A threat that rises to the level of flag burning

Bush just announced that he wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep gay people from getting married.

The greatest laugh line from his remarks:

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Comments

[nobody]

What about the threat that all these childless couples will then engage in the latest fad: adopting Chinese children? Presumably many of these kids will grow up un-gay, have Chinese-looking kids, and soon we'll be a nation of little yellow people! Yer damn right we need one of them ammendment things!

[Jon H]

It'd be funny if Edwards and Kerry support an amendment, and then Dean wins the rest of the primaries, even though he's not campaigning.

[JimBob]

Supreme court could impose gay marriage on the entire country. Look at Roe Wade. Nothing in the constitution about abortion yet it's now the law of the land. Court could just use the equal protection clause and bingo, gay marriage is the law of the land.

I don't see anything wrong with Bush doing this. The real problem is out of control judges and this notion of a living breathing contitution. IT'S A DEAD DOCUMENT!!!

[Gordon Shumway]

JimBob,

If it's a dead document, then why in the hell waste time trying for this type of amendment augmentation?

[JimBob]

It's a DEAD Document. The founders wanted to make it very difficult to be changed. The Amendment process.

The living breathing crowd, ie Sandra Day O'Connor who see's a compelling state interest in discriminating against whites and asians in favor of blacks and hispanics.

Judges are out of control and for the most part we are living in a judicial dictatorship.

[Gordon Shumway]

JimBob,

That's great, but it's not what I asked. I didn't ask about judges, and I didn't ask about a living breathing crowd. I asked why a DEAD document needs any sort of augmentation. It's DEAD, isn't it? Either explain why you feel it's necessary to fiddle with a DEAD document, decide suddenly that it's not DEAD, or just walk away. But don't cum in my salad and try to tell me it's dressing.

[JimBob]

Got a brain? A dead constitution is the opposite of a living breathing one.

The living breathing crowd says the constitution has to change with the culture and the times.

Well NO it doesn't. It's a dead document. If it has to change we have an amendment process.

The liberal left and left looney libertarians like the people at Reason magazine are part of the living breathing crowd.

[rst]

JimBob has a point. America's Other Bible is just a piece of paper, and it has the amendment clause for that reason. The court does not make law...at the end of the day in cases where amendments come to pass, it is we in the vast majority who have the FINAL say. Of course, on a federal level, the sentiment is as meaningless as the notion that those 500+ silly fucks in the capitol truly represent us.

If homosexuals want to get married, they're likely going to have to convince us, not some court or justice. You don't have to like it, and personally it makes no difference to me, but that's the way it is.

[Gordon Shumway]

JimBob,

Got a brain? Not sure, I've never seen it if I do.

Once again, I didn't ask about a living breathing crowd (note, I'm still not). My question is, why do you need to change, alter, adjust, manipulate or in any way add to a DEAD document? You say, "if it has to change." Why would this change be necessary for a DEAD document? For the changing culture? For the changing times? Wouldn't this make it not DEAD, but living? Seems you are in the same crowd you speak of so lowly. I know I know, but an amendment process. I don't care about the method, I want to know why you want to fiddle with the DEAD.

[alma hadayn]

My personal favorite line:

"We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger."

As we proceed to enshrine your status as second-class citizens in the founding document of our nation, we'd appreciate if you'd refrain from expressing anger or bitterness.

This will go down as a real low point in American politics.

[dio the band]

i'm pro gay marriage, pro civil union, or pro legal incidents of marriage conferred upon three men and their pet gerbil if need be, but i think jimbob has a point about judicial activism and the havoc it wreaks by short-circuiting the natural progress of public debate. i haven't read the opinion by the massachusettes supreme court, but, from what i hear, it was based on "no separate but equal" - the idea that civil unions would be inadequate to satisfy the rigorous equal protection built into the mass state constitution because the only reason to call them "civil unions" rather than "marriage" would be to stigmatize the gays. well, that reasoning blows, and we have the mass sup ct to thank for this bullshit from bush. if i were a gay couple, "civil union" would suit me just fine, and, even if i lived somewhere that allowed "gay marriage," i'd be just as "stigmatized" by the word "gay" prefixing the word "marriage". cruel children would point and say, "look, jeb! them there's one of them 'gay' marriages! let's go anoint them with stones!" the mass sup ct set off the shitstorm from the religious right that led bush to back this amendment to define a fucking word in the fucking constitution. since when is the constitution a fucking dictionary? thanks to the mass sup ct, bush can plausibly make the argument that good, right-thinking folks have to define words before those ultra liberal lawyers do.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I know these arguments have been made before, but please allow me to drag them out again. Can someone out there tell me, in the name of baby Jesus, why do we need to fuck with the constitution to "protect" an institution that has a 50-60% failure rate? Also, how does the bonding of two consenting adults pose any harm whatsoever on anyone?

[JimBob]

Gordon, you're just playing word games.

[JimBob]

How is a marriage amendment going to stop the bonding of 2 consenting adults, Mr Nice Guy? What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business. If fact, if 6 consenting adults want to jump into bed together behind closed doors then it sure isn't any of my business either. Shoot, I'd like to jump into bed with 6 good looking women.

But the gay marriage argument falls apart with the above example. Why limit marriage to just 2 people. If Andrew Sullivan wants to marry 7 men to keep his life exciting, why on earth should he be discriminated against?

Lifestyle libertarians want to throw out thousands of years of tradition for very selfish reasons IMHO.

[trainwreck]

Here's the basic premise our president stated:

"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

gays are un-natural? what an effing bigot!

What percentage of the population is homosexual? Much less than 10%, maybe less than 5%? and what percentage of gays would like to be married? Half, or maybe less than half?

The only consequences of gay marriage on society are in the minds of those who express bigotry against gays.

Bush isn't protecting marriage, he's empowering bigotry.

[alma hadayn]

"if i were a gay couple, "civil union" would suit me just fine, and, even if i lived somewhere that allowed "gay marriage," i'd be just as "stigmatized" by the word "gay" prefixing the word "marriage"."

Well that's kind of the point: once it is recognized it will no loger be prefixed by the adjective "gay", it will just be called marriage. SF's new forms don't say "gay" anywherer on them.

One can theorize about what should or should not make gay couples happy, but there are facts on the ground. And I don't understand how anyone who saw pictures of the 6000 Americans who got married in SF in the past days (the large najority of whom were from the SF bay area), and listened to them describe how they finally felt like the gov't was treating them like human beings, could not be disgusted by today's speech from the President.

[JimBob]

Yes. Gays are un-natural.

[trainwreck]

5,000 years of tradition is over rated. Hell if our ancestors were all concerned with tradition and such we'd all be subjects of the Queen, who's family, by tradition, has ruled the United Kingdom for lots & lots of years.

Shove tradition up your nose!

[MD]

Leave it to states. As for the state's requirement to recognize marriage of other state's licenses, why is this a requirement? Many states do not recognize driving licenses from other states and ask you to get a new license based on criteria unique to the state. So if a gay couple moves to another state that does not recognize gay marriage, that state can deny license for gay couples. Where is the need for federal amendment?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

JimBob:

It was only recently that the Supreme Court struck down laws that DO "stop the bonding of two consenting adults". Though I admire your view that what happens behind closed doors is non of your business, this amendment proposal comes from the exact same social engineers. You're either with them or against them.

As far as "tradition".. fuck tradition! That is collectivist thinking. It's impossible to live in the past. You're living now. You have freedom to live your life, whatever people in the past, living or dead, may want it. Evolve.

[dhex]

isn't this entire moron debate a word game?

as others have suggested on this board, i'd really enjoy someone asking all these defense of marriage people about laws against adultery and divorce (usually the domain of the thumpiest of bibleteers) and catch their responses to that, since that would be even more effective at stopping any threats to marriage by making it a literal lifetime sentence. gays only make up a small amount of the population, compared to cheating bastards and divorcees.

it would be quite entertaining to see someone toss that out at our current president, the battlestar tardtastica...the 60 seconds of malaprocalypse to follow would be delightful.

[JimBob]

Alma.

Well SF resident and gay libertarian Justin Raimondo has a different point of view on this entire gay rights nonsense.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=207&sortorder=articledate

[rst]

Yes. Gays are un-natural.

Unnatural? Gays are completely natural; have you seen the animal kingdom lately? Homosexuality is a biological reproduction control...a certain segment of a population will not (barring assistance) reproduce.

Dio - the Mass SJC decision ("Goodridge") was based primarily on a 1976 amendment to the Mass Constitution - an overbroad sentiment that seems to fly in the face of other Mass statues, such as the sex offender registry, smoking laws, etc. It's the notion of "equal protection" gone awry.

the gov't was treating them like human beings

Marriage is hardly a human right. You're thinking of reproduction.

[Durango95]

It maybe a tradition of a "thousand years" , but it didn't come under government scrutiny until the late 18th century as fun new form of tax revenue for the Crown. Before that, it was considered a strictly private matter between families.

[trainwreck]

Right JimBob. And by the way, did you know that the fossil record shows that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that evolution is a humanist hoax?

[dhex]

heh. so selfish to work against tradition. the tradition of slavery, the tradition of serfdom, the tradition of....oh, bugger all.

literally and figuratively.

[rst]

This will go down as a real low point in American politics.

Gays comprise a vast, vast minority of American culture. Heterosexuals are largely indifferent to their plight in re the marriage aspect, secondary to prejudice and a knee-jerk reaction to gay culture (a laughable bit on its own). I doubt that this will even register in the annals of history. Sorry, but people in general do not care about "gay rights" as much as you perhaps would like them to. Feel free to enlighten, if you desire, but the impetus is simply not there.

[JimBob]

Tradition isn't collectivist thinking. Perhaps to some of the fag hags at Reason like Virginia Postrel it might be, but rest assured most sane people don't think so. Most sane libertarians don't think so either.

Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn?t Work

[thoreau]

Has it occured to anybody that most weddings already have at least one gay man involved? Between the florist, the caterer, the Catholic priest, the tailor for the tux and/or dress, and the musicians, the odds are good that at least one of them is gay.

Seems to me there ought to be some sort of eligibility plan for them: Work on X number of weddings, then get married to the man of your choice.

[scott]

dio the band,
hey, man, i appreciate your sentiments, but i think you have the reasoning of the mass court wrong--they claim that separate but equal arrangements have seldom been equal. civil unions won't cut it because of the likelihood of continued unequal treatment by the gov't, not because of stigmatization. there probably are many gay couples that would settle for civil unions, but why should they have to?

JimBob said "Yes. Gays are un-natural". Fuck you, JimBob

[JimBob]

Gay Rights are total nonsense and any true libertarian recognizes it.

[dhex]

they care about them in the sense that it annoys or repulses a large number of them.

much in the same way petty ideas like equal application of notions of privacy, free speech or civil rights annoy and repulse them.

[Mo]

Tradition is the tyranny of the dead over the living.

[dhex]

yay...i'm a fake libertarian!

check out my metal joints! beep beep!

seriously, i had to go get a marriage license this past friday and that fucking offends me. but so long as this trend of gov't sanctioning our personal relationships, i see no reason why gays shouldn't be invited to the statist party.

a class of special rights called "gay rights" may very well be nonsense - but the notion that the government has not the first fucking right to interfere in the sex lives of consenting adults doing no unwanted harm to others seems fundamentally aligned with my understanding of liberty. if this be insanity, then i gladly step up to the crack pipe of freedom and drool on the rock of tradition.

[Frank]

Welcome Freeper conventioneers!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[dhex]

what's a freeper?

[Frank]

dhex -

http://www.freerepublic.com

[dio the band]

scott -

i'm not going to embark on any debate about the mass court's reasoning w/o having read it (and the quick turnover of blog commenting prevents me from living up to a respectable standard of consistency), but to say that separate but equal is not good enough because it hasn't been good enough in the past (ie segregated schools) ignores the context.

the "separateness" in this case is only in the terminology, or, as alma has suggested, in the forms you fill out. in brown v board of ed, it was an actual physical separateness: separate buildings, separate teachers, etc.

the point of civil unions in my understanding was a work-around the perception, stupid as it is, that the gov't is "redefining" marriage: just give it a different name, and confer all the same rights and obligations, etc.

as for the question why should they settle? because it's better for them in the long run. libertarians should ask, why settle for this herky jerky fiddling with marriage laws when the state has no business defining personal relations at all? but that is apparently an impracticable position in today's political reality. incrementally, we can achieve a marginally less repressive government.

i forgot to mention in my previous post the stupidity of the mayor of san francisco. he is also to blame for this. he lit the fuse on this amendment. now the right wingers can plausibly claim that proponents of gay marriage are "lawless" (and only libertarians will know that that is a good thing).

[Frank]

dhex -

http://www.freerepublic.com

It's like Reason, without all the analysis or intellegent conversation baggage.

[Frank]

dhex -

http://www.freerepublic.com

It's like Reason, without all the analysis or intelligent conversation baggage.

[Frank]

Damn you, Internet Explorer!

:shakes fist:

[Gordon Shumway]

JimBob,

I may be playing word games, but they're your words. Plus, you are invoking Justin Raimondo in your arguments now, so I'm pretty sure I now get any and all high ground of any type available. I'm just hoping that loon pops up soon (I'm pretty sure he's got synthetic meta-filter crystals that let him know when anyone in any comments section invokes his name) and gives us a taste of arm flapping and knee knocking, Hoodee Hoo.

That said, you still haven't answered my main question, or any subsequent ones. I take that as a walk away with a little over the shoulder mumble. Since you won't bring yourself to say where you stand, I'll say it for you. You are one of those folks who wants to see the constitution altered on your terms, and interpreted in your way, but not any one else's. Anyone who tries to interpret things different from those ways you like is a living breathing crowd member. You're not one of these, cause you think it's a DEAD document, despite the fact that you want to change it just the same. It just seems like you are setting yourself apart in startling fashion by invoking DEAD as opposed to living breathing, even though it really doesn't matter it's just a word game you are playing. Kind of like "church and state aren't in the constitution" or "mess hall isn't mentioned in the Marine handbook," it sounds like you are saying something, but it doesn't constitute an argument.

[joe]

dhex, you didn't need to get a marriage license. Keep filing separately, hire a lawyer to create mutual power of attorney forms, etc etc etc.

What's that, you want the government protections without all that hassle? Then please spend 5 minutes filling out a damn form.

Oh, and Congratulations! Marriage was the smartest thing I ever did.

[J]

Someone asked a question earlier in this thread that I?m wondering about too, and I didn?t see a decent answer to it: How is it judicial activism to say gays have the right to state-recognized marriages if straights do?
It?s not like every conceivable situation is presented in the Constitution. Obviously a judge who makes decisions on the constitutionality of some law has to interpret the Constitution to apply the general principles therein to the question at hand. How is that judicial activism? Is there something I'm missing?

[Andrew]

I am out of my pay-grade when it comes to much of the legal doctrine, but I have noticed that a lot of the commentary on the threads assumes that some version of the FMA is unlikely to pass.

I believe some version of it will pass, and probably fairly quickly.

Some "social issues" divide Americans more or less evenly: abortion is the classic example, with almost equal numbers of Americans adamantly on one side or another, and most uneasily straddling mixed feelings.

Some "social issues" are controversial only in the sense that elites have an agenda that differs from the mainstream majority: the death penalty commands the allegiance of a solid majority of adult Americans, but is distasteful to elites.

Perhaps some issues fall a bit between the two: support for fairly innocuous forms of gun-control rises immediately after a Columbine incident...to perhaps around 50% (enough room for the Feinsteins)-- then subsides, leaving most Americans broadly in favor of the right to gun-ownership.

Newly-crafted Gay "entitlements" are extremely unpopular with a majority of Americans. I forsee some form of the FMA passing before the end of the year, and going out for a remarkably prompt ratification by the states before the end of 2005-- the pace has been dictated by the activist courts.

Even with a President behind it, formal recognition of gay service in the military failed. With a President opposing it, Gay marriage and civil unions are doomed.

Bush wins easily on this one. Kerry gets hurt no matter what he does...I can't really say what would be wisest for him-- some times it is just as smart to take the losing side on a particular issue, and that may be the case here.

I can't claim any misgivings about any of this. I don't want gay marriage...I think it's stupid.

[Mo]

J,
A couple of definitions:
judicial activism - Courts ruling in a way I disagree.

sound jurisprudence - Courts ruling in a way I agree.

[Socratic Method]

Why does anyone believe that two gay people want to get married for any reasons different that why two straight people want to get married?

As an exercise. Imagine you are gay. Finish this sentence:

I want to get married because [I want to throw out thousands of years of tradition for selfish reasons]

Does that make any sense?

[Warren]

Bush just announced that he wants to amend the U.S. Constitution

Blood in the water! Blood in the water!

[dhex]

joe: thank you for your congratulations...11 days to go...

your rather sensible answer assumes a particular which i've found often doesn't exist in the real world - ideological romance to match the emotional bond. my darling dearest, in addition to having a love of roman catholic forms (without much function, like a lot of american catholics, i think) resulting in pre-cana fun, site fees and all manner of priestly chit-chat, views being married all official and real and stuff as being "very important."

[insert fist waving and fire breathing here]

anyone who has ever stirred the waters of childhood fantasy in themselves or in others knows just how quickly the whirlpools form.

i'm sure there are people out there who use political dating services or have certain ideological requirements beyond some basic agreements on lifestyle, interference in the affairs of others, etc. i was not one of them, and having been with her for 7 years now...well, there are just some lumps ya gotta take. most of the functions of our government amuse or offend me in some way anyway, so it's sort of par for the course.

this issue interests me in particular because my favorite aunt has been with her girlfriend/partner for about the same amount of time liz and i have been together...complete with houses and property, etc. but for some reason their bond is too cool for school...very sad, really.

[thoreau]

dhex-

Congratulations!

I got married last summer, so as a man who's recently gone through the hell of a fancy wedding, let me also extend my sympathies. There's a big difference between a wedding and a marriage. A wedding is a bunch of nonsense that women do because they've always wanted to wear a fancy dress and be the center of attention. (I'm not saying anything here that my wife hasn't already heard, and she loves me anyway, proof that we're compatible.) A marriage is everything that happens after the big party is over.

I still regret not eloping, but I don't regret the marriage for even a nanosecond.

[Single Guy]

"A wedding is a bunch of nonsense that women do because they've always wanted to wear a fancy dress and be the center of attention."

Smartest thing I've read all day.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

I find it surprising that you, "Mr. Liberty in Iraq" would relish denying liberty to your own countrymen. I think its a rather clear indication that all your statements about "liberalism" in the middle east are lies.

[joe]

So dhex, letting ride on the back of your hog and calling her "my old lady" isn't cutting it with darling dearest, eh?

What you're doing is both important and awesome, and deserves an elaborate ritual and a huge party.

[J]

Andrew,

You specifically referred to "activist courts" in your 3:35 PM post (I assume referring at least in part to the MA supreme court), so I'll ask you directly - how is it judicial activism to rule that if straights can have state-recognized marriage, so can gays?
I really don't understand this - one could argue that the gov't has no business recognizing marriages, but given that it already does, how is treating a gay couple the same way as a straight couple with regard to marriage some sort of radical reinterpretation of equal protection?

[thoreau]

Joe-

Speaking as a guy who detested the wedding, I had no problem with the party. I had no problem getting all our friends and relatives together. Here's what I minded:

1) I had to wear a tux. But at least I managed to veto wearing any flowers (bouteneir, or however it's spelled).

2) I had to pose for pictures. A lot of pictures.

3) I had to dance. Fortunately I was able to bargain it down so that I only had to dance once with my wife, and not at all with my mother. Nothing against them, I just don't dance. Period. Especially with a crowd watching.

4) I had to do the cake-cutting thing. Why can't people just hang out and eat cake? Why do we have to do some elaborate ritual of it with the photographer hovering over us?

At least I managed to avoid tossing the garter. I refused to make a show of pretending to undress my wife in front of everybody.

As you can imagine, I was the groom from hell. Love, honor, and cherish till death do us part? No problem. Wear a tux and dance? That's pushing the envelope for me! 🙂

Fortunately, my wife understood.

[alkali]

dhex writes:

seriously, i had to go get a marriage license this past friday and that fucking offends me. but so long as this trend of gov't sanctioning our personal relationships, i see no reason why gays shouldn't be invited to the statist party.

a class of special rights called "gay rights" may very well be nonsense - but the notion that the government has not the first fucking right to interfere in the sex lives of consenting adults doing no unwanted harm to others seems fundamentally aligned with my understanding of liberty. if this be insanity, then i gladly step up to the crack pipe of freedom and drool on the rock of tradition.

I recently asked in a comment on this blog where the libertarians with any stones have gone to on the issue of gay marriage. I withdraw the comment as to dhex. Bravo.

[thoreau]

P.S. I might add that gay guys would probably love to dress up and dance, hence I'm all in favor of letting them get married. They'll enjoy weddings more than I did.

[dhex]

joe: i agree. it's just a lot more traditional than i would have cared for, and certainly a lot more religous than i would have cared for. at the very least we got to write our own vows, which i'm quite thankful for. and to be fair, she both knows all of this and i regrets a lot of her earlier rashness now, which of course does us no freakin' good whatsoever 🙂 but at least it's good to know.

i think it's very difficult for some women who have grown up with this pretty princess center of attention fantasy to move away from it, even when they tend to be extremely untraditional in many other ways. peoples' fundamental imprints get in the way of our actions a lot more than we'd probably care to believe - there's probably more than a few libertarian types who are attracted to the politics in part due to formative experiences of being at the mercy of larger parties, etc.

i don't really mind tuxes, and i was able to get friends of mine gigs as djs and performers so most of the music won't suck too hard, nor will it offend any of our older and more stalwart guests. and i love dancing, so it's not really going to be a problem - i look goofy as hell (6'4, 250lbs, you do the math) but i have no shame, which helps.

i'll just be glad when it's over and nothing disasterous has happened and none of her redneck (northern ny style) relatives do anything stupid, since we're going to have a few non-traditional types (gay couples, tatooed weirdoes, etc) and i'd really hate to have to interrupt the wedding by dragging them outside and beating the everloving fuck out of them.

thankfully, this is the sort of classy joint that would help cover up the assault afterwards 🙂

[JimBob]

"You are one of those folks who wants to see the constitution altered on your terms, and interpreted in your way, but not any one else's. Anyone who tries to interpret things different from those ways you like is a living breathing crowd member."

Wrong Gordy. You are clueless. There's nothing in the constitution about marriage. Nothing. Period. Thus matters of morality have always been left up to the states ie the people. Now we have elitist judges forcing their morals on the people. They're reading stuff into state constitutions where none exist, thus bypassing state legislatures ie the people. This is called judicial activism or tyranny. Either one is fine.

The Texas sodomy case opned up pandoras box. Scalia warned this would happen and the evidence speaks for itself.

[joe]

Aw, c'mon. How often do you get to wear a tux?

[joe]

JimBob, you clearly know dick about Massachusetts' Constitution.

[thoreau]

How often do I get to wear a tux? Or how often do I have to wear a tux?

Being a scientist who works in blue jeans, my idea of dressing up is dockers and a tie. That's fancy dressing, mind you.

And I'm one of the better dressers in my lab. I won't even describe my colleagues.

[JimBob]

Joe, care to point out where it says anything about Rump-Riding marriage in the Mass constitution?

[Jason Ligon]

I had the sinking feeling he would do this to 'energize the base'. This election gets worse every minute ...

[J]

JimBob said:

"Joe, care to point out where it says anything about Rump-Riding marriage in the Mass constitution?"

I'm not Joe, but let me ask you, JimBob, why does it matter if marriage (gay or straight) is specifically mentioned in the constitution? If there's an equal protection clause, and two straight people can have their relationship recognized by the gov't and be given the benefits that go along with it (visitation, inheritance, etc.), why can't two gay people? How would that not be a reasonable intrepretation of equal protection, given that the recognition of straight marriage is already happening (whether it should be or not)?

[JimBob]

Simple. Because if it's not in the constitution then it's left up to the legislature, ie the people.

Whether you like it or not the concept of individual rights is uniquely a creation of the Western, Judeo-Christian worldview and without that support structure, the word rights becomes meaningless. Our form of government is based on this religious worldview. Now judges are attempting to rewrite millennia of law, tradition and religious teaching.

It's beyond belief. What's next? Andy Sullivan marries not only Bob, but Ken, Bill and Dave?

[thoreau]

the concept of individual rights is uniquely a creation of the Western, Judeo-Christian worldview and without that support structure, the word rights becomes meaningless. Our form of government is based on this religious worldview

Do atheists have rights?

[rst]

reasonable intrepretation of equal protection

Because equal protection isn't a real thing, it's a political device. The misconception about it is that a government is empowered in some way to effect "equal protection" over a society, as if the government has some power beyond endlessly obfuscating the Rule of Law for the sake of their (and its) own survival. The system that is our government has a process by which the findings of the Supreme Court on a constitutional matter can be overturned by amending the constitution appropriately. It's a rarely enough used convention on a federal level that it fucks with our zen to see it in the news, but it is still a valid course of action in the face of mass dissent against the Supreme Court (sorry, but it's not a very convincing argument unless you're already a progressive - silly god nonsense notwithstanding). Shall we rail endlessly against the "Tyranny of the Constitution"? Careful, that's a door that swings both ways. *cough*. If you disagree with the amendment, then you had better start campaigning, because as it stands the folks who want gays to be able to get married don't stand to count too many W's in their scorecard. As for the "moral majority," convince them, kill them, or languish. There is no higher law in our land than that aged and exalted piece of paper, regardless of how progressive you think this place should be.

You are quick to complain about Bush, but for those whose memories begin in autumn 2001, like Iraq the impetus for a marriage amendment is well older than the Bush administration.

[thoreau]

for those whose memories begin in autumn 2001, like Iraq the impetus for a marriage amendment is well older than the Bush administration

Translation: If Clinton did it then it must be OK! 🙂

[rst]

Translation:

I never said the marriage amendment was ok. But blame does not belong squarely on the gov't...the gay marriage camp has to do a much better job of convincing society that they should redefine their notion of marriage. We're not all gung-ho progressives.

[thoreau]

I never said the marriage amendment was ok

Hence the 😉 at the end of my "translation" 😉

I just thought it was funny to hear implications of "Clinton was on board with this too", as if it matters...

[Daniel Montiel]

Comments:
I agree that "Full Faith and Credit" have no threatening power. If Kentucky wants to claim that Massachusetts' marriages are null and void in KY, it can do so. So there is no "threat" from one state imposing it on the rest.
For those who claim that the federal Con. Amendment is not the way to go but that it should be up to the states: while it is truly LOVELY to see liberals defend federalism, the issue is not that of localization of debate to the state but the hyper-localization of the debate to one court case. 9-15 guys and gals in robes, in one building in one city, debating a case most people didn't even know was being argued and issuing a ruling that suddenly defines marriage for that state. When judges (fairly, accurately or not) read this type of right into their state's constitution, it is now established. Period. What are you going to do? Recall the judges and pack the court with judges who pass a litmus test of, "P.S. I am against gay marriage"? So that argument for those who oppose the Con. amendment but claim they want the state to handle it seems a bit weak to me.

[Mark Anderson]

rst,
What will it take to convince you that gay marriage is OK? What does the gay camp have to do?

I think that the only answer you will accept is "stop being gay." You're like a broken record. Just say you think gays are wrong and be done with it.

[kmw]

Where?s Jean Bart? I should think he would?ve ripped JimBob a new one by now.

Just FYI JimBob, this isn?t the message board for the Family Research Council. Your head-in-the-sand theology doesn?t wash very well here.

[rst]

kmw, for all we know, Jean Bart is JimBob playing devil's advocate. Then again, for all we know, you're me.

I think that the only answer you will accept is "stop being gay." You're like a broken record. Just say you think gays are wrong and be done with it.

There you guys go again with that *me* shit. The resolution to this issue will not change my life one iota. The gay marriage camp - in no way to be confused with the homosexual population as a whole - is losing this battle because they do not wish to compromise. The issue simply does not have enough energy to capture hearts on a national scale, and the politicians in Washington know on which side their bread is buttered. Statistically my opinion (and yours) is a non-event, whether for or against it.

And you think wrong. I have no problem with civil unions.

[Pavel]

I don't understand this debate at all. All marriage is fucking gay to begin with.

[joe]

Right in Article the Fifth, Riding of the Rump, JimBob.

Your mind seems to go right to anal sex when issues about gay people come up. Why do you think that is?

No one else here thought references to gay sex were relevant to the conversation.

[Sparky]

"McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the 'sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.'"

Great! So, remind me again why we need a Constitutional amendment (talk about proving too much)? Isn't this EXACTLY how our system of government is supposed to work? Those states that want gay marriage can have it, those that don't won't.

There's something so un-republican in Bush's view of the Federal Government's role in our lives.

[thoreau]

Sparky-

I think the argument of the other side (however right or wrong) is that since the states are required to recognize one another's official acts and licenses and whatnot (with all due caveats and fine print tacked on), even a single state instituting gay marriage would be imposing a burden on the 49 other states. I'll let the lawyers work out the validity and/or implications of that argument, but that's what the other side claims.

Last night Jon Stewart made the most insightful comment yet on defending marriage: How about an amendment banning adultery? Sure, many states have bans on the books, but when's the last time they were enforced? Surely adultery is a greater threat to marriage than 2 guys in San Francisco being able to share property rights and power of attorney. If it is the job of gov't to defend marriage, shouldn't the state start aggressively prosecuting cheaters?

Then again, sending people to prison might result in even more same-sex encounters. Sure, they'd be of the non-consensual kind (unlike what's going on right now at City Hall in SF) but Rick Santorum would probably say it all amounts to the same thing anyway...

[Skip Oliva]

This is, in my view, the final confirmation that Bush is simply incapable of defending individual rights on any principled level. Not that I was seriously in doubt about this, but this announcement serves as the capstone. After today, I don't think there's any rational argument for supporting George W. Bush.

That's not to say there's a reason to support John Kerry, Ralph Nader, etc. It seems to me we place too much emphasis on the presidential contest and far too little on federal and state legislative races. At the end of the day, it is the legislature which is supreme--control that and you can keep the executive and the judiciary in line.

[JB Allen]

Sparky - Couldn't agree with you more, although this is a smart political move: Bush isn't going to alienate anyone he hasn't already (other than Andrew Sullivan), and he'll certainly strengthen support with the religious right. And the cost in dollars to take this position? Zero. Too bad he has to blaspheme the Constitution in the process.

[Pedro]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but even after all that Bush has done since he became President, I still entertained the thought that the Democrats may have been worse. This kind of does it for me, though. This guy is truly fucked.

[Highway]

I'm either too cynical or too naive, but I think that this is nearly all political pandering by Bush. I'm 99% certain this wouldn't actually get ratified, even with so many states with individual laws supporting the same thing. So he can support it and look good to the 70-80% of voters who think that 'gay marriage' is a 'bad thing'. And if it DOES happen to get passed, well he does believe in it anyway. I think it's just more of a coincidence that his views and the political view line up in this instance.

[grylliade]

Whether you like it or not the concept of individual rights is uniquely a creation of the Western, Judeo-Christian worldview and without that support structure, the word rights becomes meaningless. Our form of government is based on this religious worldview. Now judges are attempting to rewrite millennia of law, tradition and religious teaching.

Hate to burst your bubble, but our worldview owes much, much more to Greco-Roman civilization than it does to the Hebrews. Much of Christian theology for most of the history of the Church was based on either Neo-Platonist or Aristotlean philosophy. The ancient Roman citizen had rights before his government, and they were most assuredly a pagan civilization. Equality before the law? Mainly Greco-Roman.

I'm heartily sick and tired of all this prating about "Judeo-Christian morality" being central to the modern concept of rights. Nope. Rights are based on a lot of Enlightenment ideas, which in many cases expressly rejected Christian ideas. Did the founders often refer to a "Creator" or "God"? Yes, but that doesn't mean that their conception of God was the traditional Christian conception of the Trinity.

Now, all of this is not to say that Christianity didn't contribute many good things to Western civilization. But do not tell me that Christianity is the basis of the rights found in the Constitution. It is one of the sources, but the most important ideas came from ancient Greece and Rome, not ancient Judea. Our civil society is based on Classical civilization; our moral life is more generally based on Judeo-Christian ideas. There is a world of difference between the two.

[Sparkyes]

Thoreau:

States are not required to give full faith and credit to legal incidents granted by other states if to do so is against the public policy of the non-granting state. If a state has a law on the books to the effect that gay marriages are not allowed in that state, then it has announced that gay marriages are against the public policy of that state. Another example of this would be a case in which state A recognized a marriages between an 18 year old and a 15 year old. State B would be under no legal obligation to recognize such a marriage if it was against the public policy of that state.

In other words, as it stands right now (WITHOUT a constitutional amendment), no state can force any other state to recognize a marriage between two gay people if the latter state does not want to recognize such a marriage. The events in MA and SF will have absolutely no effect on any other state in the Union, unless such a state wishes to recognize gay marriages (in fact, the marriages allowed in SF will have no effect whatsover WITHIN California--the state is not going to recognize them, and neither is the federal government).

The idea that states can be forced by other states to recognize gay marraiges is complete hogwash.

[KJ]

"...since the states are required to recognize one another's official acts and licenses and whatnot (with all due caveats and fine print tacked on), even a single state instituting gay marriage would be imposing a burden on the 49 other states".

Well, no. States generally have an obligation to enforce money judgments awarded in other states, and abide by other judicial decrees issued by other states (such as divorce decrees). But states can generally set their own rules as to what people can do in the state -- they can control who can drive, who can practice law, who can practice medicine, who can engage in other businesses, who can carry a gun, who (if anyone) can buy alcohol, and so on. That's part of the state's sovereign power.

So as a result, states need not honor all sorts of licenses issued by other states. In practice, there's a good deal of "comity" -- voluntary accommodation of other states' decisions. I believe that this is why states honor out-of-state driver's licenses; they don't have a constitutional obligation to do this, but they do, for good pragmatic reasons. (Congress may also mandate that states honor certain out-of-state licenses, but I don't think it does so for driver's licenses.) Some states make it easy for members of out-of-state bars to become a lawyer, but not all do; California for instance, as I understand it, makes it quite hard. But as a general matter, one state may not export its lawyer licensing policy, gun carry licensing policy, marriage licensing policy, and so on to other states unless the other states acquiesce.

Moreover, the full faith and credit clause has never been interpreted to mean that every state must recognize every marriage performed in every other state. Every state reserves the right to refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another state if that marriage would violate the state's public policy.

This "public-policy exception" is well established. I have not found a single case where a federal court has forced another state to recognize a marriage where the state asserts that said marriage would violate the public policy of the state. Many states have "evasion statutes" that forbid going out of state to enter into a marriage that would be prohibited in state. None of these provisions have been struck down under full faith and credit.

[Jeff Smith]

The nice thing about this quote is how flexible
it is. Think of all the things you can
substitute in place of "the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions"

How about:

"watching all our jobs disappear to sweatshops
in the developing world"

"letting our strategic shoelace industry sink
under the pressure of unfair foreign competition"

"allowing our children to poison their bodies
and futures with mind-altering drugs".

Indeed, for Bush and most of the rest of the
Republicans these days, it seems that limited
government doesn't really require much at all.

Blecch. But he already lost me with the
prescription drugs. This was their big chance.
The have the white house and both houses of
congress. Smaller government? Not a chance.

Just how do pols sleep at night? How does one
get excited about a career that consists of
nothing but sustained (well, not in Kerry's
case, his change frequently) and consistent
lies?

Jeff

[Kevin Carson]

Sparky and thoreau,

If the problem is the "full faith and credit" clause, all that's necessary to fix it is to exempt gay marriage from that clause, either by an act of Congress or an amendment.

This is typical of Republican conservative social engineering: the courts federalize what's properly a state issue, like school prayer or flag-burning; but instead of simply undoing the specific legal hook on which the courts hung their decision, and restoring the status quo ante in which the decision was left to the states, the Republicans impose their own values on the states by federalizing the issue from the other direction.

The root of the problem with flag-burning, abortion, school prayer, ad nauseam, is the "incorporation doctrine" of the Fourteenth Amendment. The way to fix it is to rule out that doctrine, and to make clear that the XIV has only procedural, not substantive content. All these issues would be fought out in the state legislatures, instead of being hot button federal issues the way they are now. But instead, the Republicans want to reverse the court decisions piecemeal--not only imposing their social conservatism on the states, but turning the Constitution into a civil code.

[thoreau]

I want to make it clear to everybody that I wasn't endorsing the notion that the "full faith and credit" clause does/should/will enable one state to force gay marriage on the other 49. I simply responded to the question "remind me again why we need a Constitutional amendment" and I emphasized that I was playing Devil's Advocate. (Originally performed by Keanu Reaves, reprised on H&R by yours truly 😉

BTW, I like the thread title: "A threat that rises to the level of flag burning." Nice.

[Gordon Shumway]

Given that Kerry's about a half step from endorsing it...

"Leading Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry is doing his own waffling. The Los Angeles Times reported, when pressed at a Portland, Maine, rally for his position on the Massachusetts Court?s advisory opinion he said, ?Look, I support equal rights and the right of people to have civil union, equal partnership rights, I don?t support marriage. I never have. That?s my position.?

When asked about endorsing a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Kerry said he 'would have to see what language there is.'"

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3988

...why is it any surprise that Bush has taken this position?

First, realize that neither Kerry, nor Bush, thinks this thing has a chance of passing. Most Dems will vote against it, and more than a few Reps will as well (there are a number on record who are against gay marriage, but don't support alterring the constitution).

Bush has to say he's for the FMA, how does it serve him not too? Will he pick up some Dems who are otherwise against him? And it would hurt him somewhat to seem softer than Kerry on the issue by his own constituents. As for Kerry, why shouldn't he toe the line, or even come out and support it? The ABB crowd has given him carte blanche to dance with any devil he deems necessary. Sure they'll criticize him, but what are they going to do, vote for Nader? As for benefit, he might just pick up a few middle roaders, especially in the religious south, who may be leaning his way for whatever reason, but can't abide by him being for gays marrying.

Heh, heh, heh, thoreau said santorum.

[James Merritt]

Jeff asks, "How does one get excited about a career that consists of nothing but sustained (well, not in Kerry's case, his change frequently) and consistent lies?"

Check out "Inside the Actors' Studio" on Bravo. Maybe Lipton will have Mr. Bush on, one of these days. I'm sure the latter could teach a Master Class, but unless the Academy establishes the Oscar for "Best Presidential Performance," his great body of work may remain unrecognized. Damn Hollywood snobbery.

[dhex]

>>

why shouldn't they?

lots of people on this board tend to act as if republicans (and to a much lesser degree, democrats) were some sort of semi-human race of philosopher kings.

they're part of the long tradition of con men.

[thoreau]

Heh, heh, heh, thoreau said santorum.

I apologize to everybody here for my use of such vile and inappropriate language on this esteemed forum. From now on I will refer to him as "The Senator whose last name is a synonym with a byproduct of anal sex, thanks to the linguistic crusade of Dan Savage."

[Steve in CO]

Good one Thoreau!!

😀

[joe]

Once again, Kerry is going to get screwed for having opinions that don't fit on a bumper sticker. I don't agree 100% with his position, but it's a perfectly reasonable, consistent one.

He supports granting all the rights of marriage to gay couples, but doesn't want (or doesn't insist upon) calling the instrument that does this "marriage." He also thinks the issue should be settled at the state level. So if the amendment contains the phrase "...or the legal equivalent thereof" or some such, he'll be against it. If it is silent on the issue of granting rights, he'll take no position or support it.

Why is it automatically waffling to want to read something before you comment on it? That's a pretty significant difference in substance.

[Gordon Shumway]

It appears that Nader will be the only option if the Dems actually give a shit about this topic.

"Liberal activists have urged allies on the left to ignore Ralph Nader?s bid for president to concentrate opposition to George W. Bush. But Nader favors gay marriage, an issue that energizes many liberals but is opposed by the leading Democratic contenders for president."

http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0402/24/a04-72847.htm

My guess is most of them don't, they'll hem and haw about Bush's stance then give Kerry (or maybe Edwards) their vote.

Has there ever been such a talked about subject that no one really gives a shit about doing anything more than talk about? (I'm sure there has, but this has to be up there)

Thoreau, good call, I figured you'd catch that one.

[Me]

Me single and straight.
Me just not care.

[KJ]

I think Federalism -- letting the same sex marriage debate proceed at its own pace in each of the 50 states -- can be a beautiful thing, defusing the kind of nasty polarization we see surrounding the abortion issue precisely because it defines issues as local, and not national, issues, popping up in different places from time to time ? Vermont here, Massachussetts there ? never standing still long enough in one place for it to become the subject of intense national gaze. Heaven help us if Congress or the US Supreme Court decides that same-sex unions must, or must not, be recognized as a matter of constitutional law, for either way that issue becomes the sort of nightmare that the abortion issue has become in our national life.

Whether one approves of homosexuality or not (peronally, I see nothing wrong with it, but I know others disagree), it's a real phenomenon that isn't going to go away. There are gays and lesbians out there; there were even when homosexuality was subject to very serious social and legal penalties; they're not going away. The question is: What do we do about them? Do we encourage them to form stable unions, or not? If they are in our families, do we fully accept them, or allow this to alienate them from us? Even someone who thinks homosexuality is against God's plan should, I think, ask what is the most helpful and reasonable way to deal with this reality; and neither criminalization, nor ostracism, nor, I suspect, denial of the ability to marry is likely to be the right answer.

[Frank]

Let's see...so far this young election season we have:

* the wahabbist arm of the republican party preparing to permanently assign second-class status to a group of citizens for reasons which ultimately reduce to "our loving god will kill us" and/or "it's icky"
* the ghost of roe v. wade rattling its chains from within its moldy tomb

by my watch, it's about time for the feds to parachute into california and start chasing after the medicinal hippie-lettuce again.

after all, if we're going to have a culture war, why not go completely ape-shit?

for the children, that is.

[Coarsetad]

Speaking as a big flaming homo:

"Gay rights" are in-fact stupid.

But, you see, this issue has nothing to do with "Gay rights." The right to "pair-bond" with whoever I damn well please is a HUMAN RIGHT.
As for Judical Tyranny? What else are ya going to do to fight Tyranny of the Majority?
(Besides going along with that secert plot to turn the entire next of children into homos, I mean.)

[thoreau]

rst-

OK, marriage is a contract.

Why should the state decide that it will only recognize opposite-sex contracts to share property, power of attorney, etc.?

One could make a plausible argument that marriages with 3 or more people would involve the state in a contract that's too messy to handle. (e.g. 3 people share power of attorney, but what if one is comatose and the other 2 can't agree on the proper medical decisions?) And we could debate it, and maybe the people making that assertion would be right, or maybe they'd be wrong, or whatever. But at least it would be an argument based on the recognition of the state's limited powers, abilities, and proper realms of authority.

Arguments against gay marriage usually consist of the state making a value judgement, rather than saying "Look, the state's really not equipped to deal with it."

Final thought: Some libertarians complain of judicial tyranny. Others complain of majority tyranny. Obviously the ideal is NO tyranny. But when the judiciary disagree with the majority, whichever side loses can claim that it was a victim of tyranny. So which tyranny will we err on the side of when confronted with such a choice? "Majority tyranny" or "judicial tyranny." "Judicial tyranny" is usually a code-word for "I disagree with the judge" and "majority tyranny" is usually a code-word for "I disagree with the majority." Maybe we need to start defining tyranny in terms of its results, and not who is allegedly inflicting it.

[Les]

Is it true that the ammendment wouldn't allow gay marriages in states that approved it either through legislation or referendum?

If so, isn't it blatently anti-everything-that-makes-America-so-very-special?

If not...nevermind.

[GOTCHA]

Excuse me, but when did 'pair-bonding' (interesting phrase that) become a "human right"? Thank you for the admission that 'gay rights' are stupid. Perhaps the only sensible thing you did write. As for converting the next generation, well that sort of puts the lie to the whole nature/nurture debate don't it? Go away, engage your brain, then start to type.

[rst]

Why should the state decide that it will only recognize opposite-sex contracts to share property, power of attorney, etc.?

Because the contract was created to provide legal accomodation for a societal arrangement that was already defined, whether that definition had an explicit or implied legal analogue. The state is free to determine the validity of a party's claim in or to a contract.

The question is why should it do any differently than it has since it first adopted the concept? Again, it's about convincing. The gay marriage camp has not been overly convincing. It sounds like a nice idea from a crunchy liberal standpoint, but so do a lot of things we dream about yet know we will never see in our lives. Practical solutions?

[Coarsetad]

Alright, marriage is contract, I am not disputing that. My dispute is that is that there is not a single valid reason to deny couples of the same sex access to that contract.
Also it is absurd that this be taken up by anybody, but the judicary. Allowing gay marriage is about setting legal precedent more than anything else... Hmmm, Now I wonder want part of government is responsiable for that?

(need to get to class, so cant spell-check, sorry all english teachers, out there!)

[Mark S.]

"Excuse me, but when did 'pair-bonding' (interesting phrase that) become a "human right"?"

I think you'll find them under "freedom of association" and "freedom of religion."

[joe]

"Excuse me, but when did 'pair-bonding' (interesting phrase that) become a "human right"?"

It has always been a human right, one of the bundle of activities that add up to the pursuit of happiness. See Loving v. Virginia, and rulings overturning state laws against the retarded marrying.

[rst]

Also it is absurd that this be taken up by anybody, but the judicary.

Legal precedent is not law. Legal precedent is a court opinion. A court opinion is an expression of what can and cannot be law, cf. Andrew Jackson. The government is not strictly required to follow judicial review. What could the court do? Yell loudly? Hold the entirety of Congress in contempt? *raspberry*

The reason as it stands is that marriage is not a homosexual arrangement. Forget household gods and family concerns, society owns that definition and was not sharing it with homosexuals when the government adopted the contract for legislative use. There is no reason to extend it, other than the absurd notion that marriage is a right, which as we know is untrue. In the eyes of the law, the contract of marriage has nothing to do with how much the participants love each other. So that homosexuals can love each other all their lives says very little for the legal ramifications of the marriage contract.

[dhex]

it is interesting to note that so much of this nifty secularist humanism classical liberal stuffo that we yank around here so often came out of years of religious wars. so in a way the western tradition is responsible...but just not in the "we're #1" way jimbob would like to claim.

to answer joe's question, people fixate on what they think of as yucky because they're jackasses. and because there are still some straight men out there not on the sodomy train.

bewlidering though it may be...

[rst]

p.s. a grammatical error above; I did not mean to imply that society was absent homosexuality or homosexuals at any point. I'm referring rather to a massively mainstream core belief.

[Les]

rst, forgive me if you've answered this already, but how would your argument be different if it was fifty years ago and we were talking about allowing mixed-race marriages?

[TJ]

"other than the absurd notion that marriage is a right, which as we know is untrue"

Aw jeezus rst, this is about equal protection under the law. If the state is going to be in the business of sanctioning two peoples relationship, then the state ought to allow any two consenting adults that sanction.

Remember that bit about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Yes, I know that the Declaration of Independence is not a "legal" document. It's "merely" the formative principles, the noble ideals that the constitution is meant to uphold.

I know you understand the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic. So I will just whisper that when a democracy votes to amend inalienable rights, that IS "tyranny of the majority".

People should think long and hard about changing the noble ideals this country is founded upon.

[joe]

That really is a good headline, btw.

[Coarsetad]

Mark S

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. Freedom of association is defiently the human right that has been least afforded to homosexuals. (ie, bars, clubs raided in the 60's, Cops being able to barge into bedroom and break-up, well you know), and now the Feds are retaining that ability with this amendment.
My friend's partner of 15 years died some years back. They had shared everything up until that point. When he died he left a will leaving everything to my friend (his partner). Well, to make a long story short. The deceased's family wasnt thrilled with the whole homo-thing, and let that resentment surface after the death. They were able to find a conservative judge that voided the will and granted all of the couple's property (mainly thier house) to the deceased's family.
Now anybody that doesnt see having your house taken away as being a voliation of your human rights, shouldnt even read Reason, much less post on it. (hint, hint, GOTCHA)
If the government had fully recognized (and protected) the level of association these two had, then this never would have happned.
(By the way, if this case sounds to cruel to be true, keep in mind that it did happen in the homo-hating capitial, Texas.)

[Walter Wallis]

The marriage laws apply equally to everyone. Gays are asking for a unique privelege. Unfuck 'em.

If I don't tell them what they can do in the bedroom [or the bath house] then they should not do this thought control crap on me. Take tolerance and run, or gain back disapproval.

[rst]

with whoever I damn well please is a HUMAN RIGHT.

"Pair-bonding" as a human right...it's a human right to have sex with three women at once if you like. That doesn't mean you have the right to marry all three of them. Nothing about your right to pair or trio or quad off in a sexual context requires the state to provide you with any kind of contractual support on account of it. Really, get this into your head: marriage is *not* a right. It's a contract. Gay or straight, you have no explicit, inalienable legal or human right to that contract, or really any contract in existence.

It seems that to far too many, "Tyranny of the Majority" is just a catchphrase that means, "democracy pissed me off today."

[Les]

"it's not fifty years ago and this isn't about allowing mixed-race marriages."

Your evasion of the question is disappointing. The fact that it isn't fifty years ago and the current topic isn't mixed-race marriage should in no way prevent you from explaining how your arguments against same-sex marriage today are different from the arguments against mixed-race marriage fifty years ago.

Unless they aren't different. In which case I understand your evasion.

[rst]

Les - it's not fifty years ago and this isn't about allowing mixed-race marriages.

inalienable rights

Where did you get that bit from? There is nothing "inalienable" about it. Just because some court renders an opinion that the Massachusetts Constitution implies - through an overbroad amendment - that gays cannot be denied marriage licenses given the constitution as is does not make it a right, just a potential loophole. Marriage was not a right to begin with.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Written while slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was widely a criminal act. How noble.

[rst]

If the state is going to be in the business of sanctioning two peoples relationship

The distinction is not that it's two people, but that it is a man and a woman vs. a man and a man or a woman and a woman; you are willing to generalize it where others are not.

[k f]

So, why exactly do people get marriage licenses from the government?

Well, because the government makes it easier for two people to live together in a committed long term fashion. It means your children, your will, your power of attorney, your property, your taxes... all of these things will be taken care of in a way conducive to the well being and happiness of a shared household. The government has decided that marriage is their business, and if you don't sign their little piece of paper, they'll just assume that you aren't committed enough to deserve that consideration.

Should the government be in this business?

Personally, I'm a little dubious about that. But, currently, that's the way it goes.

Do you *need* to be married to get these legal priviliges? Well, no. Not if you have about $50,000 to spare and a damn good lawyer. But why should any couple have to spend $50,000 on a government service that another couple can get for $50?

This isn't about new rights or privileges given to a tiny minority. This is about long standing legal protections which are granted to the general population being denied to an unpopular segment of society. This is not about getting a prize for being gay. This is about not giving out special privileges for being *straight*.

So if you want all these goodies, why not just do the easy thing and marry someone of the opposite sex? Well, because people like to marry people that they want to form a household with - usually someone they're in love with. You don't just ditch the person you love to move in with someone else for financial reasons - try it some time and see what your wife says!

Why do you think there is legal precedent for allowing gay marriage? Well, the Constitution has this bit about equal protection under the law. There was never any footnote saying "Unless you're gay and don't have $50,000 dollars on hand." And let's not even get into the pursuit of happiness thing.

How does allowing same sex couples to marry differ from allowing three people to get married? Well, if Ron has been married to Jane for ten years and suddenly Jane is able to *also* marry Paul, this is a signficantly different contract than the one he agreed to. He now no longer has an exclusive legal connection to Jane and must worry about another person gaining equal primacy in her life and finances. However, if Amanda and Rachel next door can get married too, it in no way affects the rights and privileges of any other marriage future or preexisting. Amanda and Rachel have taken nothing from Ron and Jane, and in no way have changed Ron and Jane's lives or marriage.

Isn't it a selfish thing to do, because it will change one of the foundations of our country? Only in the same way that it was selfish to share the preexisting legal privilege of voting with women. Were women being given something special and new as a reward for being female? Voting wasn't a new thing - men had been able to do it for over a hundred years. Had the founding fathers intended this? Almost certainly not. And yet, you will find very few people willing to argue that it was a terrible and selfish thing for women to desire the vote because it changed our society. You will find very few people willing or able to make the case that this in some way eroded our national foundations. Yet voting is *at least* as central an institution to our government as civil marriage.

Of course, feel free to oppose the abilty of women to vote on a matter of pure principle, if you honestly feel it to be wrong. Stand forth and declare this position if you have it! That would be true intellectual courage.

Isn't this trifling with the traditional Judeo Christian meaning of the word marriage? Sure, and so is allowing barren couples to marry and divorced couples to marry, since marriage was a lifelong bond for the purposes of procreation. Yet the old, the barren, and the divorced continue to get marriage licenses in courthouses across the country, even though any church may feel free to deny them recognition. No one is saying that any nonsecular institution is required to pay any recognition to same sex couples either.

Since gay people can't have children, do they really need or deserve protections built to help families? You'd be amazed how many gay people have children, and how many straight people have no intention of having any at all. Obviously, procreation is a bit of a hassle for gay people, but then infertile couples also share such difficulties.

Isn't it unnatural? We're talking about *law*, not nature. Keep up.

Well, what about that icky gay sex? Surely this isn't something we want to encourage? Frankly, one might as well ban unattractive or overweight people from marriage by those standards. Most people would find those sex lives unappealing as well, but it's a silly reason to deny someone legal protection. Really. Grow up.

Why not just call it a civil union when two gay people come together in the eyes of the law? Well, getting even that much recognition would be a big step forward in most states. But if it truly *is* identical to civil marriage save in name, why should it have a different name? Why should it need a different name? On a more practical note, it means that you have to amend every law in the nation that uses the word marriage to say marriage or civil union or else this case of seperate but equal won't be very equal at all.

Of course, you could just as fairly refer to all legal marriages as civil unions, but somehow I doubt that would be very popular.

Doesn't God/the Gods/my unnamed higher power of choice say it is wrong? Well, Gods are entitled to such opinions, and that's between them and their worshippers. But there's a difference between a religion's idea of sin and the law's recognition of wrongdoing. In order to treat citizens from all religions fairly, the law has to deal in secular definitions of right and wrong.

[TJ]

I said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

rst said:
"Written while slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, and homosexuality was widely a criminal act. How noble."

What's your point, rst? You saying that if a man beats his wife, he has no right to tell others not to? That he's incapable of knowing it's wrong?

Good people, attempting to uphold those noble ideals, caused the abolishment of slavery, the success of the suffragette movement, and the decriminalization of homosexuality. It is amazing just just how forward thinking the constitution turned out, and I happen to believe it is what has made this country great.

You don't think that the founders of the constitution were deeply conflicted about slavery? Read Jefferson's "On Slavery"

An oft repeated theme in human history is an earlier generation telling the next "do as I say, not as I do". Typically, this involves some noble ideal that the earlier generation cannot fully internalize. Feet of clay, and all that.

It's interesting that religious motivations are usually what derails these noble ideals.

[chairm]

kf, you raise many points and in a commendable manner. For what it is worth, I think that your views are well-stated and instructive overall. I'm unconvinced but respect your posting.

>>>Isn't this trifling with the traditional Judeo Christian meaning of the word marriage? Sure, and so is allowing barren couples to marry and divorced couples to marry, since marriage was a lifelong bond for the purposes of procreation.>>In order to treat citizens from all religions fairly, the law has to deal in secular definitions of right and wrong.