (visitation,
inheritance, etc.), why can't two gay people? How would that not be
a reasonable intrepretation of equal protection, given that the
recognition of straight marriage is already happening (whether it
should be or not)?
|2.24.04 @ 6:16AM|#
Simple. Because if it's not in the constitution then it's left
up to the legislature, ie the people.
Whether you like it or not the concept of individual rights is
uniquely a creation of the Western, Judeo-Christian worldview and
without that support structure, the word rights becomes
meaningless. Our form of government is based on this religious
worldview. Now judges are attempting to rewrite millennia of law,
tradition and religious teaching.
It's beyond belief. What's next? Andy Sullivan marries not only
Bob, but Ken, Bill and Dave?
|2.24.04 @ 6:18AM|#
the concept of individual rights is uniquely a creation of
the Western, Judeo-Christian worldview and without that support
structure, the word rights becomes meaningless. Our form of
government is based on this religious worldview
Do atheists have rights?
|2.24.04 @ 6:23AM|#
reasonable intrepretation of equal protection
Because equal protection isn't a real thing, it's a political
device. The misconception about it is that a government is
empowered in some way to effect "equal protection" over a society,
as if the government has some power beyond endlessly obfuscating
the Rule of Law for the sake of their (and its) own survival. The
system that is our government has a process by which the findings
of the Supreme Court on a constitutional matter can be overturned
by amending the constitution appropriately. It's a rarely enough
used convention on a federal level that it fucks with our zen to
see it in the news, but it is still a valid course of action in the
face of mass dissent against the Supreme Court (sorry, but it's not
a very convincing argument unless you're already a progressive -
silly god nonsense notwithstanding). Shall we rail endlessly
against the "Tyranny of the Constitution"? Careful, that's a door
that swings both ways. *cough*. If you disagree with the amendment,
then you had better start campaigning, because as it stands the
folks who want gays to be able to get married don't stand to count
too many W's in their scorecard. As for the "moral majority,"
convince them, kill them, or languish. There is no higher law in
our land than that aged and exalted piece of paper, regardless of
how progressive you think this place should be.
You are quick to complain about Bush, but for those whose memories
begin in autumn 2001, like Iraq the impetus for a marriage
amendment is well older than the Bush administration.
|2.24.04 @ 6:27AM|#
for those whose memories begin in autumn 2001, like Iraq the
impetus for a marriage amendment is well older than the Bush
administration
Translation: If Clinton did it then it must be OK! :)
|2.24.04 @ 6:57AM|#
Translation:
I never said the marriage amendment was ok. But blame does not
belong squarely on the gov't...the gay marriage camp has to do a
much better job of convincing society that they should redefine
their notion of marriage. We're not all gung-ho progressives.
|2.24.04 @ 7:01AM|#
I never said the marriage amendment was ok
Hence the ;) at the end of my "translation" ;)
I just thought it was funny to hear implications of "Clinton was on
board with this too", as if it matters...
|2.24.04 @ 7:39AM|#
Comments:
I agree that "Full Faith and Credit" have no threatening power. If
Kentucky wants to claim that Massachusetts' marriages are null and
void in KY, it can do so. So there is no "threat" from one state
imposing it on the rest.
For those who claim that the federal Con. Amendment is not the way
to go but that it should be up to the states: while it is truly
LOVELY to see liberals defend federalism, the issue is not that of
localization of debate to the state but the hyper-localization of
the debate to one court case. 9-15 guys and gals in robes, in one
building in one city, debating a case most people didn't even know
was being argued and issuing a ruling that suddenly defines
marriage for that state. When judges (fairly, accurately or not)
read this type of right into their state's constitution, it is now
established. Period. What are you going to do? Recall the judges
and pack the court with judges who pass a litmus test of, "P.S. I
am against gay marriage"? So that argument for those who oppose the
Con. amendment but claim they want the state to handle it seems a
bit weak to me.
|2.24.04 @ 8:18AM|#
rst,
What will it take to convince you that gay marriage is OK? What
does the gay camp have to do?
I think that the only answer you will accept is "stop being gay."
You're like a broken record. Just say you think gays are wrong and
be done with it.
|2.24.04 @ 8:41AM|#
Where�s Jean Bart? I should think he would�ve ripped JimBob a
new one by now.
Just FYI JimBob, this isn�t the message board for the Family
Research Council. Your head-in-the-sand theology doesn�t wash very
well here.
|2.24.04 @ 9:25AM|#
kmw, for all we know, Jean Bart is JimBob playing devil's
advocate. Then again, for all we know, you're me.
I think that the only answer you will accept is "stop being
gay." You're like a broken record. Just say you think gays are
wrong and be done with it.
There you guys go again with that *me* shit. The resolution to this
issue will not change my life one iota. The gay marriage camp - in
no way to be confused with the homosexual population as a whole -
is losing this battle because they do not wish to compromise. The
issue simply does not have enough energy to capture hearts on a
national scale, and the politicians in Washington know on which
side their bread is buttered. Statistically my opinion (and yours)
is a non-event, whether for or against it.
And you think wrong. I have no problem with civil unions.
|2.24.04 @ 9:40AM|#
I don't understand this debate at all. All marriage is fucking gay to begin with.
|2.24.04 @ 10:37AM|#
Right in Article the Fifth, Riding of the Rump, JimBob.
Your mind seems to go right to anal sex when issues about gay
people come up. Why do you think that is?
No one else here thought references to gay sex were relevant to the
conversation.
|2.24.04 @ 11:20AM|#
"McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the
'sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to
move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the
states for ratification.'"
Great! So, remind me again why we need a Constitutional amendment
(talk about proving too much)? Isn't this EXACTLY how our system of
government is supposed to work? Those states that want gay marriage
can have it, those that don't won't.
There's something so un-republican in Bush's view of the Federal
Government's role in our lives.
|2.24.04 @ 11:27AM|#
Sparky-
I think the argument of the other side (however right or wrong) is
that since the states are required to recognize one another's
official acts and licenses and whatnot (with all due caveats and
fine print tacked on), even a single state instituting gay marriage
would be imposing a burden on the 49 other states. I'll let the
lawyers work out the validity and/or implications of that argument,
but that's what the other side claims.
Last night Jon Stewart made the most insightful comment yet on
defending marriage: How about an amendment banning adultery? Sure,
many states have bans on the books, but when's the last time they
were enforced? Surely adultery is a greater threat to marriage than
2 guys in San Francisco being able to share property rights and
power of attorney. If it is the job of gov't to defend marriage,
shouldn't the state start aggressively prosecuting cheaters?
Then again, sending people to prison might result in even more
same-sex encounters. Sure, they'd be of the non-consensual kind
(unlike what's going on right now at City Hall in SF) but Rick
Santorum would probably say it all amounts to the same thing
anyway...
Skip Oliva|2.24.04 @ 11:29AM|#
This is, in my view, the final confirmation that Bush is simply
incapable of defending individual rights on any principled level.
Not that I was seriously in doubt about this, but this announcement
serves as the capstone. After today, I don't think there's any
rational argument for supporting George W. Bush.
That's not to say there's a reason to support John Kerry, Ralph
Nader, etc. It seems to me we place too much emphasis on the
presidential contest and far too little on federal and state
legislative races. At the end of the day, it is the legislature
which is supreme--control that and you can keep the executive and
the judiciary in line.
|2.24.04 @ 11:30AM|#
Sparky - Couldn't agree with you more, although this is a smart political move: Bush isn't going to alienate anyone he hasn't already (other than Andrew Sullivan), and he'll certainly strengthen support with the religious right. And the cost in dollars to take this position? Zero. Too bad he has to blaspheme the Constitution in the process.
|2.24.04 @ 11:34AM|#
I can't believe I'm saying this, but even after all that Bush has done since he became President, I still entertained the thought that the Democrats may have been worse. This kind of does it for me, though. This guy is truly fucked.
Highway|2.24.04 @ 11:35AM|#
I'm either too cynical or too naive, but I think that this is nearly all political pandering by Bush. I'm 99% certain this wouldn't actually get ratified, even with so many states with individual laws supporting the same thing. So he can support it and look good to the 70-80% of voters who think that 'gay marriage' is a 'bad thing'. And if it DOES happen to get passed, well he does believe in it anyway. I think it's just more of a coincidence that his views and the political view line up in this instance.
|2.24.04 @ 11:36AM|#
Whether you like it or not the concept of individual rights
is uniquely a creation of the Western, Judeo-Christian worldview
and without that support structure, the word rights becomes
meaningless. Our form of government is based on this religious
worldview. Now judges are attempting to rewrite millennia of law,
tradition and religious teaching.
Hate to burst your bubble, but our worldview owes much, much more
to Greco-Roman civilization than it does to the Hebrews. Much of
Christian theology for most of the history of the Church was based
on either Neo-Platonist or Aristotlean philosophy. The ancient
Roman citizen had rights before his government, and they were most
assuredly a pagan civilization. Equality before the law? Mainly
Greco-Roman.
I'm heartily sick and tired of all this prating about
"Judeo-Christian morality" being central to the modern concept of
rights. Nope. Rights are based on a lot of Enlightenment ideas,
which in many cases expressly rejected Christian ideas. Did the
founders often refer to a "Creator" or "God"? Yes, but that doesn't
mean that their conception of God was the traditional Christian
conception of the Trinity.
Now, all of this is not to say that Christianity didn't contribute
many good things to Western civilization. But do not tell
me that Christianity is the basis of the rights found in the
Constitution. It is one of the sources, but the most important
ideas came from ancient Greece and Rome, not ancient Judea. Our
civil society is based on Classical civilization; our moral life is
more generally based on Judeo-Christian ideas. There is a world of
difference between the two.
|2.24.04 @ 11:46AM|#
Thoreau:
States are not required to give full faith and credit to legal
incidents granted by other states if to do so is against the public
policy of the non-granting state. If a state has a law on the books
to the effect that gay marriages are not allowed in that state,
then it has announced that gay marriages are against the public
policy of that state. Another example of this would be a case in
which state A recognized a marriages between an 18 year old and a
15 year old. State B would be under no legal obligation to
recognize such a marriage if it was against the public policy of
that state.
In other words, as it stands right now (WITHOUT a constitutional
amendment), no state can force any other state to recognize a
marriage between two gay people if the latter state does not want
to recognize such a marriage. The events in MA and SF will have
absolutely no effect on any other state in the Union, unless such a
state wishes to recognize gay marriages (in fact, the marriages
allowed in SF will have no effect whatsover WITHIN California--the
state is not going to recognize them, and neither is the federal
government).
The idea that states can be forced by other states to recognize gay
marraiges is complete hogwash.
|2.24.04 @ 11:48AM|#
"...since the states are required to recognize one another's
official acts and licenses and whatnot (with all due caveats and
fine print tacked on), even a single state instituting gay marriage
would be imposing a burden on the 49 other states".
Well, no. States generally have an obligation to enforce money
judgments awarded in other states, and abide by other judicial
decrees issued by other states (such as divorce decrees). But
states can generally set their own rules as to what people can do
in the state -- they can control who can drive, who can practice
law, who can practice medicine, who can engage in other businesses,
who can carry a gun, who (if anyone) can buy alcohol, and so on.
That's part of the state's sovereign power.
So as a result, states need not honor all sorts of licenses issued
by other states. In practice, there's a good deal of "comity" --
voluntary accommodation of other states' decisions. I believe that
this is why states honor out-of-state driver's licenses; they don't
have a constitutional obligation to do this, but they do, for good
pragmatic reasons. (Congress may also mandate that states honor
certain out-of-state licenses, but I don't think it does so for
driver's licenses.) Some states make it easy for members of
out-of-state bars to become a lawyer, but not all do; California
for instance, as I understand it, makes it quite hard. But as a
general matter, one state may not export its lawyer licensing
policy, gun carry licensing policy, marriage licensing policy, and
so on to other states unless the other states acquiesce.
Moreover, the full faith and credit clause has never been
interpreted to mean that every state must recognize every marriage
performed in every other state. Every state reserves the right to
refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another state if that
marriage would violate the state's public policy.
This "public-policy exception" is well established. I have not
found a single case where a federal court has forced another state
to recognize a marriage where the state asserts that said marriage
would violate the public policy of the state. Many states have
"evasion statutes" that forbid going out of state to enter into a
marriage that would be prohibited in state. None of these
provisions have been struck down under full faith and credit.
Jeff Smith|2.24.04 @ 11:48AM|#
The nice thing about this quote is how flexible
it is. Think of all the things you can
substitute in place of "the redefinition of one of our most basic
social institutions"
How about:
"watching all our jobs disappear to sweatshops
in the developing world"
"letting our strategic shoelace industry sink
under the pressure of unfair foreign competition"
"allowing our children to poison their bodies
and futures with mind-altering drugs".
Indeed, for Bush and most of the rest of the
Republicans these days, it seems that limited
government doesn't really require much at all.
Blecch. But he already lost me with the
prescription drugs. This was their big chance.
The have the white house and both houses of
congress. Smaller government? Not a chance.
Just how do pols sleep at night? How does one
get excited about a career that consists of
nothing but sustained (well, not in Kerry's
case, his change frequently) and consistent
lies?
Jeff
Kevin Carson|2.24.04 @ 11:50AM|#
Sparky and thoreau,
If the problem is the "full faith and credit" clause, all that's
necessary to fix it is to exempt gay marriage from that clause,
either by an act of Congress or an amendment.
This is typical of Republican conservative social engineering: the
courts federalize what's properly a state issue, like school prayer
or flag-burning; but instead of simply undoing the specific legal
hook on which the courts hung their decision, and restoring the
status quo ante in which the decision was left to the states, the
Republicans impose their own values on the states by federalizing
the issue from the other direction.
The root of the problem with flag-burning, abortion, school prayer,
ad nauseam, is the "incorporation doctrine" of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The way to fix it is to rule out that doctrine, and to
make clear that the XIV has only procedural, not substantive
content. All these issues would be fought out in the state
legislatures, instead of being hot button federal issues the way
they are now. But instead, the Republicans want to reverse the
court decisions piecemeal--not only imposing their social
conservatism on the states, but turning the Constitution into a
civil code.
|2.24.04 @ 11:59AM|#
I want to make it clear to everybody that I wasn't endorsing the
notion that the "full faith and credit" clause does/should/will
enable one state to force gay marriage on the other 49. I simply
responded to the question "remind me again why we need a
Constitutional amendment" and I emphasized that I was playing
Devil's Advocate. (Originally performed by Keanu Reaves, reprised
on H&R by yours truly ;)
BTW, I like the thread title: "A threat that rises to the level of
flag burning." Nice.
|2.24.04 @ 12:00PM|#
Given that Kerry's about a half step from endorsing it...
"Leading Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry is doing
his own waffling. The Los Angeles Times reported, when pressed at a
Portland, Maine, rally for his position on the Massachusetts
Court�s advisory opinion he said, �Look, I support equal rights and
the right of people to have civil union, equal partnership rights,
I don�t support marriage. I never have. That�s my position.�
When asked about endorsing a constitutional ban on gay marriage,
Kerry said he 'would have to see what language there is.'"
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3988
...why is it any surprise that Bush has taken this position?
First, realize that neither Kerry, nor Bush, thinks this thing has
a chance of passing. Most Dems will vote against it, and more than
a few Reps will as well (there are a number on record who are
against gay marriage, but don't support alterring the
constitution).
Bush has to say he's for the FMA, how does it serve him not too?
Will he pick up some Dems who are otherwise against him? And it
would hurt him somewhat to seem softer than Kerry on the issue by
his own constituents. As for Kerry, why shouldn't he toe the line,
or even come out and support it? The ABB crowd has given him carte
blanche to dance with any devil he deems necessary. Sure they'll
criticize him, but what are they going to do, vote for Nader? As
for benefit, he might just pick up a few middle roaders, especially
in the religious south, who may be leaning his way for whatever
reason, but can't abide by him being for gays marrying.
Heh, heh, heh, thoreau said santorum.
James Merritt|2.24.04 @ 12:05PM|#
Jeff asks, "How does one get excited about a career that
consists of nothing but sustained (well, not in Kerry's case, his
change frequently) and consistent lies?"
Check out "Inside the Actors' Studio" on Bravo. Maybe Lipton will
have Mr. Bush on, one of these days. I'm sure the latter could
teach a Master Class, but unless the Academy establishes the Oscar
for "Best Presidential Performance," his great body of work may
remain unrecognized. Damn Hollywood snobbery.
|2.24.04 @ 12:05PM|#
>>
why shouldn't they?
lots of people on this board tend to act as if republicans (and to
a much lesser degree, democrats) were some sort of semi-human race
of philosopher kings.
they're part of the long tradition of con men.
|2.24.04 @ 12:17PM|#
Heh, heh, heh, thoreau said santorum.
I apologize to everybody here for my use of such vile and
inappropriate language on this esteemed forum. From now on I will
refer to him as "The Senator whose last name is a synonym with a
byproduct of anal sex, thanks to the linguistic crusade of Dan
Savage."
|2.24.04 @ 12:37PM|#
Once again, Kerry is going to get screwed for having opinions
that don't fit on a bumper sticker. I don't agree 100% with his
position, but it's a perfectly reasonable, consistent one.
He supports granting all the rights of marriage to gay couples, but
doesn't want (or doesn't insist upon) calling the instrument that
does this "marriage." He also thinks the issue should be settled at
the state level. So if the amendment contains the phrase "...or the
legal equivalent thereof" or some such, he'll be against it. If it
is silent on the issue of granting rights, he'll take no position
or support it.
Why is it automatically waffling to want to read something before
you comment on it? That's a pretty significant difference in
substance.
|2.24.04 @ 12:42PM|#
It appears that Nader will be the only option if the Dems
actually give a shit about this topic.
"Liberal activists have urged allies on the left to ignore Ralph
Nader�s bid for president to concentrate opposition to George W.
Bush. But Nader favors gay marriage, an issue that energizes many
liberals but is opposed by the leading Democratic contenders for
president."
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0402/24/a04-72847.htm
My guess is most of them don't, they'll hem and haw about Bush's
stance then give Kerry (or maybe Edwards) their vote.
Has there ever been such a talked about subject that no one really
gives a shit about doing anything more than talk about? (I'm sure
there has, but this has to be up there)
Thoreau, good call, I figured you'd catch that one.
|2.24.04 @ 12:51PM|#
I think Federalism -- letting the same sex marriage debate
proceed at its own pace in each of the 50 states -- can be a
beautiful thing, defusing the kind of nasty polarization we see
surrounding the abortion issue precisely because it defines issues
as local, and not national, issues, popping up in different places
from time to time � Vermont here, Massachussetts there � never
standing still long enough in one place for it to become the
subject of intense national gaze. Heaven help us if Congress or the
US Supreme Court decides that same-sex unions must, or must not, be
recognized as a matter of constitutional law, for either way that
issue becomes the sort of nightmare that the abortion issue has
become in our national life.
Whether one approves of homosexuality or not (peronally, I see
nothing wrong with it, but I know others disagree), it's a real
phenomenon that isn't going to go away. There are gays and lesbians
out there; there were even when homosexuality was subject to very
serious social and legal penalties; they're not going away. The
question is: What do we do about them? Do we encourage them to form
stable unions, or not? If they are in our families, do we fully
accept them, or allow this to alienate them from us? Even someone
who thinks homosexuality is against God's plan should, I think, ask
what is the most helpful and reasonable way to deal with this
reality; and neither criminalization, nor ostracism, nor, I
suspect, denial of the ability to marry is likely to be the right
answer.
|2.25.04 @ 1:30AM|#
Let's see...so far this young election season we have:
* the wahabbist arm of the republican party preparing to
permanently assign second-class status to a group of citizens for
reasons which ultimately reduce to "our loving god will kill us"
and/or "it's icky"
* the ghost of roe v. wade rattling its chains from within its
moldy tomb
by my watch, it's about time for the feds to parachute into
california and start chasing after the medicinal hippie-lettuce
again.
after all, if we're going to have a culture war, why not go
completely ape-shit?
for the children, that is.
|2.25.04 @ 2:24AM|#
Speaking as a big flaming homo:
"Gay rights" are in-fact stupid.
But, you see, this issue has nothing to do with "Gay rights." The
right to "pair-bond" with whoever I damn well please is a HUMAN
RIGHT.
As for Judical Tyranny? What else are ya going to do to fight
Tyranny of the Majority?
(Besides going along with that secert plot to turn the entire next
of children into homos, I mean.)
|2.25.04 @ 2:42AM|#
rst-
OK, marriage is a contract.
Why should the state decide that it will only recognize
opposite-sex contracts to share property, power of attorney,
etc.?
One could make a plausible argument that marriages with 3 or more
people would involve the state in a contract that's too messy to
handle. (e.g. 3 people share power of attorney, but what if one is
comatose and the other 2 can't agree on the proper medical
decisions?) And we could debate it, and maybe the people making
that assertion would be right, or maybe they'd be wrong, or
whatever. But at least it would be an argument based on the
recognition of the state's limited powers, abilities, and proper
realms of authority.
Arguments against gay marriage usually consist of the state making
a value judgement, rather than saying "Look, the state's really not
equipped to deal with it."
Final thought: Some libertarians complain of judicial tyranny.
Others complain of majority tyranny. Obviously the ideal is NO
tyranny. But when the judiciary disagree with the majority,
whichever side loses can claim that it was a victim of tyranny. So
which tyranny will we err on the side of when confronted with such
a choice? "Majority tyranny" or "judicial tyranny." "Judicial
tyranny" is usually a code-word for "I disagree with the judge" and
"majority tyranny" is usually a code-word for "I disagree with the
majority." Maybe we need to start defining tyranny in terms of its
results, and not who is allegedly inflicting it.
|2.25.04 @ 2:51AM|#
Is it true that the ammendment wouldn't allow gay marriages in
states that approved it either through legislation or
referendum?
If so, isn't it blatently
anti-everything-that-makes-America-so-very-special?
If not...nevermind.
|2.25.04 @ 3:52AM|#
Excuse me, but when did 'pair-bonding' (interesting phrase that) become a "human right"? Thank you for the admission that 'gay rights' are stupid. Perhaps the only sensible thing you did write. As for converting the next generation, well that sort of puts the lie to the whole nature/nurture debate don't it? Go away, engage your brain, then start to type.
|2.25.04 @ 5:51AM|#
Why should the state decide that it will only recognize
opposite-sex contracts to share property, power of attorney,
etc.?
Because the contract was created to provide legal accomodation for
a societal arrangement that was already defined, whether that
definition had an explicit or implied legal analogue. The state is
free to determine the validity of a party's claim in or to a
contract.
The question is why should it do any differently than it has since
it first adopted the concept? Again, it's about convincing. The gay
marriage camp has not been overly convincing. It sounds like a nice
idea from a crunchy liberal standpoint, but so do a lot of things
we dream about yet know we will never see in our lives. Practical
solutions?
|2.25.04 @ 6:12AM|#
Alright, marriage is contract, I am not disputing that. My
dispute is that is that there is not a single valid reason to deny
couples of the same sex access to that contract.
Also it is absurd that this be taken up by anybody, but the
judicary. Allowing gay marriage is about setting legal precedent
more than anything else... Hmmm, Now I wonder want part of
government is responsiable for that?
(need to get to class, so cant spell-check, sorry all english
teachers, out there!)
Mark S.|2.25.04 @ 7:41AM|#
"Excuse me, but when did 'pair-bonding' (interesting phrase
that) become a "human right"?"
I think you'll find them under "freedom of association" and
"freedom of religion."
|2.25.04 @ 9:27AM|#
"Excuse me, but when did 'pair-bonding' (interesting phrase
that) become a "human right"?"
It has always been a human right, one of the bundle of activities
that add up to the pursuit of happiness. See Loving v. Virginia,
and rulings overturning state laws against the retarded
marrying.
|2.25.04 @ 9:52AM|#
Also it is absurd that this be taken up by anybody, but the
judicary.
Legal precedent is not law. Legal precedent is a court opinion. A
court opinion is an expression of what can and cannot be
law, cf. Andrew Jackson. The government is not strictly
required to follow judicial review. What could the court do? Yell
loudly? Hold the entirety of Congress in contempt?
*raspberry*
The reason as it stands is that marriage is not a homosexual
arrangement. Forget household gods and family concerns, society
owns that definition and was not sharing it with homosexuals when
the government adopted the contract for legislative use. There is
no reason to extend it, other than the absurd notion that marriage
is a right, which as we know is untrue. In the eyes of the
law, the contract of marriage has nothing to do with how much the
participants love each other. So that homosexuals can love each
other all their lives says very little for the legal ramifications
of the marriage contract.
|2.25.04 @ 9:58AM|#
it is interesting to note that so much of this nifty secularist
humanism classical liberal stuffo that we yank around here so often
came out of years of religious wars. so in a way the western
tradition is responsible...but just not in the "we're #1" way
jimbob would like to claim.
to answer joe's question, people fixate on what they think of as
yucky because they're jackasses. and because there are still some
straight men out there not on the sodomy train.
bewlidering though it may be...
|2.25.04 @ 10:28AM|#
p.s. a grammatical error above; I did not mean to imply that society was absent homosexuality or homosexuals at any point. I'm referring rather to a massively mainstream core belief.
|2.25.04 @ 10:53AM|#
rst, forgive me if you've answered this already, but how would your argument be different if it was fifty years ago and we were talking about allowing mixed-race marriages?
|2.25.04 @ 10:57AM|#
"other than the absurd notion that marriage is a right, which as
we know is untrue"
Aw jeezus rst, this is about equal protection under the law. If the
state is going to be in the business of sanctioning two peoples
relationship, then the state ought to allow any two consenting
adults that sanction.
Remember that bit about "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal..."
Yes, I know that the Declaration of Independence is not a "legal"
document. It's "merely" the formative principles, the noble ideals
that the constitution is meant to uphold.
I know you understand the difference between a democracy and a
democratic republic. So I will just whisper that when a democracy
votes to amend inalienable rights, that IS "tyranny of the
majority".
People should think long and hard about changing the noble ideals
this country is founded upon.
|2.25.04 @ 11:09AM|#
Mark S
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. Freedom of association is
defiently the human right that has been least afforded to
homosexuals. (ie, bars, clubs raided in the 60's, Cops being able
to barge into bedroom and break-up, well you know), and now the
Feds are retaining that ability with this amendment.
My friend's partner of 15 years died some years back. They had
shared everything up until that point. When he died he left a will
leaving everything to my friend (his partner). Well, to make a long
story short. The deceased's family wasnt thrilled with the whole
homo-thing, and let that resentment surface after the death. They
were able to find a conservative judge that voided the will and
granted all of the couple's property (mainly thier house) to the
deceased's family.
Now anybody that doesnt see having your house taken away as being a
voliation of your human rights, shouldnt even read Reason, much
less post on it. (hint, hint, GOTCHA)
If the government had fully recognized (and protected) the level of
association these two had, then this never would have
happned.
(By the way, if this case sounds to cruel to be true, keep in mind
that it did happen in the homo-hating capitial, Texas.)
|2.25.04 @ 12:43PM|#
The marriage laws apply equally to everyone. Gays are asking for
a unique privelege. Unfuck 'em.
If I don't tell them what they can do in the bedroom [or the bath
house] then they should not do this thought control crap on me.
Take tolerance and run, or gain back disapproval.
|2.25.04 @ 12:55PM|#
with whoever I damn well please is a HUMAN RIGHT.
"Pair-bonding" as a human right...it's a human right to have sex
with three women at once if you like. That doesn't mean you have
the right to marry all three of them. Nothing about your right to
pair or trio or quad off in a sexual context requires the state to
provide you with any kind of contractual support on account of it.
Really, get this into your head: marriage is *not* a right. It's a
contract. Gay or straight, you have no explicit, inalienable legal
or human right to that contract, or really any contract in
existence.
It seems that to far too many, "Tyranny of the Majority" is just a
catchphrase that means, "democracy pissed me off today."
|2.26.04 @ 1:23AM|#
"it's not fifty years ago and this isn't about allowing
mixed-race marriages."
Your evasion of the question is disappointing. The fact that it
isn't fifty years ago and the current topic isn't mixed-race
marriage should in no way prevent you from explaining how your
arguments against same-sex marriage today are different from the
arguments against mixed-race marriage fifty years ago.
Unless they aren't different. In which case I understand your
evasion.
|2.26.04 @ 2:03AM|#
Les - it's not fifty years ago and this isn't about allowing
mixed-race marriages.
inalienable rights
Where did you get that bit from? There is nothing "inalienable"
about it. Just because some court renders an opinion that
the Massachusetts Constitution implies - through an
overbroad amendment - that gays cannot be denied marriage licenses
given the constitution as is does not make it a right, just a
potential loophole. Marriage was not a right to begin with.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal...
Written while slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, and
homosexuality was widely a criminal act. How noble.
|2.26.04 @ 2:09AM|#
If the state is going to be in the business of sanctioning
two peoples relationship
The distinction is not that it's two people, but that it is a man
and a woman vs. a man and a man or a woman and a woman; you are
willing to generalize it where others are not.
|2.26.04 @ 8:29AM|#
So, why exactly do people get marriage licenses from the
government?
Well, because the government makes it easier for two people to live
together in a committed long term fashion. It means your children,
your will, your power of attorney, your property, your taxes... all
of these things will be taken care of in a way conducive to the
well being and happiness of a shared household. The government has
decided that marriage is their business, and if you don't sign
their little piece of paper, they'll just assume that you aren't
committed enough to deserve that consideration.
Should the government be in this business?
Personally, I'm a little dubious about that. But, currently, that's
the way it goes.
Do you *need* to be married to get these legal priviliges? Well,
no. Not if you have about $50,000 to spare and a damn good lawyer.
But why should any couple have to spend $50,000 on a government
service that another couple can get for $50?
This isn't about new rights or privileges given to a tiny minority.
This is about long standing legal protections which are granted to
the general population being denied to an unpopular segment of
society. This is not about getting a prize for being gay. This is
about not giving out special privileges for being *straight*.
So if you want all these goodies, why not just do the easy thing
and marry someone of the opposite sex? Well, because people like to
marry people that they want to form a household with - usually
someone they're in love with. You don't just ditch the person you
love to move in with someone else for financial reasons - try it
some time and see what your wife says!
Why do you think there is legal precedent for allowing gay
marriage? Well, the Constitution has this bit about equal
protection under the law. There was never any footnote saying
"Unless you're gay and don't have $50,000 dollars on hand." And
let's not even get into the pursuit of happiness thing.
How does allowing same sex couples to marry differ from allowing
three people to get married? Well, if Ron has been married to Jane
for ten years and suddenly Jane is able to *also* marry Paul, this
is a signficantly different contract than the one he agreed to. He
now no longer has an exclusive legal connection to Jane and must
worry about another person gaining equal primacy in her life and
finances. However, if Amanda and Rachel next door can get married
too, it in no way affects the rights and privileges of any other
marriage future or preexisting. Amanda and Rachel have taken
nothing from Ron and Jane, and in no way have changed Ron and
Jane's lives or marriage.
Isn't it a selfish thing to do, because it will change one of the
foundations of our country? Only in the same way that it was
selfish to share the preexisting legal privilege of voting with
women. Were women being given something special and new as a reward
for being female? Voting wasn't a new thing - men had been able to
do it for over a hundred years. Had the founding fathers intended
this? Almost certainly not. And yet, you will find very few people
willing to argue that it was a terrible and selfish thing for women
to desire the vote because it changed our society. You will find
very few people willing or able to make the case that this in some
way eroded our national foundations. Yet voting is *at least* as
central an institution to our government as civil marriage.
Of course, feel free to oppose the abilty of women to vote on a
matter of pure principle, if you honestly feel it to be wrong.
Stand forth and declare this position if you have it! That would be
true intellectual courage.
Isn't this trifling with the traditional Judeo Christian meaning of
the word marriage? Sure, and so is allowing barren couples to marry
and divorced couples to marry, since marriage was a lifelong bond
for the purposes of procreation. Yet the old, the barren, and the
divorced continue to get marriage licenses in courthouses across
the country, even though any church may feel free to deny them
recognition. No one is saying that any nonsecular institution is
required to pay any recognition to same sex couples either.
Since gay people can't have children, do they really need or
deserve protections built to help families? You'd be amazed how
many gay people have children, and how many straight people have no
intention of having any at all. Obviously, procreation is a bit of
a hassle for gay people, but then infertile couples also share such
difficulties.
Isn't it unnatural? We're talking about *law*, not nature. Keep
up.
Well, what about that icky gay sex? Surely this isn't something we
want to encourage? Frankly, one might as well ban unattractive or
overweight people from marriage by those standards. Most people
would find those sex lives unappealing as well, but it's a silly
reason to deny someone legal protection. Really. Grow up.
Why not just call it a civil union when two gay people come
together in the eyes of the law? Well, getting even that much
recognition would be a big step forward in most states. But if it
truly *is* identical to civil marriage save in name, why should it
have a different name? Why should it need a different name? On a
more practical note, it means that you have to amend every law in
the nation that uses the word marriage to say marriage or civil
union or else this case of seperate but equal won't be very equal
at all.
Of course, you could just as fairly refer to all legal marriages as
civil unions, but somehow I doubt that would be very popular.
Doesn't God/the Gods/my unnamed higher power of choice say it is
wrong? Well, Gods are entitled to such opinions, and that's between
them and their worshippers. But there's a difference between a
religion's idea of sin and the law's recognition of wrongdoing. In
order to treat citizens from all religions fairly, the law has to
deal in secular definitions of right and wrong.
|2.26.04 @ 12:45PM|#
I said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal..."
rst said:
"Written while slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, and
homosexuality was widely a criminal act. How noble."
What's your point, rst? You saying that if a man beats his wife, he
has no right to tell others not to? That he's incapable of knowing
it's wrong?
Good people, attempting to uphold those noble ideals, caused the
abolishment of slavery, the success of the suffragette movement,
and the decriminalization of homosexuality. It is amazing just just
how forward thinking the constitution turned out, and I happen to
believe it is what has made this country great.
You don't think that the founders of the constitution were deeply
conflicted about slavery? Read Jefferson's "On Slavery"
An oft repeated theme in human history is an earlier generation
telling the next "do as I say, not as I do". Typically, this
involves some noble ideal that the earlier generation cannot fully
internalize. Feet of clay, and all that.
It's interesting that religious motivations are usually what
derails these noble ideals.
|2.28.04 @ 4:02AM|#
kf, you raise many points and in a commendable manner. For what
it is worth, I think that your views are well-stated and
instructive overall. I'm unconvinced but respect your
posting.
>>>Isn't this trifling with the traditional Judeo
Christian meaning of the word marriage? Sure, and so is allowing
barren couples to marry and divorced couples to marry, since
marriage was a lifelong bond for the purposes of
procreation.>>In order to treat citizens from all religions
fairly, the law has to deal in secular definitions of right and
wrong.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245