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
Be Sure to Wear Some Flowers in Your Hair
A San Francisco superior court judge has ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Several wire services' court people, by the way, clearly need to get busted back to J-school, because after scanning half a dozen news articles, I had to read the opinion itself to discover: (1) the relevant constitution is California's rather than the federal Constitution, and (2) the court issued a two-tiered ruling: It applied "rational basis" scrutiny and found that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples lacked a rational basis, but also held that, in fact, the stricter scrutiny applicable to cases in which the government discriminates according to "suspect classes" (in this case, gender) applied, making the discrimination a fortiori impermissible, since the state would need a compelling interest, never mind a rational basis, to pass muster.
Interestingly, as wtih the federal Constitution, the state constitution's privileges and immunities clause seems to have become inert, even though it seems pretty relevant:
A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Now, glancing at the relevant part of California's constitution, I don't see any terribly significant difference in its equal protection language that would've led to a different ruling had the case been brought under the federal Constitution. But my understanding (someone correct me if this is wrong) is that since it's not a ruling under the federal Equal Protection Clause, the California Supreme Court is the last stop for this one. Which is probably a good thing. Unlike my friend James Joyner, I can't get terribly upset that "gay marriage has been enacted by judicial fiat rather than the democratic process." That's what constitutional rights guarantees are for: To flip the bird at the democratic process when majorities don't feel like treating minorities fairly and equally. But at this stage, a push for a federal decision on gay marriage would likely reinvigorate the loathesome Federal Marriage Amendment, which would be thoroughly counterproductive.
Anyway, at least as interesting as the substance of the ruling here is the standard of scrutiny applied. The ruling that discrimination against gays lacks a rational basis in the marriage context has implications only in that context, so far as I can tell. That discrimination involving gay relationships is to be treated as (prima facie invidious) gender based discrimination demanding a compelling state interest seems to be of broader importance.
Update: This Brian Doherty column from way back in nineteen-dickety-seven is actually pretty relevant on the state-vs-federal constitution front.
|3.14.05 @ 6:30PM|#
interesting analysis ... the March 12 SAT was the first time an essay appeared on the SAT I Reasoning Test. The essay was an evaluation of the opinion of the majority and whether or not it is infallible. Nazi Germany and Arthur Miller's the Crucible were my juvenile examples to support my thesis. Too bad I missed this beautiful sentence: "That's what constitutional rights guarantees are for: To flip the bird at the democratic process when majorities don't feel like treating minorities fairly and equally." Would have been perfect.
|3.14.05 @ 6:54PM|#
Sad sad sad. Just like Prop 187, some brownshirt judge overturns
the will of the people. I seem to remember Californians voting 3-2
to limit to man and woman.
On the bright side, this issue could be a boom for conservatives
and constitutionalists in the state. I suspect the next process
will be amending the state constitution to keep the hands of these
totalitarian judges out of this issue.
|3.14.05 @ 7:00PM|#
Well, now my wife and I have to get divorced. After all, our marriage has been undermined!
|3.14.05 @ 7:04PM|#
BillyRay,
On the one hand, I'd rather see the issue dealt with in the
legislature. On the other, as Julian noted, this is about a
constitutional guarantee of rights. If the majority voted to kick
out all the frizzy-haired people in the state, that wouldn't pass
state (or federal) muster because it would violate basic rights
guaranteed by the basic law of the land, which was approved (way
back when) by "the will of the people".
On the other other hand, I'd love to see gays get legal marriage
rights. Or to see the state get its dirty paws off marriage.
The CA Supreme Court will almost certainly overturn this ruling (if
the intermediate appellate court doesn't) but it will surely be a
lively brouhaha in the meantime.
|3.14.05 @ 7:07PM|#
Next it'll be multi-married partners. If the judge ruled that
the state discriminates according to "suspect
classes" then why should those wanting 8 wives be treated
any differently?
This is sickening! Disgusting!
|3.14.05 @ 7:11PM|#
Shelby, where does it say anything in the California constitution about marriage? And since when is marriage a constitutional right in any state?
|3.14.05 @ 7:11PM|#
'S always nice to see the young libertarian whippersnappers out
whippersnapping, Butch. Gives me hope, anyway -- dunno if
you have any. I too was thinking that's a great quote. I'd like to
get a tattoo of it -- maybe on my ass for full Bart Simpson
effect.
(I don't know if I should mention this in front of the s-t-a-f-f, but speaking of ass, I finally switched to Firefox (from Safari, not IE) and banned muscly pushup guy's Jpeg.)
|3.14.05 @ 7:14PM|#
Since Loving v. Virginia in 1967, which as a Supreme Court
decision under the federal Constitution covers every state:
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due
process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized
as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men."
|3.14.05 @ 7:14PM|#
BillyRay,
I work with a gentleman who espouses the same flawed reasoning as
yourself (assuming you are not, in fact, being sarcastic). If I
remember my high-school civics classes correctly, and I do, we
still live under a system of 'checks and balances'. The courts and
the constitution are part of that scheme, and are put in place to
ensure that 'the will of the people' doesn't run amok and squash
the rights of people that we collectively don't like (a sentiment
much more eloquently phrased by Julian).
You may not like gay people or you may just not like gay marriage,
but until you can convincingly argue that those marriages are not
protected by the constitution, you haven't got a leg to stand
on.
espouses -- get it?
|3.14.05 @ 7:15PM|#
BillyRay:
I don't know; read the opinion or ask the judge. It's his ruling;
I'm trying to explain the basic reasoning behind such arguments,
not to make the argument itself.
|3.14.05 @ 7:19PM|#
Activist judge = judge I don't agree with
Clearly, the founders put the judicial branch in place to protect
people from the "tyranny of the majority" . Sorry, the fact that
most Americans don't want gays to marry really, in a nutshell,
doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.
America is a place where you're supposed to mind your own damn
business. BY DESIGN.
Yes, I know there are a whole pantload of laws already in the books
that ignore that design, but that's no excuse for us to allow more
to be enacted. I'm thrilled to see a judge knock down any law that
restricts anyone's freedom to do just about anything.
|3.14.05 @ 7:22PM|#
What's wrong with marrying 8 other people as long as all are adults and all consent?
|3.14.05 @ 7:24PM|#
Apparently, conservative who rail against "activist judges" only have two branches of government in their constitution. It's a good thing Bush hasn't been opposing the will of the majority by vetoing bills. The last thing we need is an activist presidency.
|3.14.05 @ 7:26PM|#
That's what constitutional rights guarantees are for: To
flip the bird at the democratic process when majorities don't feel
like treating minorities fairly and equally.
Wonderfully elitist.
So, what will you say when they decide to flip the bird at
you?
Never hand the government a loaded gun - it will always end up
pointed at you
|3.14.05 @ 7:27PM|#
BillyRay,
Multiple marriages are as old or older than monogamous marriages
and have been present in Judaic and Christian traditions in the
past. What's your justification for opposing that since tradition
is your defense for opposing gay marriage?
Dollars to donuts it's the same as the reason you actually oppose
gay marriage, the icky factor.
|3.14.05 @ 7:28PM|#
billyray
do you ever post to this site when the topic doesn't involve gay
people? please, take a deep look within yourself and see if you can
explain the source of this obsession. get back to us when you find
clarity.
Xrlq|3.14.05 @ 7:30PM|#
Activist judge = judge who can't/won't distinguish his own
political preferences from the laws he is supposed to apply.
Julian's quote from Loving
|3.14.05 @ 7:31PM|#
Sorry BLG, you just don't get it. I suggest you bone up on your high school civics. Brownshirt judges are ignoring the common law developement over centuries. There is no gay marriage tradition or custom. Just gay activist trying to use the state to force acceptence of their lifestyle.
|3.14.05 @ 7:36PM|#
BillyRay-
This is a serious question: how will gay marriage affect you? How
will you be hurt? For that matter, even if it becomes legal, how
does this mean you'll be "forced to accept the gay lifestyle?" You
don't have to invite gay couples to your home, and if you're
invited to attend any gay weddings you don't have to go. So what
exactly is your problem?
|3.14.05 @ 7:40PM|#
First of all, I don't see any reason why the Federal gov't
should be involved in marriage at all. At least the gay marriage
advocates have gone so far as to start asserting State's rights,
but that's only because the Fed wouldn't accept it, and it's truly
only a stepping stone.
Secondly, I was always under the impression that the benefits given
to married couples were for the implied purpose of starting a
family, ie there's a reasonable expectation of having children so
married people should catch some breaks so they can save up. If
that assumption is more or less correct then, gay marriage or no,
homosexual couples as a whole do not have that same expectation of
children, and shouldn't necessarily be given the same benefits.
Those benefits have nothing to do with "love" of any kind. Of
course, it needs to be noted that there's not really a reasonable
expectation of heterosexuals starting a family given the current
divorce statistics.
Thirdly, although I fully believe that many who are against gay
marriage do so from discrimination, I'm not entirely convinced that
legally speaking it would be discriminatory to not saction gay
marriage any more than it is to say men can't receive maternity
leave. Yes, the slippery slope card is played far too often and
inaccurately, but sanctioning anything other than traditional
couplings as marriage will lead to every group under the sun
demanding the same privileges, which only furthers the bloated
government.
Which brings my long-winded rant to its conclusion: Instead of
fighting to be included in the benevolent governments warming arms,
gay marriage advocates should be lobbying to get the gov't
completely out of marriage. The gov't should allow any two or more
people to enter a contract to share earnings and whatnot, and leave
the definitions to churches, humanist societies or whatever. The
benefits given to married couples now (since we're never getting
rid of the income tax) should be reserved for those couples
actively planning to have or adopt a child.
|3.14.05 @ 7:43PM|#
citizengnat, I've been posting here off and on for over 2yrs, Possibly 3 on dozens of various subjects and topics.
|3.14.05 @ 7:44PM|#
Stretch-
If the benefits for married couples are intended to help start a
family, then post-menopausal women would not receive them when they
marry, would they?
For all reading this: saying "Things have ALWAYS been that way" or
"It's tradition" is the excuse used by people who don't have any
other justification for what they are advocating.
|3.14.05 @ 7:45PM|#
"homosexual couples as a whole do not have that same expectation
of children"
That's increasingly untrue. As of the 2000 census, those who filed
as same-sex partners living together were raising children at a
rate of 1/5 for men and 1/3 for women. Of those who don't have
children, a 2000 Kaiser foundation survey reported just under half
expressing a desire to at some point.
|3.14.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Won't get into the debate about whether this is good or bad, bit I have a comment on the state vs. federal aspects of this. Since this is based on the state constitution it has no direct federal impact, and cannot be reviewed by the supreme court (of the US). The final stop is the state supreme court of california where the final decision on constitutionality will be made. Additionally the decision alluded to earlier in the comments (Loving) is only relevant if the state supremes decide that it is. Even if the state constitution uses the exact same wording as the federal constitution state judges are quite free to interpret it differently, and in many cases have done so. There was a recent post on this subject over at Volokh.com which makes for interesting reading. It will be interesting to see how this works out, also I imagine we'll see a movement to get the california constitution amended.
|3.14.05 @ 7:47PM|#
"That's what constitutional rights guarantees are for: To flip
the bird at the democratic process when majorities don't feel like
treating minorities fairly and equally.
Wonderfully elitist.
So, what will you say when they decide to flip the bird at
you?
Never hand the government a loaded gun - it will always end up
pointed at you"
NS- How is that elitist? That's what the constiution is there for:
to prevent our individual rights from being taken away. The whole
idea is they can't flip the bird at me unless me and a bunch of my
buddies are trying to screw someone else.
Maybe you're suggesting that the Constitution doesn't limit gov't
enough, which is really a whole other argument.
|3.14.05 @ 7:52PM|#
Well Jennifer, I guess you haven't studied up on the 1964 civil
rights act and what a blow to freedom it was. Now if this gay
marriage issue becomes law, it'll only mean more restrictions for
the vast majority of Americans.
Also, it'll no longer be possible for adoption agencies to
discriminate which would be a complete disaster and lead to much
heart and
pain
|3.14.05 @ 7:52PM|#
NS-
Was it elitist when the courts ruled that legal segregation must
end, even though the majority of Southerners felt otherwise?
|3.14.05 @ 7:53PM|#
Jennifer, it was my understanding that they began for that purpose. It's obvious that, as always, the gov't has expanded beyond the original intent. Given that, you may say that gay couples deserve the same benefits. My point was is that benefits aren't intended to be a validation of people's love for each other. Benefits just for being married are not something I agree with hetero or homo.
|3.14.05 @ 7:54PM|#
BillyRay-
How did ending segregation strike a blow to freedom?
By the way, I clicked on your link. 34% of all sexual molestation
of foster children was from same-sex victimizers? That means 66
percent of molestation came from opposite-sex abusers. Sounds more
like a reason to outlaw heterosexual adoption, if anything.
|3.14.05 @ 7:57PM|#
Stretch-
Even at the beginning of our country's history, women were allowed
to marry even if they were too old to bear children.
I agree marriage should be none of the government's business, but
if they ARE going to dish out benefits then there's no reason to
discriminate against the gay people.
|3.14.05 @ 7:58PM|#
Julian, you're point is well taken, but I'm not sure that makes the expectation equivalent or even close. As I said, should a gay couple want to adopt a child they could start receiving benefits at the beginning of the process. But for gay couples, it's not something that can just happen. Actually, under my system, heterosexual couples would probably receive the shaft since at most they'd only have 9 months, which I believe is less time than the adoption process takes, though I could be wrong about that.
|3.14.05 @ 8:04PM|#
Jen, I was in no way suggesting that actual marriage should be
restricted to those able to conceive children, only that benefits
were primarily given on that basis. And as far as I know, there
were no real gov't benefits at the beginning of the USA.
And you're absolutely right, if the benefits are really there just
for the sake of being married, I see no reason to exclude gays, or
rather I would say that gays shouldn't be the only ones
excluded.
And just for the heck of it, if polygamy were Federally sactioned
under the current system, would all 6,7,8 etc. people receive full
benefits?
|3.14.05 @ 8:05PM|#
Jennifer, statistics must not be one of your strong points. Gays
and lesbians are about 2-3 percent of the population. The Illinois
study said that 2 percent of the population is responsible for 34
percent of sexual abuse which means they're way more likely to
commit abuse.
As for the 1964 civil rights act, it destroyed freedom of
association. If Jennifer owns a hotel with an attached bar and
grill and only wants to serve gays and lesbians, then more power to
her. It should be her right.
Xrlq|3.14.05 @ 8:06PM|#
Was it elitist when the courts ruled that legal segregation must end, even though the majority of Southerners felt otherwise?
No, but it was elitist when the courts previously ruled
that our own version of apartheid may continue under the "separate
but equal" ruse for a good century after a 2/3 supermajority of
Congressmen and Senators, and an even larger supermajority of state
legislatures, had voted to make it unconstitutional. This is what
we get for allowing judges to ignore applicable law and "flip the
bird" to democracy whenever they feel they know better than the
rest of us.
|3.14.05 @ 8:08PM|#
BillyRay,
You never answered my question regarding polygamy. You can fall
back on tradition to oppose gay marriage, but polygamy is older
than dirt.
|3.14.05 @ 8:10PM|#
Stretch-
Realistically, I don't think any government or company could afford
to give marital benefits to, say, a man and his thirty wives. But I
think all this polygamy talk is a slippery slope. Suppose a law
were passed stating that any two consenting adults should be
allowed to marry? That way, the BillyRays of the world can stop
hyperventilating over the thought of men marrying dogs or an entire
high-school football team.
|3.14.05 @ 8:12PM|#
BillyRay-
If I want to open a bar and serve only gays and lesbians, all I'd
have to do is hang a rainbow flag outside and give it a name like
"The Empty Closet." Folks like you wouldn't be caught dead within a
block of it, I'm sure.
Now can you answer my previous question: how will you, personally,
be harmed if gay people marry? What actual suffering will be
inflicted upon BillyRay?
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 8:13PM|#
Jennifer
I hate to feed the trolls (especially one as disgusting as
BillyRay), but he is right, as was Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, to
state that the 1964 CRA abrogates freedom, specifically, freedom of
assembly, because it bans all discrimination. Therefore,
it is illegal for me to have an all-white club if I were, say,
BillyRay, even though that should be right under freedom of
association. The 1964 CRA did not end segregation; it moved
government-protection status away from whites and onto other
so-called "minorities", instead of saying the commonsense idea that
"we are all individuals, and your private property is your
business."
Sez Ayn Rand: "It is proper to forbid discrimination in government
owned facilities...by the very same principle, the government has
no right to discriminate FOR (emphasis in original) some citizens
at the expense of others...Just as we protect a communist's freedom
of speech, even thought his doctrines are evil, so we have to
protect a racist's right to the use and disposal of his own
property." (TAIR, 188) These are her direct words in opposition to
the 1964 CRA.
|3.14.05 @ 8:17PM|#
Xrlq- that wouldn't be the first time the judicial branch has completely ignored the constitution. In other words, the US Supreme Court ignored the constitutional rights of African Americans, and that stinks but that's not the way the phrase was used. As I understood it, if the Supreme Court had done right, then the African American community would have successfully flipped the bird at the US majority, because their rights are constitutionally guaranteed.
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 8:18PM|#
Jennifer,
I still have to say that I disagree with your idea of government
defining marriage as two consenting adults: make those two adults
"one man, one woman", and you essentially have what the sickening
socialcons passed, you're just merely changing the definition, when
the problem is allowing government to define and economically favor
marriage in the first place. The first step is to recognize that
legally consenting adults should be able to enter into contracts,
any contract, whether it approximates marriage or not. Right now,
you're sceding the government power when that's the entire
problem.
|3.14.05 @ 8:20PM|#
True Ron, polygamy is older than dirt. And throughout history
its been tolerated by many different cultures. But with the
exception of Mormans in Utah, its been dead in Western Civilization
for centuries.
Gay Marriages
Today, Polygamy Tomorrow?
|3.14.05 @ 8:20PM|#
Ayn Randian-
I've already said I don't think the government should have any say
in marriage, but the fact is that they do, so since that won't
change anytime soon we should at least give gays the same rights
and the straights.
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 8:21PM|#
Xrlq-
I have to disagree with the tack you're taking. Although the SCOTUS
has screwed up (and, of course, SUPREMELY screwed up at that),
that's no reason to allow democracy in its pure form to run
rampant. After all, if you don't believe in "flipping the bird" (a
la judicial review), what happens when we all pass a law that says
commenters named Xrlq have to become slaves, despite the 13th
Amendment?
|3.14.05 @ 8:25PM|#
when punks like Ayn_Randian start babbling about feeding the
trolls, then the debate is over.
Bingo!
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 8:25PM|#
Jennifer-
The point is, is that by expanding this current idea of marriage in
its' excessively ridiculous form, you abrogate the rights of
others, instead of expanding them. By saying that the marriage of
two gays has government "sanction", you create another protected
class, instead of eliminating one, and therefore de facto
discriminate against single straights and polygamists, because
their status isn't government "protected" and economically
"sanctioned". I just don't want the fiat declaration that some
arrangements sanctioned by government are protected expanded,
because that entrenches the government further into our lives.
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 8:26PM|#
BillyRay-
Rading skills clearly aren't your fort�, "punk". I was on your side
about the 1964 CRA. Maybe before you declare game-set-match, you
should be sure we're even playing each other.
Dumbass.
|3.14.05 @ 8:30PM|#
Simple Jennifer, I won't be able to discriminate against them
anymore. Either will religious groups etc etc. As soon as gays
achieve their goal which is to use the government to force social
acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of the public, my right
of freedom of association will be diminished.
Right now gays can enter into any contract they want.
|3.14.05 @ 8:34PM|#
Ayn Randian-
I hear what you are saying, but I'm focusing on what gains are most
likely to be made, rather than what SHOULD happen in a perfect
world.
It's like the time I was discussing the War on Drugs with a
hard-core Libertarian friend of mine--he and I both agree that
drugs should be completely legal, but I said I'd be willing to see
drugs treated like alcohol--heavily taxed and regulated, but at
least less people would be going to jail over them. If, somehow, an
election were held on the position of whether or not to switch
drugs from their current status to an "alcohol-like" status, I'd
vote yes. My friend, however, would vote no. On the one hand I
respect his principles, but on the other hand his all-or-nothing
attitude does more harm than good.
Likewise gay marriage. True, marriage is none of the government's
business, but since they insist on sticking their noses into it,
allowing gays to marry each other would be better than what we have
now, though not perfect.
And if BillyRay's done yelling at you, I'd still like to hear how
gay marriage will hurt him personally.
|3.14.05 @ 8:35PM|#
Jen, regardless of Billy Rays phobias, if a law were passed
saying that any two people can marry, it would still exclude
polygamists, and some of them would be upset. That's why I favor
getting the state out of it altogether. Morally and ethically I've
got no problem with gay marriage, or even benefits received per
say. But I do have a problem with gov't regulation in
general.
As I see it, given that homosexuals have all the inherent
individual rights protected by law, covering them under them under
any sort of extra marriage law would actually decrease their
freedom. The amazing amount of money and red tape divorces require
are significant.
Really, though, for me, this is all just philosophical and legal
wonkery. Given that the state will never decrease, I say have at
it, title, benefits and all.
I guess it just bothers me that we have a group of citizens who
feel opressed by the state, but instead of fighting for freedom
from the state, they fight for inclusion.
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 8:39PM|#
Actually, BillyRay, here is where you are dead wrong. States passing their own legislative anti-gay-marriage acts (called Issue 1 here in Ohio) specifically forbid certain types of contracts for anyone that "approximate" marriage. It's a nasty, hairy legal place in which Ohio has placed itself, and the only ones to really benefit are the Law School Professors who get to hair-split over what "approximate" means.
|3.14.05 @ 8:40PM|#
Stretch-
There ARE benefits to marriage which gay people miss out on--the
right to marry a lover from another country and bring him/her here.
Visitation rights in hospital situations. There's a HUGE number of
rights made available only to those who are married--I'm too tired
to look them up right now, but a quick Google search would bring
them up.
Though I agree with a throwaway joke from an issue of The Onion:
"Marriage, the military. . .why do gays want in on our worst
institutions?"
|3.14.05 @ 8:44PM|#
BillyRay-
Other than marriage, what anti-discrimination will you be forced to
do if gays marry? Certainly you can refuse to invite them into your
home, just as you will if they can marry. Churches will still be
allowed to practice their religious discrimination--the Catholic
Church won't have to marry gay people, just as they now don't have
to marry divorcees.
Please give me a more specific example as to the harm you will
suffer. How, specifically, will you be forced to associate with
gays if they get married?
|3.14.05 @ 8:46PM|#
What's that mean Ayn_Randian? Can gays still buy a house together? Leave money to each other? Setup visitation rights? I know it doesn't mean that the state of Ohio now forbids the private sector from providing health benefits to gay couples if they choose to do so. Besides not being able to file a joint tax return, I just don't see what rights they're left out off. No more so than single men and women. In fact, the private sector is more likely today to provide health benefits to gay couples than men and women just shacking up.
|3.14.05 @ 8:48PM|#
Hehe, I know a few wealthy, gay Europeans who got citizenship by
marrying my sister's friends, in return for large sums of money.
Hmmm, maybe there's some hot, European lesbians who would pay me
for the same service...
Seriously, though, point taken.
|3.14.05 @ 8:51PM|#
First, let me say that like many here I think government should
be out of the marriage business all together and it should be a
matter of private contract. But when BillyRay compares gay marriage
to the CRA as leading to an abridgement of freedom he misses a
fundamental point.
To the extent the CRA takes away a private owners ability to
exclude anyone from his or her private property for whatever
reason, it certainly did abridge freedom, and wrongly in my
opinion. If someone wants to be a bigot in the use of his or her
property I may think it ignorant and racist, but it's not my
property. On the other hand, to the extent the CRA prevented
GOVERNMENT from discriminating on the basis of race, that did not
abridge anyone's freedom, but rather expanded the freedom of those
classes which had been denied equal protection of the laws.
The gay marriage case is entirely a government equal protection
issue with no private abridgment of rights. Nobody is saying that a
church has to accept gay couples who wish to be married there, or,
as Jennifer said, that BillyRay cannot discriminate in the weddings
he chooses to attend. To compare the two is to miss the distinction
between private property and government actions.
|3.14.05 @ 8:51PM|#
Right now gays can enter into any contract they
want.
Separate but equal contracts? Actually, separate and less equal is
more like it. For example, show me a contract I can form with my
Malaysian boyfriend of over two years that would allow him to
reside permanently in the United States, much like your hetero
marriage allows you. No, BillyRay, some of us don't give a shit
about your approval; we're too busy fighting to just stay
together.
|3.14.05 @ 8:52PM|#
1,049 rights based upon marital status are on the link
below:
http://scribbling.net/1049-federal-rights-depend-on-marital-status
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 8:53PM|#
The Onion has a point. Gays should be happy that society isn't
constantly acting like your mother, expecting you to "settle down"
and "start a family". Marriage could be the most oppressive
institutions that society foists upon hapless
twentysomethings.
BillyRay, as I said, the law hasn't been teased out yet, but some
arrangements that Issue 1 could block would be:
1) Two straight male roommates draw up a contract on their
apartment, spelling out expectations, contributions and what
happens if the partnership comes to an end. The state says that
this looks too much like marriage, in the sense of a pre-nup.
2) It CAN mean that the state can force private institutions to
deny health care to their "spouses", because recognizing them as
such is tantamount to marriage.
3) And you don't see a problem with telling two people they can't
file a certain tax return, whereas two other certain people in a
given situation can? Where do you and the government get off,
setting up privileged elites?
Xrlq|3.14.05 @ 8:53PM|#
After all, if you don't believe in "flipping the bird" (a la judicial review),
Correction: I support judicial review. I oppose judicial activism,
which I define to include any ruling that substitutes the political
preferences of the judge for the clear intent of the statute's
drafters and proponents, or, if such intent cannot be ascertained,
its plain textual meaning. Striking down a law that really does
violate the Constitution is not "flipping the bird," it's just
doing one's job.
[W]hat happens when we all pass a law that says commenters named Xrlq have to become slaves, despite the 13th Amendment?
First, we don't pass such an asinine law, and we vote out any
Congressman or Legislator dumb enough to try. Second, if such a
"law" passes anyway, we refuse to obey it since it also violates
the written Constitution, which itself is a key part of the
democratic process Julian wants our courts to flip the bird at.
Third, if prosecuted for violating such a blatantly
unconstitutional law, we challenge the ruling before the Politburo,
and hope to God that at least five of its members will have the
good sense to read the 13th Amendment and apply it as written. In
reality, five of them probably won't, but that's OK since Justices
Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia probably will, and surely Justices
Kennedy and O'Connor can be persuaded that there exists an emerging
international consensus against slavery.
None of this has anything to do with gay marriage, however. The
Thirteenth Amendment was about slavery, the Fourteenth about
invidious racial discrimination. It is doubtful that a single
Congressman, Senator or state legislator voting for our against the
Fourteenth Amendment (or any of the state provisions patterned
after it, including California's) ever contemplated that gay
marriage, gay rights, or gay anything else would be affected by the
Fourteenth Amendment one way or the other.
So yes, it is possible to oppose an unreasonable, blatantly
political court ruling without attacking the very concept of
judicial review, per se.
|3.14.05 @ 8:55PM|#
Simple Jennifer. I've already given you a few, one being
adoption agencies. But when the state declares that 2 men are on
equal footing with man and wife, then all sorts of societal norms
are thrown out the window. Soon the Catholic church might find
itself defending against a billion dollar discrimination suite .
With the courts out of control today, it's very possible the church
could lose. A Priest in Canada is looking at violating the hate
speech laws because he gave a sermon denouncing
homosexuality.
Once you open up this can of worms, no telling where'll it will go.
Tradition Tradition Tradition
|3.14.05 @ 9:02PM|#
The gay marriage case is entirely a government equal
protection issue with no private abridgment of rights. Nobody is
saying that a church has to accept gay couples who wish to be
married there, or, as Jennifer said, that BillyRay cannot
discriminate in the weddings he chooses to attend. To compare the
two is to miss the distinction between private property and
government actions.
Nonsense. The courts and government long ago started ignoring
private property. That's when special rights were invented. And
that's what gays are asking for. Special rights!
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 9:03PM|#
BillyRay
That dog won't hunt here. No one wants us to go the way of Canada,
which you oppose, and no one wants us to go the way of Jesusland,
which I presuppose you enthusiastically endorse.
The fact is, BillyRay, that adherence to tradition merely because
we have done it before is not good enough. In fact, it's almost as
if you have your own "Church of the Traditional", where you worship
the old merely for the fact they are old.
Frankly, BillyRay, it is apt to say that racism was a societal norm
in 1865, but we passed the 14th Amendment anyway.
|3.14.05 @ 9:04PM|#
BillyRay-
I've already pointed out that the churches here in America will not
be forced to accept gays, just as they wouldn't be forced to let my
atheist self get married or become a priest. Your adoption
discussion is a red herring--it is already illegal for adults to
molest children, and legalizing gay marriage will not change
that.
Besides, I asked how YOU, PERSONALLY, will be harmed. Are you that
incapable of answering my question?
|3.14.05 @ 9:07PM|#
Randian, what are the common marriage laws like in Ohio? I still don't think the amendment passed by the voters prevents any of the things I cited above. Now as far as providing alimony, that's a tricky one. I don't have a clue.
|3.14.05 @ 9:13PM|#
BillyRay-
How is it a "special right" to get married? And I'd still like to
have one concrete example of harm you would suffer if, say, Rhywun
were allowed to marry the man he loves. Churches have not been and
will not be forced to ignore their religious principles, and child
molestation will not be made legal. So what are you afraid of?
|3.14.05 @ 9:20PM|#
Geeshh Randian, try and keep up with current events.
That dog won't hunt here. No one wants us to go the way of
Canada, which you oppose, and no one wants us to go the way of
Jesusland, which I presuppose you enthusiastically
endorse.
We're already going the way of Canada. We are being ruled by 6 or 7
tyrants on the Supreme court. Only Scalia and Thomas seem to be on
the side of freedom. Sometimes Renquest. But the majority of the
court now thinks the USA constitution is moot. They think
consulting global concerns is more important.
As for JesusLand. Yes, the last true defenders of historic Western
Civilization. No Christianity, no West. No West, no freedom, no
human rights, no America
|3.14.05 @ 9:30PM|#
Yes, the last true defenders of historic Western
Civilization. No Christianity, no West. No West, no freedom, no
human rights, no America
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine would have
disagreed vehemently with you. Washington, too, probably.
|3.14.05 @ 9:30PM|#
How is it a "special right" to get
married?
Because there's no historical basis for it in our civilization and
culture.
|3.14.05 @ 9:32PM|#
Ah, fuck it. BillyRay's gone from "Gay marriage will force me to hang out with gays," to "gay marriage will legalize the molestation of children," to "gay marriage will make it impossible for Christians to be Christian." We may as well go to the Klan website and ask them why they hate non-whites, for all the rationality we'll get from this discussion.
|3.14.05 @ 9:35PM|#
And the latest post: people only deserve rights if they've had
them in the past. Therefore, there must be no progress; any
injustice which has ALWAYS been the case must therefore ALWAYS be
the case. A hundred years ago, he'd be making the same arguments
for why women shouldn't have the right to vote--because there's no
historical basis for it in our civilization and our culture.
Like I said before, "It's ALWAYS been that way" is the excuse used
by those who have no legitimate one.
|3.14.05 @ 9:38PM|#
BillyRay: "As for JesusLand. Yes, the last true defenders of
historic Western Civilization. No Christianity, no West. No West,
no freedom, no human rights, no America"
I think you've got that backwards - Christianity ended up
benefiting by having the good fortune to be associated with western
civilization (thanks to the Romans), which it then proceeded to
retarded by over 1000 years before people could throw off the yolk
of "tradition" and actually make some scientific and technological
progress. The best than can be said of Christianity seems to be
that at some point it decided to quietly step out of the way of
that progress (for the most part - don't get me started on
Creationists) unlike Islam which is still fighting a losing battle
with the modern world.
Ayn_Randian|3.14.05 @ 9:39PM|#
You see, BillyRay, you are a sophist in the true sense of the word. Your attacks on homosexuality are ever shapeshifting, without some kind of significant anchor, known as a philosophy, to tie them together. Certainly, BillyRay, you must agree that giving the government the power to ban arrangements you don't like means that one day that I can do the same thing, with enough power and money? Is special-interests warfare really what we want in our society?
|3.14.05 @ 9:58PM|#
Courts, you've really got it backwards. It was Christianity that
said each individual has a soul and infinite worth.
How
Christianity Created Capitalism
|3.14.05 @ 10:04PM|#
Randian writes: "shapeshifting, without some kind of significant
anchor, known as a philosophy, to tie them together."
Nonsense Randian. I'm trying to engage 5 or 6 people at the same
time. Reasonaniacs are big supporters of sodomite marriage.
Responding to different questions in rapid fire can be
confusing.
|3.14.05 @ 10:10PM|#
"Reasonaniacs are big supporters of sodomite marriage."
Hey, I like that reasoniacs - has a ring to it. But I'd say most of
us are supporters of letting consenting adults do what they want,
without any label needed.
|3.14.05 @ 10:17PM|#
No sooner had I read the initial post did I say, "I bet that
swine BillyRay is going to be ranting about the insidious 'Gay
Agenda' and how it threatens to destroy us all."
Looks like it was a sure thing.
He's not going to answer your question, Jennifer. He's going to
sling apocryphal anecdotes of how good, virtuous, white, Christian,
conservatives have been "oppressed" by imaginary "PC police" and
how horrible it is to expect civilized people to accept others just
because they don't choose the same type of sex partners as he does.
He'll use slippery slope arguments about how gay marriage is just
one step away from pedophilia and sadism, condemning law-abiding
gays and lesbians by association. He'll play the libertarian by
hiding behind freedom of speech and association, and use them to
excuse discrimination, official and unofficial.
He won't answer your question because he will have to admit that,
in the grand scheme of things, gay marriage or societal acceptance
of homosexuality in total will not harm him, save his backward
notions. He has no rational arguments to offer, just hate. The
fucking coward doesn't even have to guts to come out and admit his
bigotry. He bobs, weaves, and dances around the question. Do us all
a favor and just admit to us all, here and now, that you hate
"fags."
I have one piece of advice to offer: Ignore him! BillyRay doesn't
deserve to be considered human. He lost that privilege thanks to
the stupid prejudice that he mindlessly mistakes for morality. He's
a pile of shit that somehow learned to walk upright and use a
keyboard. From this moment on, he doesn't exist in my
universe.
And this is not an "ad hominem" attack. I'm simply stating
facts.
|3.14.05 @ 10:22PM|#
"Courts, you've really got it backwards. It was Christianity
that said each individual has a soul and infinite worth."
Maybe it was, but giving credit for the progress of western
civilization to Christianity is like giving credit for the amazing
productivity of the US economy to the government. Sure, if by
credit you mean it's less of a burden on progress than the
alternatives, but as a cause of that progress, please! Far from
it.
|3.14.05 @ 10:24PM|#
sodomite marriage
Charming. Because the defining characteristic of being gay (I'm
sorry: "participating in homosexual behavior") is a disgusting
sexual act, not, say, LOVE or anything like that...
|3.14.05 @ 10:25PM|#
Courts, whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors certainly isn't any of my business or the states. I just have problems when the state like it did in the 1964 civil rights act starts creating special protected rights.
|3.14.05 @ 10:33PM|#
come on Courts, didn't you take any Western Civ at the
university level. It was the Church that started to put limits on
Kings which enabled freer cross border commerce. Then the Magna
Carta, the first document which established a contract of order
recognizing the rights of men.
Where do you Randian Reasonaniacs think all this stuff came
from???
|3.14.05 @ 10:43PM|#
"It was the Church that started to put limits on Kings which
enabled freer cross border commerce."
Oh really? When was that? Even if that were true it would only be
one tyranny replacing another and being a little less tyrannical -
but that isn't what happened. Christianity had to be dragged
kicking and screaming into the modern world and eventually gave up
the fight (again, for the most part). Just ask Galileo how open it
was to scientific advances. Any lessening of the Church's power to
hold society back was probably due more to the protestant
reformation and ultimate break by the Church of England which meant
there was no longer one centralized source of religious
repression.
|3.14.05 @ 11:56PM|#
You know, I actually think that a change as significant as this
should come from the people or the legislature unless the
Constitutional wording is explicit. So, technically, I don't like
this ruling.
And now I have to ask myself a question: Out of all of the bad
rulings issued every year, including the ones that uphold campaign
finance laws and gun control laws and using the Interstate Commerce
Clause as a blank check, which rulings should I oppose the most
adamantly? And the answer always comes back that I should
prioritize and save my wrath for the bad rulings that are most
inimical to individual rights.
So, in summary, I probably wouldn't have ruled that way, but I
prioritize anger based on outcomes (just like everybody else,
including those who insist otherwise), and this one just doesn't
register on the wrath-o-meter.
|3.15.05 @ 12:47AM|#
Some idiot writes:acceptance of homosexuality in total
will not harm him, save his backward notions. He has no rational
arguments to offer, just hate
It'll harm society and civilization. The standard libertarian
argument that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone so what's the big
deal. BS. Homosexual marriage has no history or tradition, while
polygamy is commonplace throughout all history. So the basic
libertarian argument that it hurts no one can be taken much
further. If we grant legal marriage rights to 2 men, why not 2 men
and 4 women. I mean, it doesn't hurt anyone.
The last refuge of the gay marriage advocate is equal rights. But
marriage isn't an individual right. If so, again why limit it to
unions of 2 people???. Why not 3, 4, 5, or 6 people?? Hell, Why
limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of
various ages, sexes and species? It doesn't hurt anyone!
|3.15.05 @ 1:16AM|#
Caveat: I'm one who would privatize all marriage and
marriage-like contracts.
Given that, I've often found the most clever "anti-gay-marriage"
argument to be this:
Gay men have the same right as straight men to marry a woman, and
lesbians have the same right as straight women to marry a man. A
straight guy can't marry a man, nor a straight gal marry a woman,
either. So what's the constitutional issue again? :)
Yeah, that's sophistry, but it just points out that casting
gay-to-gay marrriage as an equal protection issue isn't as obvious
as some think.
BTW, BillyRay has his judicial theory a bit out of order. First the
judges should examine the text, and only delve into intent and
legislative history should the black-letter be unclear.
(IANAL)
Kevin
|3.15.05 @ 1:54AM|#
People:
Ignore that guy (you know who I'm talking about). He's just setting
you up; the more you respond, the more he tweaks you. Just carry on
with each other like he's not even here.
|3.15.05 @ 2:03AM|#
I'll get angry about gay marriage the day I figure out how it hurts me, or at least how it could hurt me.
Ayn_Randian|3.15.05 @ 2:32AM|#
If so, again why limit it to unions of 2 people???. Why
not 3, 4, 5, or 6 people??
BillyRay, you're making our argument for us. Answer your own
question: why not?
However, you can view why I am opposed to gay, straight and any
other government sanctioned marriage at my site. (Click on the
name).
|3.15.05 @ 2:51AM|#
Yeah, Jim is right, I think he just like yanking everyone's chain and getting a reaction :-) But you have to admit, it makes it a lot more interesting. I mean look at the number of posts!
|3.15.05 @ 3:06AM|#
Aw, he's just looking out for his cornhole. I don't see exactly
how it's threatened by gay marriage, but I see that he thinks it
is.
I don't know if homophobia usually stems from paranoia and
projection of one's own repressed impulses </Freud>, or if
it's evolutionary psych </Enlightened Caveman>. I suspect
that gays are seen as a threat to the human race in the same way
that, ISTM, fat people are subconsciously resented for hoarding
scarce food resources, even though that no longer applies. "Gays
don't reproduce and thus aren't pulling their evolutionary weight,"
even though in fact these days, many gays do have children. I think
this no-offspring resentment especially applies to lesbians. ("What
she needs is a good hard...")
Also, I think in homosexuality, the differences between the sexes, and their mating behaviors, are distilled and amplified. The men often want only frequent, promiscuous, and loveless sex, while the women just want to hug and talk and massage (pardon my generalization; just for illustration). It raises uncomfortable truths about how different men and women are, and thus about the nature and validity of male-female relationships. I suspect that men, regardless of whether they admit it to themselves, others, or no one, often feel as threatened by the insatiable-seeming male libido as women are. Straight men think women, not they, should be burdened with the attention, whereas women both gay and straight appreciate gay men for the lack of sexual pressure put on them. And no, I don't know or have any pet theories why homosexuality occurs -- maybe overpopulation?
(Or maybe I've just been overextrapolating from and anthropomorphizing duck rape. My parents have some ducks in their pool; it's true that the mallards aren't very nice or subtle.)
|3.15.05 @ 3:11AM|#
PS. Please excuse the dissertation; just beerily musing on how these 'tudes might have come to be.
Ampersand|3.15.05 @ 4:31AM|#
None of this has anything to do with gay marriage, however. The Thirteenth Amendment was about slavery, the Fourteenth about invidious racial discrimination. It is doubtful that a single Congressman, Senator or state legislator voting for our against the Fourteenth Amendment (or any of the state provisions patterned after it, including California's) ever contemplated that gay marriage, gay rights, or gay anything else would be affected by the Fourteenth Amendment one way or the other.
I think your logic is dubious. I'm sure they never contemplated gay
marriage, but that doesn't mean that the principle they wrote
doesn't apply to gay marriage. The writers of the first amendment
never contemplated the internet; should we therefore conclude that
if a judge says bloggers have free speech rights, that's judicial
activism?
Here's the relevant bit of Article I, section 7 of the California
Constitution: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of
the laws."
No, they weren't thinking of same-sex marriage. But they weren't
idiots, either. They certainly knew that I(7) could be applied to
matters other than the current issues of their day - including
issues they hadn't thought of.
Knowing this, they could have written their constitution so that
equal protection applied only to race. But they didn't, because
they didn't want to write narrow laws; they wanted to write broad
general principles of justice, principles that would be useful not
only for their issues but for issues faced by future
generations.
When you claim that California's I(7) is only about race, you're
projecting your personal preference onto the folks who wrote the
constitution, and ignoring what they actually wrote. They
deliberately wrote a broad general principle, not a narrow law
about race; and respecting their intentions forbids us from
pretending that the general principles they wrote apply only to
race.
|3.15.05 @ 9:26AM|#
Ayn_Randian said:
"it is apt to say that racism was a societal norm in 1865, but we
passed the 14th Amendment anyway."
Isn't this really the core of the argument - ignoring the "I love
my gay boyfriend/I hate gays" stuff - the fact that changing the
law at the time of the 14th was the result of the more rigorous
democratic process of passing a Constitutional amendment, as
opposed to the current criticisms of "activist judges changing laws
based on their political whims"? It seems to me that this issue has
more in common with the issues involved in the recent ruling
concerning the death penalty for minors than one's like/dislike of
the so-called "gay lifestyle".
Also (and less importantly) if the 14th amendment was passed, given
the extensive democratic process that amending the constitution is,
can we really say that "racism was the societal norm"? Of course, I
realize that it would be foolish to argue racism wasn't a huge part
of mid-19th century life, but arguing that it was the "norm" in the
face of the democratic process that passed the amendment is sort of
like saying "Kerry was the presidential choice of most Americans in
the '04 election."
|3.15.05 @ 10:02AM|#
"A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws."
No, they weren't thinking of same-sex marriage. But they
weren't idiots, either. They certainly knew that I(7) could be
applied to matters other than the current issues of their day -
including issues they hadn't thought of.
Marriage isn't an individual right
|3.15.05 @ 10:11AM|#
BillyRay,
We've been through this before. An argument from tradition or
history by itself does not justify to continuation of that
tradition or historical trend.
Next it'll be multi-married partners. If the judge ruled that
the state discriminates according to "suspect classes" then why
should those wanting 8 wives be treated any differently?
This is sickening! Disgusting!
It must have really pissed you off when you read about Lot screwing
his own daughters then. An incident your God apparently approved
of. That's right, your God approves of incest in certain
situations. Of course the Judeo-Christian tradition historically
had no problem with men having numerous wives and even concubines -
just look at the life of Solomon.
The Illinois study said that 2 percent of the population is
responsible for 34 percent of sexual abuse which means they're way
more likely to commit abuse.
These figures lead to some interesting conclusions according to a
friend:
F = # of acts of sexual abuse committed by fathers.
M = # of acts of sexual abuse committed by mothers.
H = # of acts of sexual abuse that are homosexual = .0.14 F + 0.69
M
T = total number of acts of sexual abuse = M + F
h = fraction of acts of abuse that are homosexual = 0.34 = H/T =
(0.14 F + 0.69M)/(M + F)
=> F = 1.75 M
So men commit 75% more total acts of sexual abuse against the
foster kids than women, but what about the homosexual acts of
abuse?
f = fraction of acts of sexual abuse that are homosexual in nature
and committed by fathers = 0.14 F / h
= (0.14 x 1.75 M)/(0.14 x 1.75 M + 0.69 M)
= 0.245 M / 0.935 M
= 0.26
m = fraction of acts of sexual abuse that are homosexual in nature
and committed by mothers = 1 - f = 0.74
=> Mothers commit 2.84 times as many homosexual acts of abuse
(0.74/0.26) as fathers.
In other words either there are a huge number of abusive lesbian
foster mothers, or the figures quoted in the article are
wrong.
True Ron, polygamy is older than dirt. And throughout history
its been tolerated by many different cultures. But with the
exception of Mormans in Utah, its been dead in Western Civilization
for centuries.
Yet, given your line of reasoning re: tradition, that should have
never happened. The problem for you is that you are a hypocrite.
There are certain traditions you want to follow and certain
traditions you do not wish to follow, yet you give us no reason
aside from tradition to accept your rationale for following the
traditions that you like.
Simple Jennifer, I won't be able to discriminate against them
anymore. Either will religious groups etc etc. As soon as gays
achieve their goal which is to use the government to force social
acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of the public, my right
of freedom of association will be diminished.
That's an entirely seperate issue of course. I support your right
to be a bigot. I don't support your efforts to etch your bigotry
into law.
Right now gays can enter into any contract they
want.
No they can't. A gay couple cannot enter into a contract guarantee
either the right to sue for loss of consortium. That right is ONLY
derived from statute. There are innumerable other similar rights
one cannot contract for except through state sanctioned marraige.
Now, I've told you this many times in the past, and you've chosen
to ignore this fact; one can only presume that you are too dense to
understand this concept or you are too prideful to admit when you
are clearly wrong.
I know it doesn't mean that the state of Ohio now forbids the
private sector from providing health benefits to gay couples if
they choose to do so.
Actually, you don't know that because the law has yet to be
interpreted by the courts. And you can bet that such practices will
be challenged by Christians wanting to force employers from
granting such.
Besides not being able to file a joint tax return, I just don't
see what rights they're left out off.
Right to sue for loss of consortium is one of the rights denied
anyone lacking a state sanctioned marraige.
No Christianity, no West.
The West existed prior to Christianity of course; that's why folks
are always referring to Greco-Roman civilization.
No West, no freedom, no human rights, no America.
That's a rather dubious claim (especially from someone like
yourself who claims at the same time that the concept of human
liberty transcends cultures). Concepts like freedom, human rights,
etc. existed prior to the rise of Christianity in both the West and
other places after all. Indeed, the first laws to forbid torture
and the like came out of India.
It was Christianity that said each individual has a
soul...
That concept too is neither unique to Christianity, nor was
Christianity the first to ever come upon it.
...and infinite worth.
Read your Bible. Human beings clearly do not have "infinite worth"
in that text. If they did have "infinite worth" one wonders why
they are lost and headed for hell without the grace of Christ?
Clearly you are completely ignorant of the Old and New Testament's
teachings re: the worth of humans either individually or
collectively.
As far as Christianity creating capitalism, one wonders if that's
the case why capitalism has existed in non-Christian
cultures.
It was the Church that started to put limits on Kings which
enabled freer cross border commerce.
Which of course explains why it was the countries with the state
churches that were most seperate from Rome and most dominated by
the state that developed the fastest since the Reformation. Britain
with its own state church, the Netherlands with its toleration of
religious diversity, France with its nationalist Catholic Church
that was generally at logger heads with Rome, etc., all developed
far faster than Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. Indeed, you'll also
note that even in Italy, the city-states with the most distance
from Church power were the fastest to develop in the Renaissance;
once the Church re-asserted itself, that development collapsed.
Furthermore, those areas of Europe that flourished in the 13th
century Renaissance, also were those most distant from the control
of the Church. So your claim does not hold up to the test of the
historical record.
Then the Magna Carta, the first document which established a
contract of order recognizing the rights of men.
The concept of inalienable rights and liberties was first
articulated by the ancient Greek philosophers. Such concepts were
often part of city legal codes in the ancient world. Care to spout
some more falsities Billyray?
Homosexual marriage has no history or tradition, while polygamy
is commonplace throughout all history.
That doesn't explain where the harm occurs. Indeed, you still have
yet to address that point. Mere loss of tradition can't justify
your argument.
|3.15.05 @ 10:13AM|#
BillyRay,
Marriage isn't an individual right.
It is if we say that it is. Or are you now suggesting - for example
- that because the right to peaceably assemble involves more than
one person, that it no longer is an individual right?
|3.15.05 @ 10:15AM|#
Given what goes on and is approved by "God" in the Bible, the notion of Christians or Jews lecturing anyone on sexuality morality is a bit of a farce.
|3.15.05 @ 10:16AM|#
Anyway, I am sure BillyRay will argue back that its all about tradition, blah blah blah. The problem is that BillyRay is a hypocrite as some traditions he honors and others he clearly doesn't.
Jimmie|3.15.05 @ 10:23AM|#
I'm still trying to figure out where the discrimination was in this case.
|3.15.05 @ 10:42AM|#
BillyRay,
BTW, polygamy is not a sin in Christianity: 1 Timothy 3:12
Christians abstain from polygamy not because it is a sin but
because of cultural issues.
|3.15.05 @ 10:44AM|#
BillyRay,
Also, in certain circumstances, it is the duty of a Christian to
have a polygamous marraige; namely when a women is left widowed and
without children, it is the duty of the deceased husband's brothers
to marry her: Deuteronomy 25:5-6; Ruth 4:10; Matthew 22:24; Mark
12:19; Luke 20:28
|3.15.05 @ 10:46AM|#
Well Well Well, Grunnels shows up with his usual nonsense.
Ahhhh Grunnels, out of Utah, I don't believe polygamy has been a
tradition in the western world for centuries. In order for Utah to
become a state, it had to do away it.
Poor old Grunnels.
Steven Horwitz|3.15.05 @ 10:47AM|#
Marriage IS a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
And as a correction to Julian's early comment, that protection goes
back to 1923 in Meyer v. Nebraska where McReynolds listed it in
a group of unenumerated rights that the Constitution protected as
part of the 14th amendment "due process" language. (I'd prefer it
were captured by the 9th amendement, a la Barnett, but so be it.)
McReynolds reinforced that argument two years later in Pierce v.
Society of Sisters.
For those who believe the constitution protects property and
contract rights but not the right to marry, you're gonna have to do
some fancy dancing to show why one unenumerated right exists and
another doesn't. You'll also have to go against the Lochner-era
court which, correctly, saw that the two types of rights were
intertwined and consistently found Constitutional protection for
both. It was the New Deal court that overturned this "unenumerated
rights" jurisprudence.
The best book on this issue is Evan Gerstmann's *Same Sex Marriage
and the Constitution* from 2004. There is simply NO doubt that the
right to marry is a constitutionally protected right.
Whether some Supreme Court will read other constitutional
provisions as see that right as including same-sex couples is
another question. My own view is that you can (and should) do it
pretty easily, and civilization will not collapse as a
result.
|3.15.05 @ 10:52AM|#
BillyRay,
Your main line of attack is to play word games with my name. I'm
not impressed.
You avoided the vast majority of my comments (like the
yellow-bellied coward that you are of course).
And you stupidly reinforce my point about tradition of course.
Traditions come and go.
|3.15.05 @ 10:54AM|#
BillyRay,
You're an ignorant blowhard, and you should be treated as such
until you can justify your position on something other than
tradition qua tradition.
|3.15.05 @ 10:56AM|#
Okay Horowitz, if it's a constitutional right, then why limit it
to 2 adults. Why not 3, 4, 5, or 6 people?? Hell, why limit it to
adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various
ages, sexes and species? It doesn't hurt anyone!
Stevo, please rationalize?
|3.15.05 @ 10:58AM|#
That's you Grunnels. You're the biggest name caller on this forum. You throw hissy fits everytime you lose.
|3.15.05 @ 11:01AM|#
BillyRay,
You avoid the arguments of others when you are losing. Which you
have clearly done with my arguments. You are a coward.
|3.15.05 @ 11:04AM|#
BillyRay,
Indeed, what this reminds me of are your erroneous claims re:
fugitive slave laws in the Northern states. You're always making
false historical claims and the like and then avoiding the truth of
the matter when you are proven wrong.
Steven Horwitz|3.15.05 @ 11:06AM|#
Frankly, Billy Ray, you have the distinct aroma of troll all
over you, but I'll bite one time.
Limiting the right to marry to adult, competent, humans is easy -
marriage is a contract that requires consent. We already have laws
the recognize age, competency and/or humanity as the basis for
consent. You really need to do better than that.
As for multiple partner marriages... in principle, it could be the
case that limiting marriage to two people is problematic. I don't
oppose polygamy myself. Constitutionally, my guess is that you can
make an argument that marriage is about the right to marry *any one
person* you love. Gays and lesbians are the only groups excluded
from exercising this right.
The difference, to me, is that marriage understood as a union of
two adult, competent, humans who love each other currently excludes
a group of adult, competent, humans from enjoying that right, and
does without any compelling rationale for that exclusion. If that's
what we mean by "the right to marry", then same-sex couples are the
only group excluded.
The question is whether changing "two" more seriously undermines
marriage than does changing the "who" in "two." SSM doesn't
undermine it at all, in my view, but polygamy might and the
argument for a compelling rationale for banning it is much more
plausible than for SSM.
|3.15.05 @ 11:09AM|#
if we wanted to be reductionist about it, we can sum this up
as:
"tradition tradition tradition" v. "fuck tradition tradition
tradition"
|3.15.05 @ 11:12AM|#
BillyRay,
Are you suggesting that Lot did not screw his own two daughters and
that neither of them were punished for these acts? Indeed, of the
fruit of these relationships had a distinguished role in the
history of Judism and Christianity (according to the Bible). If
that is your claim (and one can only think that it is given your
blanket statement regarding my statements) then you are clearly
either ignorant of the Bible which you hold so dear or a liar. In
either case, that ends the discussion as far as I am concerned.
Pick up your Bible and read it idiot.
|3.15.05 @ 11:20AM|#
Sorry Steve, but there's just zero historic tradition in western
culture for same sex marriage. Whereas there is a long tradition of
polygamy. In fact, I think in some very rural areas of Utah,
officials turn a blind eye towards it as long as those involved
aren't getting any government welfare.
So what you and gay activists are proposing is high jacking the
meaning of marriage. If you're going to do that, then I suggest you
jump on the Polygamy and Group Marriage bandwagon too.
|3.15.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Alls I can say is, if I catch the GAY because of this decision this "brownshirt judge" has a lot to answer for.
Steven Horwitz|3.15.05 @ 11:33AM|#
No, but there is *plenty* of "tradition" for the ongoing
evolution of our social understanding of marriage. Much as what we
mean by marriage has evolved as gender roles and economic
well-being has changed, so can marriage continue to evolve in
response to the social recognition of homosexuality.
Too many opponents of SSM, and so-called "tradition values" folks
in general, confuse the *function* of marriage with its *form* when
they start talking about these issues. Both the form and function
of marriage have evolved in the preceding centuries, sometimes one
changing in response to the other, and nothing BillyRay or anyone
else does is going to stop that dynamism. And changing the form by
allowing SSM need not change the function (and don't give me a
"procreation" response as that's hardly a major function of
marriage today). If marriage is about two people who love each
other deciding to make a joint life together, then SSM only changes
the form, not the function.
What's really ironic is that the most powerful force changing
marriage in the last 150 years is the wealth and opportunities
generated by capitalism. If, like me, you strongly support free
markets, your defense of "tradition" becomes problematic. Markets
are tradition smashers. The various changes marriages has undergone
in the last century are capitalism's doing far more than the
state's or some collapse of "moral values." There is no "tradition"
to defende with respect to marriage - it is an evolving social
institution like so many others.
|3.15.05 @ 11:43AM|#
A Priest in Canada is looking at violating the hate speech
laws because he gave a sermon denouncing homosexuality.
That's because Canada does not have an equivalent to our First
Amendment. You know that thing the Pointy Headed Judges have always
said didn't allow restrictions on speech like hate speech
laws.
It's hard for me to think of anything more "icky" than Nazis
marching thru predominantly jewish towns.
|3.15.05 @ 11:50AM|#
Sorry Steve, but you're just flying by the seat of your pants
now. There is no tradition for the ongoing evolution of our social
understanding of marriage. It's always been man and wife! Sure
women work outside the house now. Some men might be house dads, but
its always been one woman, one man.
As for free markets. Sure markets are tradition destroyers. The
term process of creative destruction coined by the great Austrian
school economist, Joseph Schumpeter . But
it seems that age old institution of one man and one woman, husband
and wife survived all these centuries even though the market was
destroying many traditions.
Again, if you're going to destroy an old tradition like marriage,
then you should have zero problems with Group Marriage or
Polygamy.
|3.15.05 @ 12:02PM|#
I read that Novak article BillyRay and was not impressed. If
there's one common theme in successful civilization, it's studying
the Greek and the Roman classics. When the Islamic Empire was at
it's apex, it's rise was largely due to studying the Greek
classics. Same with the Enlightenment and the Rennaisance. I think
the banking system developed in the East and Middle East did quite
a bit to help capitalism along. Without the trade and knowledge
gained from the cultures east of Europe, capitalism wouldn't have
rose out either.
Gary never said that Western culture had polygamy, he said it was
not alient to Judeo-Christian culture. Not the same thing.
Apparently, something you are quite morally opposed to is hunky
dory with your God. If you can contradict Gary on that point, I'd
be impressed.
I hate to break it to you BillyRay, but Greek and Roman thinkers
weren't Christian. They are who we have to thank for democracy,
tolerance and western thought.
|3.15.05 @ 12:08PM|#
democracy...tolerance...and SODOMY - could this be THE HIDDEN CONNECTION?!!?!?!!?!?
|3.15.05 @ 12:10PM|#
. But it seems that age old institution of one man and one
woman, husband and wife survived all these centuries even though
the market was destroying many traditions.
100 years ago, you could say the same thing about slavery. Just
because a tradition's made it this long in it's current form,
doesn't mean it's not going to last any longer.
There is no tradition for the ongoing evolution of our social
understanding of marriage.
BillyRay, let me tell you a story about a king of England. He
wanted a new wife, but didn't want to off his current wife. The RCC
didn't like the way he was going to do this, thus was born the
Church of England. Now half of the marriages end in divorce.
Changing an insitution from forever for both sides to ending 50% of
the time is a huge change. Same goes for no-fault divorce. Big
changes in the institution.
Oh, I know another big change. Moving away from polygamy. ;)
|3.15.05 @ 12:20PM|#
Mol, in ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part
of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right.
Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each
individual soul.
The Randian strain of libertarianism is dying. It's not as popular
on college campuses as it was 20-30yrs ago. I've got news for yall,
many libertarians are libertarians precisely because they wish to
protect traditional values and culture from the state.
|3.15.05 @ 12:26PM|#
Here comes the slavery comparison. Always know the Reasonaniacs
and Randroids have lost when they throw in the slavery
nonsense.
MO, how did the birth of the Anglican church change the meaning of
marriage.... one man, one woman.
|3.15.05 @ 12:27PM|#
BillyRay, if marriage was "always" one man and one woman, then how do you explain Biblical polygamists like Solomon and Abraham?
|3.15.05 @ 12:31PM|#
"Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of
each individual soul."
assuming, of course, that soul was christian, and belonged to a
non-heretical group, wasn't female, etc.
otherwise...off to the fires with ye!
|3.15.05 @ 12:31PM|#
Once you open up this can of worms, no telling where'll it
will go. Tradition Tradition Tradition
Ah, TRADITION, yes, how I miss the days when we could sit on the
porch and drink mint juleps while we watched the darkies working in
the fields.
|3.15.05 @ 12:33PM|#
Read the thread Jenny. I must have said half a dozen times that there is a tradition of polygamy in western culture. Outside of Utah, it hasn't been around for centuries. What there's never been is a tradition of gay marriage. No where in Western culture, or for that matter, in any culture.
|3.15.05 @ 12:38PM|#
but what about traditions which weren't traditions until
recently? (i.e. interfaith marriages, interrace marriages,
etc)
how can traditions become tradition if the weight of tradition is
going to be held against them?
traditionally speaking, that is.
|3.15.05 @ 12:44PM|#
interfaith marriages, interrace marriages.
Always been both. Read a little Sowell. Conquest and Cultures.
|3.15.05 @ 12:47PM|#
Billy, one hundred years ago your "lack of tradition" argument could just have easily been used to argue against women the vote. So, do you think female suffrage is a bad idea? If not, then why would you allow one break from tradition but not another?
|3.15.05 @ 12:57PM|#
Mol, in ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely
part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own
right.
Actually this is quite wrong. Free men did have rights in many
Greek city states. But I've written this before of course. For
example, Athenian democracy, whatever its many flaws, promoted
values such as respect for the individual. If the individual were
"unimportant," its strange that the individual (in this case being
free males) was accorded rights like due process and a trial (BTW,
anyone remotely familiar with Socrates' trial realizes that such
rights were accorded "individuals" in Athens). Really, you ought to
stop being such a poser.
Again, I'm still waiting for you refute with evidence anything I've
written. You can't of course and that's why you refuse to do
so.
|3.15.05 @ 1:01PM|#
BillyRay,
Its interesting you bring up Conquest and Cultures. Its a
book I am familiar with. I realized that it was full of shoddy
workmanship when Sowell quoted John Kelly Thornton's Africa and
Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1800.
Either Sowell didn't read the book or he's prone to fabrication
because his statements about the book's conclusions conflict with
what Thornton actually writes. I realized from that point that
Sowell was a hack, sort of like you.
|3.15.05 @ 1:03PM|#
I am sure BillyRay will counter with his earlier defense of Sowell: "Sowell doesn't care what you think." I have to admit I nearly laughed myself at that statement by BillyRay. :)
|3.15.05 @ 1:05PM|#
speaking of deep tradtionalism, there were several flavors of
amerindian shaman who would enter into same sex marriages.
they show up around the world in similar mechanisms as well.
|3.15.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Jenny, to this day millions of women still lack the vote? What's
that got to do with changing the historic definition of
marriage.
No matter how the Reasonanics, RandRoid libertarians, or gay
activists try and frame the issue, there is no historic precedent
for changing the basic definition of marriage. None, Zero,
Zilch.
I never read her book, but Virginia Postrel's "THE FUTURE AND ITS
ENEMIES".... stability or change.
Virginia would more than likely label me a stasists. But I would
reply, some change is good, others bad.
For the record, I've met Virginia and she's a very nice woman and
quite attractive.
|3.15.05 @ 1:06PM|#
I'd still like to know Billy's opinion concerning the longheld tradition of denying women the vote.
|3.15.05 @ 1:07PM|#
traditionally speaking, spanish christians found it helpful to kill such people when they met them, worried that such immoral behavior might lead to conquistadors marrying perros.
|3.15.05 @ 1:11PM|#
There is no tradition for the ongoing evolution of our
social understanding of marriage.
That's clearly not true. The nature of the relationship has changed
considerably over the past hundred years in the U.S. from the
standpoint of divorce, race, gender relations, property ownership,
etc.
It's always been man and wife!
While that may be true, that hardly takes up the length and breadth
of the term "social understanding"; yours is a fallacy of
underinclusive definition I am afraid.
But it seems that age old institution of one man and one woman,
husband and wife survived all these centuries even though the
market was destroying many traditions.
So did slavery until it was outlawed (and it had to be formally
outlawed in every place that it was practiced in the Americas - it
just didn't wither away over time).
...then you should have zero problems with Group Marriage or
Polygamy.
I have zero problems with either. How adults want to privately
order their affairs is their issue.
|3.15.05 @ 1:11PM|#
BillyRay, you have deliberately misunderstood my question. During the suffrage movement, many men used "tradition" as an excuse to keep women from voting. Do you agree they were right? If not, then why was it okay to break that tradition, but not others?
|3.15.05 @ 1:14PM|#
dhex,
BillyRay is a demagogue. He's never going to stick to a position,
he'll always dodge past a refuted point and clasp to another one
because he or she is either a (a) troll or (b) so committed to a
particular position that rational discourse and thought cannot
dissuade him or her from it.
|3.15.05 @ 1:15PM|#
In order for Utah to become a state, it had to do away
it.
And in the process the constitutional right of the Mormons to
practice their religion was trampled. Of course that's not quite as
bad as the attempts by authorities in several states to exterminate
them.
Mind you, don't expect 21st Century mainstream Mormons to fight to
reestablish one of the central tenets of their 19th Century faith.
It's as embarassing to most of them as it is to everyone else. Most
of the men secretly fantasize about bringing it back while the
women would rather you didn't bring it up.
Even so, as diligently as Utah and Arizona authorities pursue it,
it's pretty hard to get anyone exited about prosecuting "polygs"
unless you add in welfare fraud and/or child rape. The latter is
especially fashionable as it serves to paint the defendant as
uniquely depraved.
However, don't expect the Mormon's history as an oppressed minority
to move them to defend any gay right. They find sodomy as repugnant
as any other "true faith" does.
|3.15.05 @ 1:21PM|#
BillyRay,
It changed it from "one man, one woman until one of them
dies" to "one man, one woman till whenever, preferably
death." That's a pretty major change to the institution. You can't
pick and choose what is part of the"tradition of marriage" because
it changes all the time.
|3.15.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Poor old Grunnels. He tries hard I have to admit. Trying to lump divorce, interfaith, and race. But it still boils down to one woman and one man. Husband and Wife
|3.15.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Hey, Grunnels! No doubt you're devastated by BillyRay's clever use of rhyming names to refute your points, and I think you should start responding in kind. Which name would work best, do you think--"SillyRay" or "BillyGay?" I swear, I'm torn.
|3.15.05 @ 1:41PM|#
BillyRay
by Wesley Willis
You really whoop a llama's ass.
You can really get in the groove.
You are a bigot star.
You can really jam harder like a magicist.
BILLYRAY!!!
BILLYRAY!!!
BILLYRAY!!!
BILLYRAY!!!
You really whoop a llama's ass.
You can really rock your ass off.
You really whoop a llama's ass.
About 8300 people like BillyRay.
BILLYRAY!!!
BILLYRAY!!!
BILLYRAY!!!
BILLYRAY!!!
I like you well.
Right on brother.
You are my special bigot.
You are a bigot star.
Rock over London,
Rock on Chicago.
Blockbuster Video - Wow! What a difference!
|3.15.05 @ 1:46PM|#
BillyRay,
Trying to lump divorce, interfaith, and race.
In light of the term at hand, discussing them together makes
perfect sense. As usual though, you're attempting to dishonestly
infer that I mean something else.
But it still boils down to one woman and one man. Husband and
Wife.
Not if you are discussing the ongoing evolution of our social
understanding of marriage it isn't. Again, your argument
patehtically suffers from the fallacy of an underinclusive
definition.
Jennifer,
BillyRay's obfuscation, avoidance tactics, etc. merely seperate him
or her from reality and they certainly do disservice to his or her
cause. There's no reason for me to play with his or her name.
|3.15.05 @ 1:47PM|#
BillyRay at this point is in a corner stirring his own pathetic shit in the dust.
|3.15.05 @ 1:49PM|#
Well I'm going to eat lunch. The Reasonaniac RandRoids have
become unhinged. I will leave with this rather good read from the
great Otto Scott
Christianity and
Capitalism in History
Who is Otto Scott?
John Chamberlain, writing in The Freeman stated that, �From a
libertarian point of view, Otto Scott is America�s most exciting
contemporary historian and biographer.� The Wall Street Journal
said, �Otto Scott is the thinking man�s author for the
Bicentennial,�2 and Dr. Hans Sennholz, past president of the
Foundation for Economic Education says, �Without Otto Scott�s
Compass, this Foundation would be devoid of an important
philosophical guide.�
Otto
Scott
|3.15.05 @ 1:53PM|#
I wonder if General Gaius and BillyRay are one and the same person. It's always fun to guess who has multiple nicks.
|3.15.05 @ 2:03PM|#
Gary:
i understand billyray's position perfectly. i am enjoying his
company, if only because it helps me prepare me for mentally
torturing some of my in-laws from upstate new york.
his name is billy ray
he don't care for the gay
don't want to catch it
or watch it
or share a fillet.
one man one wife
or else you get strife
homos can't have no say
that's just the way
thanks, billyray!
|3.15.05 @ 2:07PM|#
BillyRay,
Here's one of the first lines of the essay:
The great exception to those bloody regimes, which conscripted
the labor of millions in order to erect such monumental works as
the Pyramids and huge temples (where the ruler's image sat among
the gods), was ancient Israel -- a small nation surrounded by
larger powers.
(a) Its not actually known whether the laborers who built the
Pyramids (and other such monumental works) were always slaves or
conscripted workers or not. We get the idea that they were all
slaves from Herodotus, but its fairly clear from the actual
historical record as left to us by the Egyptians that many of these
individuals were paid workers and indeed were neither conscripted
or enslaved. And of course there is no written (aside from the
Bible) evidence of Jewish slaves in Egypt nor any archaeological
evidence either. You'd think that if these people were wandering
about the Sinai for forty years they would have left some physical
evidence of their presence behind ... maybe a golden calf or two.
:) But none exists.
(b) The sentence also implies that Israel wasn't a "bloody regime"
- which couldn't be further from the truth of course. I suggest
that you actually read the so-called Old Testament (shit, just read
the Talmud for that matter), because it has become readily apparent
that you haven't. Ancient Israel's history was filled with slavery,
revolts against oppressive acts by Israeli kings, etc.
If the article starts out with these sorts of bald-faced falsities,
well, there's not much reason to continue with it, except for me to
fisk it some more. I must say that I am not impressed in the
least.
|3.15.05 @ 2:42PM|#
Well, after 165 posts I think it's safe to say that BillyRay still doesn't like gay marriage and most other people here do.
|3.15.05 @ 2:43PM|#
dude, you totally forgot that kerry would be worse.
NOW I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING ANYMORE
randy ayn|3.15.05 @ 2:53PM|#
I am pretty sure that until people understand that gender and
sex are not the same thing, there is no hope for any of us.
Billy Ray - would it make you happy if same-sex couples used the
term husband and wife? How do you feel with a cross-dresser who is
all man under those silkie drawers is married to a woman? Do two
living with fem gender roles still count as husband and wife?
|3.15.05 @ 3:16PM|#
randy ayn,
Remember, according to BillyRay, the term "marraige" has some
essential, immutable quality, so I am sure the terms husband and
wife do as well. :)
|3.15.05 @ 3:22PM|#
thoreau, no one here yet has been able to show any historic
precedent for gay marriage. Best they can come up with, who does it
hurt.
Steve Horwitz supports gay marriage but opposes Polygamy and Group
Marriage, even though there is historic precedent for Polygamy. As
Ron Unz a
man with fairly decent libertarian creditials writes "Consider the
implications. Since homosexual marriages are unprecedented, while
polygamy is commonplace throughout all history, it is morally
inconsistent for U.S. law to begin allowing the former without
legalizing the latter as well. And the basic libertarian argument
in favor of gay marriage, namely that no other individual is harmed
by allowing a man and a man to marry, can be taken much, much
farther as well.
For example, how can one then deny the right of two men and three
women to achieve personal fulfillment by entering into a legally
valid group marriage -- again, no other individual is directly
harmed. Either the official nature of marriage should be kept as
currently restricted, or it must be amended to the point where the
entire institution becomes almost unrecognizable."
I'm just amazed that the so called libertarians at Reason have
jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon. No wonder libertarians are
viewed as fringe kooks.
|3.15.05 @ 3:34PM|#
Rany ayn, but in Ontario Canada, the term husband and wife has been outlawed in order to accommodate sodomites.
|3.15.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Poor old Grunnels. He tries hard I have to admit. Trying to
lump divorce, interfaith, and race. But it still boils down to one
woman and one man. Husband and Wife
Except when it was one man seven women (or 4 for Muslims).
You haven't even given an argument against polygamy. It is you
argument in opposition to gay marriage that allows polygamy as a
logical extention. By stubbornly sticking to tradition as the
number 1 reason to oppose gay marriage, instead of arguing against
it on merits other than tradition, you allow people to say, "What
about polygamy, it's a tradition?" without a viable response. Our
point of view is 2 people of any mix, therefore 3 or 5 does not
necessarily follow.
|3.15.05 @ 3:45PM|#
You never did answer my question of how changing marriage from permanent to temporary is not a fundamental change. Combined with changing the maximum number of wives from what you can support to exactly 1, these two changes are as significant than changing the gender of one of the allowable participants.
|3.15.05 @ 3:47PM|#
what, the "berdache" (two-spirit) thing isn't good enough for
you? not old enough? not traditional enough?
i vote for amending to the point where the entire institution
becomes unrecognizable, myself.
|3.15.05 @ 3:49PM|#
thoreau, no one here yet has been able to show any historic
precedent for gay marriage. Best they can come up with, who does it
hurt.
There are lots of things that have no historical precedent but are
nonetheless OK with me. If you aren't hurting anybody else then it
really doesn't matter if you're the first person to do what you're
doing or the trillionth person.
|3.15.05 @ 4:03PM|#
I'm against polygamy too. Societies that still practice it do seem to have draconian laws against women. They're looked upon as nothing but breeding cattle. African and Arab countries where women are more or less second class citizens. Maybe some women like it like that.
|3.15.05 @ 4:07PM|#
I guess lots of people read this blog because someone e-mailed
me this:
The
Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
|3.15.05 @ 4:07PM|#
This is sickening! Disgusting!
From now the basis of all law is aesthetics. If it's icky it's
illegal. We all know what's icky, right? RIGHT???
|3.15.05 @ 4:20PM|#
[Women are] looked upon as nothing but breeding cattle.
African and Arab countries where women are more or less second
class citizens
But that's TRADITION, BillyRay. I thought you said tradition was
good? Except, apparently, for the age-old tradition of keeping
women subordinate. How exactly do you decide which traditions must
be kept and which can be discarded?
|3.15.05 @ 4:28PM|#
Jennifer, I think it's time to give up and accept that BillyRay will never change his mind about Lebanonism.
|3.15.05 @ 4:37PM|#
Jennifer,
BillyRay has no means to differentiate between tradition except his
own personal whims.
From BillyRay's most recent link:
...because state recognition of marriage is not a universal
right.
Well, hell, neither was voting at one time either. Indeed, voting
still remains a right not afforded to those under the age of
eighteen, felons, etc. However, I don't see how these limitations
should be allowed to justify barring individuals from voting on who
they happen to screw.
I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily
regulated, and for good reason.
And that, to be frank, is the crux of the problem.
In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy.
There is no "In a sense" about it of course; it is a subsidy (that
the non-married are forced to pay for in one way or another).
Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is
likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of
society is a compelling state interest.
So, when homosexuals are just as likely to have children as
heterosexuals (and given advances in bio-technology, that period is
not far off I suspect), one could justify a similar subsidy for
homosexual couples?
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the
enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its
fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.
Is the author gaius marius? And we just can't individuals making
these sorts of choices for themselves, can we? We gotta have the
nanny-state involved. :)
If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of
marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital
chaos.
CHAOS! CHAOS! CHAOS! :)
Steve Horwitz|3.15.05 @ 4:56PM|#
I think I found Billy Ray's problem. He can't read.
I said in an earlier comment: "I don't oppose polygamy myself." I
also articulated how one could distinguish polygamy from gay
marriage, even though both might be consensual.
Billy Ray wrote: "Steve Horwitz supports gay marriage but opposes
Polygamy and Group Marriage, even though there is historic
precedent for Polygamy."
Illiteracy is a bad thing Billy Ray. Learn to read and people might
take you seriously.
|3.15.05 @ 5:08PM|#
Steve Horwitz,
Its more likely a problem with reading comprehension; or maybe he
or she is merely being purposefully obtuse.
|3.15.05 @ 5:11PM|#
Horwitz, you didn't write this:The question is whether
changing "two" more seriously undermines marriage than does
changing the "who" in "two." SSM doesn't undermine it at all, in my
view, but polygamy might and the argument for a compelling
rationale for banning it is much more plausible than for
SSM.
Sorta looks you're trying to make the case for banning polygamy.
Maybe if you remembered what you wrote, I might take you a bit more
seriously
|3.15.05 @ 5:24PM|#
On second thought Horwitz, after the way you slandered Thomas Woods, I really don't think you deserve to be taken seriously!
|3.15.05 @ 6:00PM|#
Here's what Horwitz stated:
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2005_01_01_isthatlegal_archive.html#110712976174765660
BillyRay,
The author in the post you link to states that Horwitz's statements
were libelous. You do understand that libel and slander are two
different things, right? And that slander is spoken? :) Man, you're
a twit.
Of course the author of the link in question doesn't actually
explain why the statement is libelous, he just labels it as such
and expects us to agree as if it were a given.
|3.15.05 @ 6:03PM|#
Funniest comments thread ever. BillyRay, you're the best troll
I've read in a long, long time. This takes me back to the days of
arguing on Usenet. It has all the same 'troll vs. regulars' action
I knew and loved.
(In case you were wondering, BR, being caught up in the moment and
all: Someone reading this whole thread from beginning to end in one
sitting comes away with the impression that you're an asshole. No:
an *ignorant* asshole. Why don't you go back and answer all the
questions you've been asked, ad dodged? Why don't you address the
as-yet-untouched counterpoints so many people have made? Oh yeah...
'ignorant asshole'. Keep up the good work!)
|3.15.05 @ 6:05PM|#
BillyRay,
You've claimed to be black, right?
Notice this line from the organization Wood's proudly boasts to
have been a founding member of, that is, The League of the
South:
The League seeks to protect the historic Anglo-Celtic core
culture of the South because the Scots, Irish, Welsh, and English
have given Dixie its unique institutions and civilisation. Should
the Christian, Anglo-Celtic core be displaced, then the South would
cease to be recognisable to us and our progeny. We must maintain
this all-important link to our European heritage from which we have
drawn our inspiration. Anglo-Celtic Southerners and their
European cousins have a duty to protect that which our ancestors
bequeathed us. If we will not promote our own interests,
no one will do it for us.
A DUTY? I am a white Southerner. From whence does this duty arise?
Some boorish, anti-scientific notion of "racial pride?"
|3.15.05 @ 6:21PM|#
And isildur, I've come to the conclusion after reading just 2 of your posts that you're a flaming wimp.
|3.15.05 @ 6:23PM|#
Nope Grunnels, never claimed to be black and what's wrong with defending historic culture. I'm sure you or Prof Horwitz have no problems with Jews defending their historical culture in Israel.
|3.15.05 @ 6:37PM|#
Wimp! That's good, that's good. I like the non sequitur. Wait,
how's this:
Reading your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you like it in
the butt.
... Is that a good non sequitur? I can't tell, and you're the
master, so I want your approval.
|3.15.05 @ 6:42PM|#
BillyRay,
Actually, as I recall, you have claimed to be black in the past.
Now you're just lying.
Of course you are also the moron that claimed that the Northern
states did not nothing to protect fugitive slaves in the run-up to
the Civil War. I spanked your ass royally on that issue and you
have shut up about it ever since then. :)
...and what's wrong with defending historic culture.
Well, (a) they claim that I (as a white southerner) have a duty to
preserve their racial-cultural paradigm, (b) its hardly exclusively
about culture, and (c) the notion that "Southern" culture has been
only European or Anglo-Celtic in influence is just flat out dumb -
black Africans have been a major force in Southern culture since at
least the 18th century, and that influence has only grown over the
years.
|3.15.05 @ 6:54PM|#
Of course, in part, I guess its the influence of black Americans on Southern culture that really has got them riled up. :)
|3.15.05 @ 6:57PM|#
BTW, once one starts talking about "duties," well, you're not long from positive law on the subject.
|3.15.05 @ 7:06PM|#
Wimp! That's good, that's good. I like the non sequitur. Wait,
how's this:
Hey, it's better than troll kid.
And if you take it up ass, that's your business. The rest of
society doesn't need to hear about it.
|3.15.05 @ 7:09PM|#
I'm sorry, does being called a troll hurt your feelings? I
didn't mean to hurt your feelings. It's pretty tough, to be out in
the big bad internet where people think you're a moron, isn't
it?
It's ok. One day you'll grow up and people won't make fun of you
anymore. You'll learn to stop using words like 'lol', and you'll
learn to spell and punctuate and even read long passages of
text.
Then you can be a grown-up on the internet too!
|3.15.05 @ 7:10PM|#
BillyRay,
Freedom of speech. Get used to it.
Oh wait, weren't you the asshole arguing earlier that gay people
would impinge the speech and assembly rights of bigots like
yourself? The only one so far who has advocate such a curtailment
is you of course. You just did it and you've done it before when
you bitching about gay people excercising their rights to speech,
etc. (remember you earlier hinted that their speech should be
curtailed?).
|3.15.05 @ 7:12PM|#
isuldur,
After his many spankings here, I'm surprised he comes back here. He
must like getting fisked over and over again.
Steve Horwitz|3.15.05 @ 7:21PM|#
Well I see Billy Ray hangs out around the Mises Institute.
There's a shock. And it explains a lot.
As far as "defending the culture" goes... I'm a libertarian. I
think individual rights should be respected at all levels of
government. The state of Israel should be held the same standards
of respecting rights as any other state. The fact that it is
largely Jewish is irrelevant. Same goes for the South, y'all.
When I see defenses of "Southern culture," I know it's time to run.
Far. Very far away.
|3.15.05 @ 7:42PM|#
In other words Steve, you think all those displaced Palestenians living in refugee camps have a right of return? In other words, you don't have any problems with Jews becoming a mintority in Israel?
|3.15.05 @ 7:47PM|#
Poor little isildur. Hey kid, when people on internet forums start talking about spelling and punctuation, they've lost the fucking debate. That's a sure sign of a loser.
|3.15.05 @ 8:02PM|#
I've found that when people on internet forums use the word
'lol', it's a sure sign they have nothing useful to
contribute.
But ok, if you actually think that EVERY SINGLE POSTER who's posted
to this thread calling you a moron and a dumbass and eventually
giving up on having anything resembling a 'debate' with you is a
victory, then...
I guess, savor it. It must be one of the few victories someone with
a mind as small as yours ever sees in life, and I wouldn't deny you
that for the world.
|3.15.05 @ 8:05PM|#
you guys can't see this, but i'm playing "rock you like a
hurricane" and wiping a tear from my cheek.
this whole thing is classic, evocative of a simpler, USENET-y
time.
|3.15.05 @ 8:12PM|#
It's great, isn't it? God, it reminds me of flaming spammers on
news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Those were the days.
Steve Horwitz|3.15.05 @ 8:20PM|#
Right Billy Ray. I believe in open borders no matter what country we're talking about. I'm also interested in making more opportunities for Palestinians to improve their lives by moving somewhere else. I am a libertarian, after all. What exactly are you?
|3.15.05 @ 8:44PM|#
Okay. So when Jews are a minority and the Arabs elect leaders
that pass laws that restrict everything Jews do, Steve is going to
say what? Or even before they pass new laws, the new majority goes
on a mass killing spree now that they've got the numbers.
Come on Steve. Open borders is College level libertarianism. No
people or culture has a right to defend itself from a hostile
culture. Absurd. Get in the real world.
Steve Horwitz|3.15.05 @ 9:04PM|#
Steve is going to stop feeding the troll, that's what Steve's going to do. I'm tired of answering your questions when you won't answer anyone else's.
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