Here Comes the Groom!
May 16th, 2008 by DavidAnderson
Coast to Coast Insanity is here. 4 people count more than millions of voters and thousands of years of human wisdom. Word is out that the California Supreme Court has found that it is discriminatory to give civil unions to same sex couples and recognize marriage of only mixed sex couples. That is like saying it is discriminatory to require an insurance agent to know about insurance and a lawyer to know about law. Why can’t the lawyer just pass the insurance exam? Isn’t there some law involved in it? That’s silly, you say. They are serving different functions and they don’t do the same thing.
Neither do same sex couples and mixed sex couples. Forgive me for having to go back to basics. Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way. They complete each other. Sexually their organs are made to compliment each other. Emotionally, they are made to balance each other. Spiritually, they are made to complete each other. Biologically, only a man and a woman can perpetuate the species. The species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment. Unsurprisingly, thousands or millions of years of experience (I am not arguing origin theory here) has led to the evolution of an institution to best channel that reality. It exists in the most advanced of cultures and the most primitive of cultures in one form or another. We call it marriage. It consists of a mixed sex relationship or relationships for the purpose of raising families and bonding between the sexes.
Marriage over different cultures has different variations. Some have more than two partners. Some are exclusive for life. Some have an escape valve. Yet around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not a confusing proposition. It is not open for judicial guessing.
Yet, again and again some on the far left insist on “progressive” social engineering. They place the feelings of some over the strength of society. The fact that an institution exists in a basic form throughout written history in thousands of different cultures is not a reason to keep it, but evidence of the need to change it according to these people. Everything done in the past was not based upon the wisdom built up as we went from herding nomads to farmers to manufacturers to information engineers. It is based upon prejudice and discrimination. The will of God is considered a repressive scam which must be overturned.
I reject the premise and the goals of the secular progressive left. I proudly stand for tradition, the Bible, and the collective experience of billions of people over the nonsense of a radical elite. I call for a return of a common sense conservatism over a loony liberalism.
I understand what is at stake. In the few countries which have tried this brave new world, marriage rates are already declining. The stability of the family has worsen. We already see the wreckage caused by a society based upon single parenthood. It causes disconnected males. It gives higher crime rates, higher poverty, a lack of commitment to anything, and a dispirited youth. It causes government to expand to make up for the lack of family and gives a corresponding decline in freedom. If even the tradition of marriage is not sacred, then all others are weakened. A society without tradition is no society at all. It is just a collection of people who happen to live at the same time.
As you can see, the attack on marriage is a threat to civilization. Why? Marriage and family are basic building blocks of civilization add in civil government, organized religion, and economic exchange (business) then you have a strong society. Take away any of those and you tragically weaken the ability of any people to function as a community.
My critics are going to say that I am claiming gay people are destroying civilization. No, I am saying the secular elite is destroying our civilization. Gay people don’t hurt us by being, loving, or discovering their own institutions. It is not the business of government to involve itself in emotional or economic relationships unless all of society benefits from it. Therefore government should not interfere with gay relationships, but neither does it have an obligation to pretend they serve the vital function that marriage does. I don’t have a problem with gays. I have a problem with those who wish to use gays to advance their radical agenda. They don’t care about gays or straights. They care about building a new social order as a shrine to their enlightened wisdom. I say it is time to care about the common good and stop them in their tracks.
It is an election year. Make your voice heard. It is time for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The people have spoken time and time again. There are no more excuses. This issue will be one of my top 3 casting my vote this year because not much else has as much impact on the future my children will inherit.
Wow! This is early in the election season for this stuff to come out…… So I gather from your take, it looks hopeless?….does it not? Got to put the squeeze on the extremists, just to get someone to vote in the “R” column?
What you need, in all seriousness, if you wish to get Republican votes in November, is to send Protack a check….He has done more to elevate respect for the Republicans statewide then any yellow subpoena threat, or yellow running away from the SEU, or the yellow shirted picture of the best ghost of a candidate the Republican Party can find to run against him…….:)
Good luck my friends..
David A, I applaude your excellent post regarding this issue. For those of us who stand for defending marriage this is really not a “gay” issue. It is all about protecting a sacred and longstanding institution. The statistics are overwhelming, drug abuse, crime, sexual abuse, etc can all be linked in some way to the breakdown of the traditional family unit.
Here’s the thing. I understand your position but the you’re missing the forest for the trees. In many states gay people are legally enjoined from owning property in common, leaving estates to each other, being covered by their partner’s health insurance etc. Virginia has explicitly made laws to prevent any gay people from combining their lives in any form or fashion. Gay people are here and aren’t going back in the closet. Do you want to encourage them towards long term stable relationships or deny them that and encourage serial monogamy? It’s a binary choice. Remember also that social change is autonomous. No amount of legal wrangling is going to prevent gay people from living together, being together or even starting a family. You also noted that government should stay out of emotional or economic relationships unless everyone benefits from it. I think you have it backwards. Government should stay out unless there’s harm involved. Two consenting adults? No harm. Lastly which is more perilous to marriage; Larry King and his 8 divorces, Brittany Spears and her 24 hour marriage in Vegas or two guys is Rehoboth who’ve been together for 25 years?
Duffy: They don’t care about that. You’re talking about people (conservatives) who see threats everywhere. This one is, of course, the silliest, but it won’t stop people who make crap up out of whole cloth (”They care about building a new social order as a shrine to their enlightened wisdom” — really David? How would you like it if I ascribed a moronic set of motives to you?) from proving their devotion to the Magic Invisible Man in the Sky.
The post is too long and ill-informed, even as opinion, to answer every canard. My favorite, though is this:
“Marriage and family are basic building blocks of civilization ”
There is no evidence for this position whatsoever. Normally they phrase this as “…the building blocks of society.” Of course, the INDIVIDUAL, not the family, is the building block of society.
I’m sorry. The post above should have said “there is no objective, scientific-method evidence.” There is, of course, anecdotal evidence, which is what most of the posters at this site rely on without fail.
I am registered Republican and I support gay marriage. Not all of us “R’s” are woven from the same cloth. Duffy says it best. I am vehemently opposed to any constitutional amendment that would define marriage solely as between a man and a woman.
While I try to look at a candidate’s entire platform, this in one issue that would be a deciding factor.
David, let us know when this issue actually affects us in some way. When Liza Minelli married David Gest with Michael Jackson looking on as Elizabeth Taylor divorced 7 times I figured it was hetros that wrecked the sanctity of marriage. And what about that quickie Las Vagas marriage and divorce for Britany Spears? I am not sure where you even get that sacred and sanctity stuff. Marriage is pretty much a joke already for half the people in America. Maybe homos can do better?
The will of God is considered a repressive scam which must be overturned.
Why do you presume to know God’s will in this matter?
How do you know it isn’t God’s will that gays should marry, and He is smiling down on this ruling? And maybe muttering under His mighty breath: “Jesus H. Christ, I can’t believe it took those bozos 2000 years to figure out what I meant by ‘Judge not!!”
I think the point is how this decision came about — the judiciary overturning what the people voted on. What the judiciary should concern itself with is whether gays in Cali. have what Duffy laid out in his comments to satisfy the equal protection question. If I’m not mistaken, I believe one of the concurring judges made a stink out of the actual term “marriage” and how it was “unjust” to not allow gays to “marry.” That’s just silly.
“We already see the wreckage caused by a society based upon single parenthood. It causes disconnected males. It gives higher crime rates, higher poverty, a lack of commitment to anything, and a dispirited youth.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t allowing gay individuals to marry (if you add in adopting children) actually led to fewer single parent households? It seems logical.
Also, here’s a basic concept that you seem to completely ignore in your post: correlation does not imply causation. The simple fact that two things happen simultaneously (you know, like hurricanes and gay pride parades) does not mean that they have even the slightest thing to do with one another. Where is your evidence that gay marriage has anything whatsoever to do with all the social ills you’re afraid of - besides the fact that some holy hypocrite says so?
The part I like best is that this is a Republican dominated supreme court that decided that human rights are more important then pandering to social conservatives.
David, show me the states and countries that have legalized gay marriage and how they compare with the rest of the world on all these things you think are happening there, drug abuse, crime, violence, etc. You sure aren’t talking about Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Belgium, the Netherlands, or any other places that I know of that give people equal rights, so where exactly do you get your notion that this is going to lead to all the social problems you are predicting?
The way I see it, here is another reason for a smart young person to move to California rather then stay in Delaware, where they will start a business, get a good job, raise a well to do family, pay taxes on their higher then average income, spend more money then the average American on entertainment and the arts, donate more time and money to their community organizations, buy a nice new house, and generally be a good citizen.
How can we expect to be a leader in the innovation economy when we can’t keep the most important part of that economy, the young innovative knowledge workers, in our state? The people driving the new economy want to live in progressive places with a diverse group of people, so you see places like Boston, Silicon Valley, Seattle succeed while we struggle to hold on to manufacturing jobs.
How is being against gay marriage good for Delaware again?
Burris, you just suck, plain and simple.
NoSpame — I didn’t write this post. Dave Anderson did. And are you supposed to be commenting on blogs in the middle of the day from a state computer? Is this why our government gets nothing done?
“The statistics are overwhelming, drug abuse, crime, sexual abuse, etc can all be linked in some way to the breakdown of the traditional family unit.”
.
True, but the breakdown of the traditional family unit has far less to do with homosexual relationships than with the implicit license our society grants to irresponsible people who simply decide to walk away from their commitments.
.
Rather than passing laws that prevent people from exchanging marriage promises, maybe we should investigate what it is about modern society that seems to have weakened the essential meaning of a promise?
Shirley…….
I am registered Republican and I support gay marriage. Not all of us “R’s” are woven from the same cloth.
Same here ! The bottom-line is if God didn’t want Gays on Earth why did he create them? If Jesus is the son of God why did he have a sexual affair with Mary mother of Jesus? The Bible is for man to live by not dictate to others how to live.
The reason we cannot find humans on other planets is because God must have realized he failed with mankind on Earth! We are the so-called most intelligence creature on Earth but we knowingly destroy the planet which supports our existence.
Ok, who is making it an issue? Marriage has been the same throughout this country’s history and long before this country was even a thought. Who changed things? The fact that this is an issue belongs solely on those who are trying to force their extremist agenda on the people. CA voters overwhelmingly settled this issue. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all voted for it.
This is not just about the undermining of marriage, which would be bad enough. It is about the undermining of democracy. That is why we need to take it to the polls. The radicals would sacrifice all of our institutions.
Kilroy, I am speechless. You might want to reread your post, and try again. I don’t think you said what you intended.
Don, you know would that I think we need a systemic solution to marriage. I agree with you on that score. This is just one more problem, one we don’t need. Remember the same people who told us no fault divorce was great are the ones telling us that this will work fine. The ACLU, radical feminists, Hollywood left, and secular academia have misled us before.
Shirley and Kilroy, no one agrees on every issue. I am just grateful that this issue is not even controversial in the party. Polls show 90% of Republicans agree with me. At least most of the party of Lincoln still has Lincoln’s values.
For those who question the role of faith. The Bible is God’s wisdom for the ages. You accept it or you don’t. It’s true whether or not you believe it. That is the problem with the secular left. They refuse to answer to an higher power. I make no apologies for saying that I do, but if you notice my case was made without relying on religion just common sense which the secular progressive left also despises.
I don’t have a problem with answering to a higher power. I do have a problem answering to you, a mortal man who states: It’s true whether or not you believe it.
Honestly, you have no way of proving this statement. And while I respect your “faith”, your faith is not fact.
Pandora, Last time I checked that was the nature of truth. My belief in it doesn’t alter it. I reject higher criticism.
Al M said to my quote “Marriage and family are basic building blocks of civilization ”
There is no evidence for this position whatsoever. Normally they phrase this as “…the building blocks of society.” Of course, the INDIVIDUAL, not the family, is the building block of society.
Well, Al you have to blind. There is an interesting book called Men and Marriage by George Gilder. Marriage is an essential civilizing institution. I choose my words to mean something not be a catch phrase. So don’t change them and then argue the change is wrong. Argue my point not yours or else you are the one tossing out canards. Thanks for your response.
I have to go to work. I look forward to your reponses.
I do notice that the critics avoid the central issue. What is marriage and why do we need to change it? I gave my answer. I still await yours.
Our PC culture makes it easy to say, why not let anyone person decide what marriage means to them personally, but let’s take this to its logical conclusion.
The anti-God secular left will not be satisfied with same-sex marriage normalized nationally. They will then push through legislation that would make it a crime through discrimination laws for churches to refuse to do same-sex marriage ceremonies. There is already a bill in committee in DE that would make sexual orientation the same as race when it comes to workplace discrimination. This means that any small business, church, private school etc could be sued for denying a homosexual person employment even if the sexual orientation of the individual was not stated during the hiring process. (”implied” language is in the bill)This will become a religious freedom and liberty issue. Regardless of what the anti-God left thinks about religion or religious principles regarding homosexuality, the freedom to practice religion would be infringed upon by a minority who want to force people who disagree with their lifestyle choice to accept it or be prosecuted.
The second conclusion is that this will open the door for some sick individual to say, I want to marry my daughter, or I want to marry my dog, etc. Once you take the definition away, it is then left up to anyone to make their own definition and whose to stop them if marriage in its traditional sense is changed.
Finally, the defense of marriage is not just about this issue. Many have pointed to the atrocious divorce rates and out of wedlock births to say that traditional marriage has failed. It is not the tradition that has failed it is those who practice it.
David,
Let’s define marriage. Marriage is a religous ceremony that binds two people together into a legal contract of personhood. I see no reason why there cannot be flexibility enough to allow people who love each other to get married as long as they meet the legal obligations of the contract. The real strain on almost all American families comes from the economic structure not from the institution of marriage.
Sure I would only marry a woman; but I am not going to discriminate against my neighbors right to marry anyone he wants. It is interesting I have a book c. 1913 making the same arguement about the possibility of there being interracial couples. That is was going to be the end of America when all the, and I am quoting here,”mullatoes and septaroons and octaroons start marrying white women.” I also have a book called the Yellow Menace insinuating that if we allow Chinese immigration to the US all of us would be having Chinese babies.
Surely you would not agree with these sentiments. Given the choice I know I would want to have a smart Chinese baby with a nice woman.
In the same way we should be setting a standard of tolerance for people and the way they want to live. I do not hate my neighbors becuase they do not live like me, and I do not use the law to make them uncomfortable. If anything this is one area that the republicans should be active for. I mean lets look at the last great society to embrace homosexuality, Ancient Greece, hmmm, they invented democracy….
“The Bible is God’s wisdom for the ages. You accept it or you don’t. It’s true whether or not you believe it.”
What’s true? The words in the Bible, or that they’ve inspired by the Invisible Magic Man in the Sky? Either way, your statement is just as valid if you say “It’s false whether you believe it or not.”
AS for your last question, it’s so simple it’s biting you on the nose: Because it’s unfair. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a legal contract between two people, no more, no less. To disallow two people of the same sex from entering a contract that two people of different genders can is discriminatory. What part of that don’t you understand, David? The part where I fail to foresee the fall of civilization?
Okay, let’s looks at the core of your argument: ” Forgive me for having to go back to basics. Nature says a man and a woman fit together in a unique way. They complete each other. Sexually their organs are made to compliment each other. Emotionally, they are made to balance each other. Spiritually, they are made to complete each other. Biologically, only a man and a woman can perpetuate the species. The species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment. ”
The emotionally and spiritually arguments are highly debatable. This would depend on each individual marriage. Unless you are claiming that ALL marriages are emotionally and spiritually fulfilling? Which we know is not true.
The perpetuate the species argument, well…that kinda invalidates married couples who either chose not to procreate or are unable to procreate. Are they less married than those with children?
And finally, your question: What is marriage and why do we need to change it?
Marriage is a legal contract which requires a marriage license from the state. It does not require a religious service. It is a legally binding commitment between two consenting adults. That being said, any place of worship would still have the power to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony between gay couples. I have no problem with that. My problem is with any church, or belief system, that feels they have the right to act as a moral compass for everyone outside their church or belief system.
If your religion is against gay marriage, then they shouldn’t perform gay ceremonies. This is a classic separartion of church and state argument.
David
Your historical argument for simple male-female marriage does not stand up to scrutiny. Many societies have pursued polygamy or polyandry; there have been group, clan, and line marriages among multiple individuals. The Catholic Church itself sanctified same-sex unions with special liturgies in the pre-Renaissance period (see Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe). Far from being a purely spiritual union, throughout most societies in pre-industrial history marriage was recognized coldly and clearly as an economic and political arrangement.
What you are attempting to do is use a western, post-Reformation definition of marriage, and argue that it’s the universal standard.
What’s most interesting is the fact that in most societies throughout history, marriage was the business of the church (used in a generic, not Christian sense, here) and the families–NOT the government.
As for the idea of the California Supreme Court overturning the “will of the people”–it is not their job to sanctify a majoritarian opinion. It is their job to interpret the law in the light of the State’s Constitution. The overwhelming majority of American votes in 1956 still believed in segregated schools.
1. Pandora
“Kilroy, I am speechless. You might want to reread your post, and try again. I don’t think you said what you intended.”
Busted ! Shock and Awl ! Look, for those who take the bible and tactfully try to make others feel like sinners when in fact they shouldn’t are sinners of the worst kind, even beyond what I said! My recent sin is between me and God!
Christianity isn’t the only religion of man! The Bible interpretation is that of the reader! Men and women who are gay should have the same rights as all people and no man should play God in that determination.
My offense to God is no different that of his children so-called mankind offending another using the Bible as their defense to ridicule! When Jesus returns he will be “speechless” to see what man has become!
DavidAnderson
I do notice that the critics avoid the central issue. What is marriage and why do we need to change it? I gave my answer. I still await yours.
You gave no answer just your opinion!
Gays can spend all the money they want in Rehoboth and fill the pockets of those who also believe in the bible but Gays cannot enjoy the pursuit of happiness as those reaping the profits.
The brash remark I made about God is no difference than you offensiveness to other men and women! If your child came to you and told you they were Gay would you disown then? No I don’t have Gay children !
Sorry Pandora! Just wanted to make a point !
Yeah, what Brian said.
On the will of the people question, California’s tide turned between the 2000 vote David is referencing and 2005, when California’s state legislature became the first in the country to enact a same-sex marriage law without a court order compelling them to do so.
Also, this paragraph from Glenn Greenwald’s blog deserves some attention:
–The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into “marriage.” It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between “marriage” (as a religious institution) and “civil unions” (as a secular institution) — i.e., that California law could leave the definition of “marriage” to religious institutions and only offer and recognize “civil unions” for legal purposes — provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining “marriage” for religious purposes. –
So much for David’s entire jeremiad.
Geez, Iraq and the economy in shambles and this is the best you conservatives can come up with. LOL. Get a life and LESS GOVERNMENT IN PEOPLES LIVES.
Oh I forgot, less government in peoples lives doesn’t apply TO THE PEOPLE!
Wow David. I don’t think they like you very much:-) Keep speaking out. I’m with you.
“So much for David’s entire jeremiad.”
We’ll see about that in November when Cali votes on the marriage amendment that over a million registered Cali voters have already signed on to.
David I think we should worry less about each other’s proclivities and more about the nation.
It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between “marriage” (as a religious institution) and “civil unions” (as a secular institution)
Bingo. If this is accurate, then it’s case closed for me. The question is equal protection and this satisfies that.
I have to tell you, I am proud of the blogosphere. There are so many excellent points, but allow me to point out some of the best. Steve Newton is absolutely correct that the courts job is not to protect the rights of the majority, it is to protect the rights of the minority. Brian’s quote from 1913 perfectly frames it.
Al is also right on the money about the need to disconnect the church and state link that is the word “Marriage.” Legally speaking, a marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. If these adults are men, women or both, should make no difference from a legal standpoint. They should still be allowed to have hospital visitation, inheritance rights and legal protections afforded married couples.
As usual, David, you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope your God has more compassion for you than you have for others.
If these conservatives reflect Christian philosophy, I suspect there are a lot of them in hell.
Another case where the will of the people is considered secondary to the will of a select few. The real tell in this story is, that I believe the break down of the people’s vote was something like 61% for the protection of marriage, in a decidedly liberal state and yet the court feels once again that it knows better, this clearly demonstrates an agenda. Also the so called Republican Governor also said he was in favor of homosexual marriage.
Now please forgive me I’m not sure who asked how this affects the rest of us. Well because it gives creadence to what the homosexual ’s have been trying to sell for many years now, and that is that a sexual perversion is somehow natural, this is a lie. This is not about who can or cannot get married , it is about pushing forth an agenda that leads to the degredation of our society and cheapens the miracle of birth, and goes hand in hand with abortion as an attack on family, faith , and morals, just to lessen the guilt and shame that some may feel for living this abnormal life style . And until people are willing to say out loud what they really believe and stop mouthing politically correct montras in fear of being labled a homo-phobe we will continue to see more and more of this type of rulings.
Once again a loud minority has carried the day.
Awesome post!
I got nothin’. But then again, this paragraph is really f++ked up:
‘For those who question the role of faith. The Bible is God’s wisdom for the ages. You accept it or you don’t. It’s true whether or not you believe it. That is the problem with the secular left. They refuse to answer to an higher power. I make no apologies for saying that I do, but if you notice my case was made without relying on religion just common sense which the secular progressive left also despises.’
How many assumptions need be made to abet a Coulter-like
steriotype about the hard-bitten godless left ? Puhlease.
I don’t follow a religion but I follow ‘god’. I don’t play to any one religion due to a recognition that they are all sourced in mankind’s love and I subscribe to love. And what is this about common sense being the purview of right? WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
P.S.
One suggestion David , maybe the title should have been , “Here Come the Grooms”.
Frank I think you are missing the point of equal protection under the law. If people have equal protections under the law then there is no need for all this animosity. You do not need to approve of your neighbors behavior to still be a cordial neighbor. Equal protection means equal protection. It means you have a right to be the person you are regardless of how wacky that is or how strange it may appear to some people. This libertarian tolerance was the cornerstone that with its freedom of religion and freedom from slavery that brought several million people to Pennsylvania during the early days of the republic and created Philadelphia as a world renowned scientific center. You can be sure that there were gays there at that time, and despite the protests of clergymen at that time they lived with more tolerance than in say the Massachusetts Bay colony.
Whereas the biblical Jesus was never known to touch on the subject of gay marriage and in fact commanded us to “Love our neighbor as ourself;” you seem to be saying “hate thy neighbor unless thou art damn sure he is not one of those degenerate ass wranglers who is forcing his political agenda down my throat like a hot kielbasa.” This is clearly not the intent of the bible; and I would argue is an area where a puritanical 19th century social religion is taking away the tolerance from our nation.
We must always remember that George Bush used the persecution of homosexuals in the Middle East as a cornerstone of why we need to be involved there, and that the promotion of human rights includes rights for homosexual people. I would argue that we need to protect human rights here even if we do not agree with the people who engage in acts we may not agree with before we start preaching human rights to anyone else.
My brother is gay. He is a good guy. He has been with the same partner for 25 years. I believe he is as much one of God’s children as David. If everybody was as responsible and hardworking a citizen as my brother, civilization would be in great shape. It is an abomination for David to want to prevent my brother from enjoying all the benefits of living in a free society. If we truly put our conservatives slogans like “empowering the individual” into action, our GOP would regain some credibility. We talk the talk about less government control, more individual liberty, but when a real life issue like letting all individuals marry whoever the choose, what do “conservatives” do? They make up all kinds of shitass arguments about why freedom is not really that good a thing after all.
Why claim it is the secular liberal left pushing this. A wide variety of freedom loving people all over America are against this discrimination.
Ted Blunt has dropped out of the Lt Gov race
Relax. The Supreme Court will toss this like a week-old Waldorf salad.
Geek
A clarification: I did not say it was the job of the court to protect the minority; I said it was their responsibility to interpret law in the light of the Constitution. That’s subtly different. Sometimes this is synonymous with protecting the rights of minorities. Sometimes it is not.
I generally tend to think that the legislative process is the best way to protect the minority, primarily through its inefficiency. Although there is a lot to be said for Calhoun’s old doctrine of the concurrent majority.
God is a loving God - but there is a heaven and a hell - Leviticus 18:22 -25, Romans 1:24 -32. Yes, we should not judge, the problem begins when we start to justify our immoralty according to God’s law -
Unfortunately, Rick the Supreme Court won’t have a say because there are no federal issues. Back when Janice Rogers Brown was on the court, there was no constitutional right to fake marriages. Now there is. So much for the respect for precedent.
Brian, the U. S. Supreme court and most state courts have said that there is no equal protection issue. The fact is that the framers of the 14th amendment would pick up their guns from the civil war and march on the court house, arrest the Justices and put them up for impeachment. They would be outraged. Such an interpretation would be an affront to what they believed. I wish we still had that revolutionary spirit. We have a judicial tyranny which is as dangerous as King George ever was. As one of the dissenters said, “the majority have grown weary of the pace of the democratic process and have substituted their social policy for that of the majority of the people”.
First, fairness is not the basis for law. What is right, just, and necessary to protect or enhance the civilization of the people is. Fairness is for wimps on the playground. The real world is about results. The fact is marriage predated government. If government is to be this stupid, it will hopefully postdate it.
Second, equality under the law exists. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You can get married no questions asked if you meet the legal criteria, not too closely related, legal age, and a mixed gender couple. If you do something else, it may be ok, but it isn’t marriage.
Third the context of the 14 amendment related to race. The original intent was to make sure the freed people had the rights of citizenship. The civil rights laws passed afterward bare this out. The court interpretations and the legislative record bare this out. You can’t twist the original intent to mean something contrary to the understanding of the people who wrote it. Many of them supported sodomy laws. I don’t, but the point is that you would have to say that they were so stupid that they did not know what they wrote to apply your argument. We are free at any time to expand the scope of the rights protected under the Constitution, but the courts aren’t. Those rights are reserved to the states and the people.
Wow, two worldviews collide! Those who believe and have respect for the Bible believe that marriage is NOT just a legally binding contract. It is an institution created by God that started with Adam and Eve. It is easy to slander God and religion and use this issue to do it. It is even easier to equate the protection of traditional marriage with homophobia and hatred. This isn’t about what two gay people do with each other and whether I hate them for it. It is about upholding the traditional institution of marriage. I don’t hate anyone for what they do, even if I don’t agree that it is right, but I have a right to protect what I believe is a bedrock of a civilized society and no anti-God progressive is going to intimidate me from that cause.
Well, good thing our government isn’t based on the Bible, Chris. I think we have something called The Constitution under which our laws are based and judged.
Jesus, you’d thing all the BS running rampant in the body and comments of this post would lead you to believe the gays are a bigger threat than the Muslim fundies.
You all are pathetic. Well, just the ones who seek to define normative behavior between consenting adults who want to love and marry whomever they choose.
Get over it. It’s gonna happen soon enough.
“Traditional” marriage also used to prevent interracial marriages. “Traditional” marriages include polygamist marriages in part of the United States.
Hell, “Traditional” marriages involve forced marriages and marriages with relatives a young woman has never met in many communities.
“Traditional” means nothing and certainly does not mean superior. The definition of marriage has largely evolved over time.
And there is the following.
I personally find the idea of a 13yo getting married appalling and much more damaging to the morals of our country as it is condoning sex at that age. Guess what ? 13yo can legally marry in NH (with parental consent). If you genuinely think marriage should be defined in the federal Constitution, and if this is not about homosexuality, why is this outrageous provision of NH law not included into the discussion ?
Oh and btw isn’t divorce a much bigger threat to marriage than the desperate urge gays have to share into that institution they seem to crave so much it sounds almost like they … respect it ?
If protecting marriage is of the utmost importance, then why is divorce legal ?
And how does gay marrying threaten the institution exactly ?”
As Wanda Sykes says, if you are against same-sex marriage, just don’t marry someone of the same sex !
Great dialogs. I do not want to let the thought that delving this up at this time, shows the organized Republican party is officially dead.
This is the proof. On the most “official” of Republican blog within this state…….I count 3 comments in favor of the author’s opinion. All the rest, debate the point being made by David Anderson. At this count there are 48 comments in all.
That means one of two things. 1) There is no one out there who share David’s views on marriage.
Or
2). They are silently fidgeting in their holes, for fear that if they poke their heads out this election season, the lawn mower of voter revenge, will decapitate them…..
It should be an interesting Return Day with the altruistic Republican candidates all carrying their heads in their laps…….
First, h/t to Steve Newton for an excellent post.
Second, this site’s other uneducated rightward-tilting knothead has gotten involved:
“Another case where the will of the people is considered secondary to the will of a select few.”
This sentence illustrates, once and for all, that conservatives of the Frank Knotts variety couldn’t pass a 10-grade civics test. THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY DOES NOT OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION! For a bunch of people obsessed with government, conservatives are woefully ignorant of how it was actually designed to work.
“The real tell in this story is, that I believe the break down of the people’s vote was something like 61% for the protection of marriage, in a decidedly liberal state and yet the court feels once again that it knows better.”
Once again, the knothead doesn’t know how courts work. The justices don’t “feel [they] know better,” they base their work on the state constitution, not case law. Ignorance on parade, Frank.
A couple of other idiotic comments, such as Rick’s about the Supreme Court: This is a state matter. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the matter except that, if it’s not in the U.S. Constitution, the matter is left to the states.
And finally, for the Bible-thumpers among the readers here:
“God is a loving God - but there is a heaven and a hell - Leviticus 18:22 -25, Romans 1:24 -32. Yes, we should not judge, the problem begins when we start to justify our immoralty according to God’s law”
Typical Christian, quoting everything in the Bible but the Gospels. Sorry, chief, but IMHO the problem began long ago — St. Paul long ago — when people started assuming they had to interpret Jesus’ philosophy for us. The day I start to let a bunch of slack-jawed yokels like “buc82″ interpreting the Bible for me is the day I leave the country. Hey buc, ever heard of freedom of religion? I’m a Christian, not a Jew, not a Paulist (most so-called “Christians” today). Find me where Jesus endorsed your judmentalism.
I have to disagree with the court’s (potential? has it come down yet?) ruling. The church has the right to reject homosexual marriage, as far as I’m concerned: they project themselves and have been established for a very long time as not just a spiritual, but also a moral, authority. If the church does not want to perform same-sex marriage, they’re a private institution and I’m fine with it.
But an objection to civil unions does not violate anyone’s idea of their religion. Indeed, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
My point is this: if you object to homosexual marriage on religious grounds, that is all well and good. But if you further object to civil unions, then it seems you just plain old don’t like gay people, and you’re cloaking that dislike in religion.
And, to the common assertion of the Bible as literal truth… I’m not trying to attack anyone, I just want an honest answer to this question: why do they call it the King James Authorized Version of the Bible? My understanding is that it’s because James went through, line by line, translating out what he felt were ‘problems’ with the Puritanical translation, and I’m sure the Puritans made a few changes from whatever language THEY translated it. You don’t think James did a little advantageous editing? I’m not saying King James created some grand Biblical conspiracy against homosexuality. I’m just asking how it’s possible to accept that a book that states - on the cover - that it’s basically been edited can be taken as literal Gospel truth.
Searching for UFO’s and translating the Bible. Closely related.
There are several translations of the bible. King James authorized a translation that made sure to maintain the position of royalty at the top of society. I haven’t really seen the KJB in a pew in a while. The New International Version seems to be in most of the protestant churches I have been to in the past few years.
Dear , dear Al, the courts are to interpret what is in the constitutions , be it the U.S. , state, or town charter. They are not in charge of creating the constitutions , which I believe was what this vote was intended to do , create a constitutional amenment. The court over ruled the peoples wishes, and decided to legislate from the bench. This was never the framers intentions for the courts. Once again we hear from someone who beleives that government knows better than the people . The government is there to represent the majority of the people . In this case the court chose to ignore that majority’s wish to change thear constitution. If you beleive this is the perview of the courts then maybe you should go back to the tenth grade yourself.
No, K one point is that you need to count the number of people pro and con. They are close to even. Two, when this is up for a vote it is hardly even close. People are afraid to be called names. I am not. I believe what I believe and I don’t back down. I think it is vital not to leave the intellectual field to the loony left or else the intitutions and traditions that I care so deeply about will die in a generation. That is worth any price. (Back when I was spokesperson for Delaware’s DOMA bill, my car was vandalized, gay activists spit on me after I successfully won a vote, etc. and later they delayed my appointment to the human relations commission so people aren’t imagining negative feedback.) Fortunately, this has been a very civil discussion. The discussion has been vigorous and hard nosed at times but by and large avoiding the stupid labels. It shows the quality of intellectual thought on this blog. I praise you all. As I said, this is about the court interfering when it comes to timing. The left picked the fight. Marriage has been the way it was long before this country was; it is a fools errand to pretend we are more enlightened than all of humanity. It is more likely that we are just uninventing the wheel.
Naturally, I disagree with many of you on your points. I don’t have time to go point by point because I need to play with my kids soon. If you don’t pay attention to them when they are 7 & 9 then they won’t pay attention to you when they are 17 & 19. So here is a quick rebuttal.
Interracial marriage has long been part of the marriage tradition. Bans in the U. S. started picking up steam around the time of the rise of white supremacy in the 19th century. It was not universal and had nothing to do with the nature or structure of marriage. It was a regulation for other social purposes.
Polygamy is an accepted form of marriage, just not in the west. I addressed that in piece. I am surprised it was brought up so often. I can show why it is not the best structure for most societies, but I felt it was not issue. Even with polygamy, marriage is still as I said a mixed gender institution. It even further strengthens the role of children and family in marriage.
Marriage is not a contract between two people. That is a business. Marriage is a covenant. It is where two people merge into one family unit. Your family becomes my family and mine yours. Our lives go from two to one. It is an institution not a mere contract of agreement. It formalizes for the families and society a unique bond. It provides a stable structure for the raising of children. It is its own mini-government. It is a miniature civilization bringing together not just two people but two families. That is a fundamental disagreement we have.
If marriage were just a contract between two people, then my brother and I could get married and share expenses and health care and when we moved on, we could. After all we love each other and get along (just not in a sexual way). The very reaction most people have to that suggestion shows the nature of marriage is not that.
I personally believe in freedom. I don’t have a problem with making it easier for people to share domestic arrangements or pass on inheritance. That is why liberals should be against the death tax. I don’t think sex should be the basis for whether or not someone can visit you in the intensive care unit. I think it should be relationship. Obviously, your roommate is likely close to you. Most likely closer than many family members if it has been a long term friendship. I favor household insurance instead of family insurance. If we believe it is good social policy for as many people to get coverage as possible, why put up artificial barriers. I think we need to revise our thinking on these things. That has nothing to do with revisiting marriage.
Patrick, this post is not about theology, but I do agree that theology does play an important role in our understanding of ourselves and civilization. Theology is one of the 7 central organizing forces of a people. America is a Christian nation according to statistics and that was so recognized in the Trinity decision which has never been overturned. America’s culture was founded upon a Judeo-Christian worldview. Some would like to make us a post-modern secular cesspool (no bias on my part
).
Unfortunately, most people don’t even have a basic understanding of Christian Theology and Apologetics. They have a familiarity with some parts of it but not an explaination of it. I am pressed for time because I-Carly will soon be over and my kids will want me, but here is a start at answering your questions.
I believe the original texts of Scriptures were guided by GOD and are without substantive (error in their substance–not talking about a spelling error) error. I believe that GOD kept his hand upon the received text of Scripture to insure that his message was kept true for the generations of mankind. The evidence of that is that there are more transcripts (handwritten copies before the printing press)of the scriptures then any other document of antiquity. When a comparison is done of them, almost all of them in the original languages say the exact same thing down to the word. Most of the diversions are in a spelling or diravation. Once in a while pieces are missing for one reason or another. What is remarkable is that there is not change of substance. The stories didn’t change. The theology didn’t change. The translations are accurate thought for thought. They pretty much say the same thing. Even more interesting is that you could destroy every New Testament in the World and recreate it from quotes from the Church Fathers to except for 4 verses.
You can argue whether that has anything to do with GOD. That is a matter of faith. What is true is that we know what it says. The message has been unchanged through the Millenium. I am being summoned. Have a good weekend my friends. I will check later.
Frank, here is your troublesome statement: “…it gives creadence [sic] to what the homosexual ’s have been trying to sell for many years now, and that is that a sexual perversion is somehow natural, this is a lie.” (Post #37)
A “lie”? Really?
I remember years ago when this issue was raised on Larry King’s radio show on WOR in NY; his response was to ask the caller when he/she made the decision on whether to be heterosexual or homosexual.
So I’ll ask you the same question, Frank. I look forward to your answer.
Secondly, I believe you have stated that you are a Conservative and a Libertarian. Live and let live, Frank. Stop trying to impose by law your morality on the rest of us!
In the meantime, let us permit the California Supreme Court to rule based on their interpretation of the equal protection clause, and/or whatever other Constitutionally based arguments that they have put forward. For those of your ilk, you have a recourse. Use it if you wish!
All that said, I think there is a word game being played here by anti-gay activists, a play on the word ‘marriage’. So I ask, explain to me how it is negatively impacting your heterosexual marriage or mine if a gay couple is married?
I don’t understand it; never have!
In my ever so humble opinion I believe that homosexuality (along with gay marriage, etc.) is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE; I strongly dispute that it is a natural happenstance — that one is born either gay or straight.
Some other “lifestyle choices” include such acts as incest, pedophilia, polygamy, etc., etc. — all of these are against the NATURAL LAWS OF GOD AND MAN.
There is nothing “NATURAL” about any of these choices. Sexual acts between two gays are totally UNNATURAL and perverted! While I can have empathy with gay friends or family members I cannot approve/accept their sexual behavior or lifestyle choice.
If the gravest and most sacred features of human existence are reduced to matters of “CHOICES” or “STYLES” why should we care which “STYLE” others may choose????
Are there any limits to what you/we should accept without judgement or condemnation?
I thought Jerry Falwell was dead. Now he’s going around as a woman named Cathy?
Mr.Mascitti, scripture is the word of God. Jesus himself spoke of scripture and it’s importance. I understand that Jesus didn’t come out and say anything concerning homosexuals, as he didn’t come out and say anything relating to beastiality. I think Jesus says it all when we distort or try to justify our actions when he says in Matthew 15:8-9, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, an honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”. In addition, I believe Matthew is one of the Gospels, right?
I just love how conservatives can declare expert status on everyone’s sexuality.
As for me, I only declare expert status on things I know about - and one thing i know about is height.
In my ever so humble opinion I believe that height (along with weight) is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE; I strongly dispute that it is a natural happenstance — that one is born either tall or short.
Some other “lifestyle choices” include hair color, eye color, etc., etc. — all of these are determined by the NATURAL LAWS OF GOD AND MAN.
There is nothing “NATURAL” about being short. GOD INTENDED MAN TO BE OVER 5′ 7″ While I can have empathy with short friends or family members I cannot approve/accept their short behavior or lifestyle choice.
If the gravest and most sacred features of human existence are reduced to matters of “CHOICES” or “STYLES” why should we care which “STYLE” others may choose????
Are there any limits to what you/we should accept without judgement or condemnation? Can anyone sanction dwarfism? No! It is creepy.
BTW, unnatural tallness is also an abomination in the eyes of God. People should be between 5′7″ and 6′8″ or risk burning in hell FOREVER! And forever is a very long time.
Remember this handy rule of thumb: God made man in his image, and God is 6′3″ and 185 lbs.
This is getting way off point. Let’s just admit that people with a secular worldview are never going to understand those with a religious or Christian worldview and vice-versa. The real story here is where we are headed regarding Religious freedom in America. Whether it be hate crimes legislation, ENDA, the fairness doctrine, etc. The objective of secular elitists is to force those with a differing worldview to accept what they deem unacceptable by law. You may say, aren’t you trying to do the same with a marriage ammendment. The difference is no one is advocating lawsuits and criminal prosecution if two gay people want to live together and even share some of the benefits of marriage, which many already do such as health benefits from there employer, etc.
You only have to look at the UK now where the secularists won this battle 5 years ago. The pro-traditional marriage movement there now spends its time trying to keep Pastor’s out of jail. 1-7 years for preaching that homosexuality is wrong or for refusing to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Do you want that for your Priest’s or Pastor’s to worry about? (I am speaking to those who care about their religion of course, Mike).
in the spirit of the wedding day song we all know and love I am writing a comment that pretty much sums up this post…
you’re dumb, dumb, dedumb
you’re dumb dumb dedumb
you’re dumb dumb dedumb
you’re dumb dumb dedumb, dumb de dumb dumb de dumb
Perry , Larry King as a reference? OK ! But to answer your question , at birth. I know you think I walked right into your trap . But no my friend , I was born heterolsexual the same as we all are, as God intended, to extend the race of man. Heterolsexuality has a purpose in God’s plan. Homosexuality is a sexual desire, the same as some people get turned on by sex in public places, neither serves a purpose in extending the race of man they are merely enjoyable to the participants.
But David’s post is more about the courts over stepping their bounds than it was about the devient behavoir of a small group of misguided people. And never , never , never , have I ever , and will never , describe myself as a Libertarian.
See my #37 post for explanation of the affect these sort of rulings have on our society.
And to you Perry , one last thing , you say to allow the Ca. Supreme Court to rule based on their interpretation , and that people of my ilk (I love it when you call me ilk) have a recourse and that we should use it. Well my friend that is exactly what the people of Ca. were trying to do, they were attempting to amend their constitution, but again people of your ilk believe that government is the keeper of all knowledge.
And to Chris Theis post #66 , Amen !!! Let us see if our liberal freinds will hold to their beleive in the seperation of church and state when they start suing the Catholic Church for not performing homosexual marriages ?
This web site should put this Frank Knotts quote in a plaque that runs at the top, just to warn people of the vast ignorance that lies below:
“The government is there to represent the majority of the people.”
Try reading the Federalist Papers #51. Madison explicitly points out that governrment is there to protect the rights of the minority as well. Seriously, Frank, get some education.
frank,
but marriage is a religious ceremony and this nation seperates religion and state….
so why is the government even involved…
OH WAIT I KNOW,
it has to do with money
If God wanted everyone to be heterosexual he would have never created Hout Couture.
I’m believe the constitution is for expressing rights, not restricting them.
If you need examples, look up prohibition.
Good post Brian. The 18th amendment prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors was subsequently repealed by the 21st amendment. This dark blot on our otherwise noble Constitution is an example of how destructive religion based conservatism can be. I can think of only one Democrat backed attempt to amend the constitution. The ERA. Republicans, unfortunately for us Republicans, are the ones who keep coming up with nutty ideas to amend the constitution to restrict freedom. But we are also the Freedom loving party. Lapel pins will never replace brains.
Chris: Such lawsuits as you cite in the UK are not allowed under our Constitution; they would be tossed out without argument as violations of the First Amendment (preaching against homosexuality is not a hate crime, unless the preacher advocates violence against gays).
You, too, need to learn your Constitutional basics. Too many of you conservatives have gained all your understanding of our government from conservative sources, or else have no understanding at all.
I’m not saying that about all here, obviously; some commenters on this site are admirably knowledgeable about our Constitution. Others, however, resort too often to these fear-mongering arguments they must have heard from conservative talk radio hosts — the kind like Kevin James, who got undressed the other day by Chris Matthews for his lack of knowledge about what Neville Chamberlain did to deserve scorn for appeasing Hitler.
“Jesus says it all when we distort or try to justify our actions when he says in Matthew 15:8-9, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, an honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”. In addition, I believe Matthew is one of the Gospels, right?”
Yes, Buc, it is. Congratulations on failing to recognize yourself.
P.S.: Paul wrote after the death of Jesus. And just because you say “scripture is the word of God” does not make it so.
Cathy: “In my ever so humble opinion I believe that homosexuality (along with gay marriage, etc.) is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE; I strongly dispute that it is a natural happenstance — that one is born either gay or straight.”
Matters of fact are not subject to opinion — that is, whether you choose to “believe” something about a factual matter does not relegate it to the realm of “just my opinion.” I could say “It’s just my opinion that 2+2=5,” but nobody else is obligated to pay any attention.
Though you probably don’t care, much research goes into this question. If you’re not going to cite any of it, you might as well say, “It’s my right to be ignorant!” Which it certainly is, just as it’s my right to point out that ignorance for what it is.
but marriage is a religious ceremony and this nation seperates religion and state….
so why is the government even involved…
OH WAIT I KNOW,
it has to do with money
Man, I hate it when I agree with dv.
I’d really like the government to get out of the marriage business, and open up a civil union store. They can charge the same rates!
The point of the matter is this. I’ve been married for twelve years now, going on thirteen. Not one of my fond memories of that glorious day deals with the procurement of the mandated governmental paperwork. Ergo, if similar paperwork were to be handed out to Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve (Get it!?! Like Adam and Eve but gay!), it would not diminish my marriage one iota - because the state-sanctioned marriage is not what I celebrate, it’s the love of my wife and my thanks to God for it. I’d happily turn in my marriage license for a civil union slip, because that’s all a marriage license issued by the gubbmint is.
Those who defend “traditional” marriage are within their rights, and I have no beef with them. They should look at where the government enters their definition of that union, though, because for me it doesn’t at all.
Once again, marriage predated government and May post date government. Government did not define or create marriage, it recognizes it. Government found a compelling social interest to mildly regulate marriage to the benefit of the whole such as formalizing certain morays like marriage between parent and child or siblings is forbidden. By the same token it formalized the definition of a legally sanctioned marriage as between one man and one woman.
Why did government see it important to add its stamp on an institution that was getting along just fine without it? One, that is the nature of government. Doesn’t history show that to be true? My interest is in keeping government from messing it up. You can’t turn the clock back, but you can keep the future clear of a judicial folly.
Let’s examine why government got involved in the licensing of marriage. It wasn’t just for the fun of it. It was based upon a reasonable set of circumstances.
David: Please refer back to Steve Newton’s post (#26), which points out that various arrangements have been sanctioned by various states over time and place. You are using a “natural law” argument despite the fact that it doesn’t apply, that is, different societies have used different models.
Furthermore, your rant at gay marriage ignores every particular of this case. I agree with Glenn Greenwald: “Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.”
Here’s the link, for those interested in actually learning something, as opposed to indulging in the destruction of straw men:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html
I think you are all sticking you head in the sand. Basketball players and jockeys pose a serious threat to our society.
Just think what would happen if a jockey ever married a basketball player?!! It is sickening to even consider.
Al you are almost never rational. Today is no exception.
The salon article has no history in it of marriage and does not contradict anything written here by any of my side. It is wrong on its impact because it is trying to excuse the ruling. California law does not require the recognition of civil unions as marriage. (Though this boosters my argument against marriage lite civil unions; accepting them as a compromise was used not to accommodate but undermine marriage.) If you are looking at the rights aspect, then the California ruling has no basis whatsoever. Rights do not require a certain title. Of course the name of the institutions are different, they serve a different purpose and serve a different population. If you author wanted to find out if the critics had a good basis, he would have looked at the minority opinions.
It is funny that the court had a different opinion when Janice Rogers Brown was on it just a few years ago. The court had no respect for its own precedence, let alone tradition, culture, and law. It has proven itself unreliable, and fickle.
The argument that it is okay because the legislature passed it is the stupidest one of all. It is not law because it didn’t pass. In case, no one has read the CA constitution a law has to be signed to pass or passed by a super majority. A lot of people voted for the governor for the very reason that he pledged not to sign such a bill. The people reaffirmed the marriage law in 2000 when critics said it is unnecessary because it is already common law that marriage is between a man and a woman. The people knew that this was not a sufficient basis for securing marriage.
What your side is saying is that the Constitutional process should be disregarded because you think that you may win eventually. Let’s not let things like elections get in the way. The Governor is not a legitimate representative of the people even though he is the only one in the law making process voted upon by all of the people because you disagree with him. That my friends is nothing less than judicial mutiny. It is the subversion of the Constitutional Republican form of government.
How is it that a 1940’s decision is applied to an amendment not passed until recent years is used to come up with a ruling not consistent with the original intent of either authors. That my friend is judicial activism. The gay rights amendment would not have been passed if this were advertised as its intent. You have to argue that the authors committed a fraud on the people or they were so inept that they didn’t know what they wrote to consider the decision correct. The minority was correct when they called it social engineering.
WTF are you talking about? I’m never rational? Really? Funny, but I don’t base my opinions on religion. You have a helluva nerve to talk.
By the by, the guy you think doesn’t know what he’s talking about is a constitutional lawyer. Whereas you are ….? I’m sorry, what are your qualifications for saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? And you, I presume, have read the 261-page majority opinion? And understand the precedents it cites? You really are a laff-yuck riot.
Let’s get back to why government thought it was legitimate to get involved with marriage. As with any thing in life there are examples of abuse. The one institution people turn to when they need to level the playing field is government.
Marriage is a covenant between two people of the opposite sex and only two people. A person may be married to more than one partner, but those partners are not married to each other. They share let’s say a husband. Let’s clarify that point because it keeps being brought up. If I marry Jeannie and then my Jeannie let’s me marry Darlene. She is not married to Darlene, her relationship is sister/wife. No, I am not married to anyone else but Jeannie. All examples are for illustrative purposes only.
Most societies have found a compelling interest to limit the number of spouses a person can have. Islam put the limit at 4. Most of Christianity put the limit at 1. The reasons are that it is hard to care for and integrate a healthy family larger than 4 certainly and seems to work best with 1 spouse. Even Islam encourages a single spouse. The wife is given veto over additional spouses since they could threaten her family’s economic or emotional well being. It is not surprising that some would want these protections in law.
Not to mention that nature gives us roughly one man to one woman. If I have 4 women, not only am I being driven wacky trying to please 4 bosses at once, 3 men are therefore without women. That causes societal chaos.
Most men need women and without them, they don’t socialize as well. It is therefore in the interest of the public to insure the availability of the spouse pool and not allow the rich and powerful to absorb a disproportionate share.
Government involvement made sense.
Another example was the registering of marriages. Marriage was entered into by verbal pledge. It did not require anyone to officiate even though most did have such a ceremony. The problem is that some people weren’t honest. I told Jane that I am marrying her so that I could have sex tonight and two weeks later I told Jan the same thing in the next town, but then I denied that I said that to either. Without witnesses, who can prove it? That is why the governments of Europe passed laws recognized by the Catholic Church and the new Protestant Churches to add a more formal process to marriage. I support the registration of marriages which fit the legal criteria. I personally don’t think government has the right to license marriage, or business for that matter, but that is not the current prevailing view. Either way marriages not recognized by government still exist, but they do not receive government recognition. That is legitimate because government is called upon to referee disputes and break ups of marriages. Government also has to recognize the facts of marriages in its business with the family institution therefore it adopted a definition consistent with that of history.
Government recognized that it did not create marriage. It just cleared up some abuses. Other abuses of course stemmed from families pushing their children into marriages for the benefit of themselves even if it was to the detriment of those involved. Legal ages were passed and witnesses were required that consent was being given freely from the participants.
Marriage can be a religious ceremony, but not exclusively so. Therefore the argument that somehow this issue involves some separation of Church and State is specious. It is a sacrament of the Church. I believe that civil marriages are lacking because they are not blessed by God. Marriage is between God and the spouses. The two become one flesh and their seed holy to God. The truth is that secular people get married and their marriages are legitimate. Marriage was never an exclusively religious institution though its structure and purpose has long been informed by religion. 1220 A. D. would have seen many European couples having a marriage presided over and witnessed by family as often as by the Priest. In fact, the only people required to be present were the participants. The Council of Trent changed that and civil laws reflected that recognition.
This post is getting too long. It will have to be continued later.
The longer I think about it, the angrier I get. Who the F are you to tell me what the goal of the “secular liberals” might be? I’m a secular liberal, and nobody has gotten around to sending me a set of “goals” for any “movement” I’m supposedly part of. You, sir, are a liar and a fool, not necessarily in that order.
Just one example, because you’re not worth the waste of time: “The fact that an institution exists in a basic form throughout written history in thousands of different cultures is not a reason to keep it, but evidence of the need to change it according to these people.”
Show me the slightest evidence of this. You have no fricking idea what you’re talking about, as always. “Evidence of the need to change it” — find me someone who has said this. As always, you make up from whole cloth the arguments of some imaginary “secular liberal” conspiracy, then argue against it. You have made up a “gay conspiracy,” based on the work of a relative handful of gay activists, and use it as an excuse to exercise your bigotry.
You have the ultimate gall to say something about “rationality” when you routinely create such straw men who are espousing views I’ve never heard except through the mouths of the conservative ignoranti you so admire.
Religion is irrational? Far from it. Religion is what separates us from base instinct and raises us to a higher level. Even the non-religious benefit from the standard which religion gives us.
I don’t base my opinion upon any one factor. I agree with Burke. We have to learn from the wisdom of the past in order to see our future more clearly.
Yes, you have yet to give a rational statement. (WTF) does not suffice. You have belittled several people during this post. Why are you so touchy? I will refrain from characterizing your views if you do the same for my friends. Thank you.
What more evidence do you need than to read summaries of the minority opinions in this case? The evidence is all around you. I recommend you read the Declaration of Interdependence from 1976 and the Humanist Manifestos. The writings of John Dewey are also enlightening. This is not some silent conspiracy. It is a broad social movement. It is no secret. Don’t play dumb or shall I say play me for a fool. You are a smart person and a learned one. You know there are a lot of people who want a new social and economic order. That is their right. It is also my right to say stop. You are going the wrong way. The old pathways are tried and true. The new ways are the ways tried before which have led to heartache and societal decay. It is not that they haven’t been tried; it is that they haven’t worked.
Greenwald’s point is that this is a legal case. You are opining about the court’s decision by talking about a lot of things that have nothing to do with the law. And then excusing yourself because “the fate of society” is involved.
You cite, in one posting above, falling marriage rates in countries that have adopted gay marriage. Let’s add the scientific method to the list of things you’re ignorant of, since there’s no study finding that one circumstance led to the other. And on and on and on.
As for your history of marriage, it’s laughable how much you have left out in your zeal to make your point, which is apparently that how things are today is how they always were and how God ordained them to be.
I’m sorry, what was your point about me not being rational again? Does “not rational” mean “unable to follow David’s spotty factual recitations and distorted logic”?
“Religion is irrational? Far from it.”
“I believe the original texts of Scriptures were guided by GOD and are without substantive (error in their substance–not talking about a spelling error) error.”
Please. Prove the existence of the Invisible Magic Man in the Sky, using logic and rationality, and then we’ll talk. Note I said “prove,” not “cite things I don’t understand and therefore infer the existence of.”
On the Greatest Hits:
“You know there are a lot of people who want a new social and economic order.”
So that excuses you, eh? I also know there are a lot of people — polls measure it at about 28-30% — who want to roll back the clock to an imagined time of wonderfulness in America. I don’t take them seriously, either.
“Fairness is for wimps.”
And, judging by brilliance like that, conservatism is for assholes. There — a statement every bit as rational as yours.
You seem able to understand that marriage has taken many forms over the years — why the inability to understand the LEGAL (not societal) basis for the ruling? Here is is again, in case you missed it:
The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into “marriage.” It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between “marriage” (as a religious institution) and “civil unions” (as a secular institution) — i.e., that California law could leave the definition of “marriage” to religious institutions and only offer and recognize “civil unions” for legal purposes — provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining “marriage” for religious purposes.
Equal treatment. I wish I were surprised at your rejection of it, and glad that you’re brave enough to show your bigotry. It’s no secret that a majority of blacks are hostile to equal treatment of gays. That doesn’t make such discrimination right, or legal, or bring any honor to them. It does, however, dispel any notion that the recipients of minority rights would be eager to extend them to the next minority coming up the ladder behind them.
Well, would you read a 10,000 word report? Of course some is left out! Whether I write 800 words or 8,000, I still would not be able to find any society before the new century which has survived based upon your definition of marriage. Those which have imposed this new world order are facing challenges within those nations. The governing party of Canada is the most dramatic example.
That is why the Court took nearly 300 pages to twist facts and justify this radical departure from its own precedent. Did it discover new rights in just 4 years or a new member of the court? The only distortion of logic is that by this runaway excuse for a court.
The right to marriage is based in the natural right of a man and a woman to form a family. It is not based upon two people having some contract to split living expenses. It is not based upon two people being committed to each other. It is not based upon two people loving each other. It is simply the union of a man and a woman to form a family. No amount of secular progressive thinking can change the facts of nature and will of nature’s God which we see expressed in every major religion around the globe.
I guess everyone else is wrong but you. I don’t think so.
Now, I must say post 87 is much more to your standard of intellectual battle. I disagree with your name calling, but the argument is a worthy one.
The court said one thing but did another. It claimed as you said that it was not forcing a definition of marriage but proceed to do exactly that or else there would have been no need to tamper with a civil union statue which NJ and VT both found sufficed. It is the rights that count not the vehicle by which the rights are transfered.
You are right that I am not at all sympathetic to gay rights and don’t pretend to be so. I believe gays have rights as humans not as a function of their sexuality therefore I reject any rights being determined on that basis. We don’t give heterosexuals rights on the basis of their sexuality. That is why the marriage debate is so crucial. The advocates of warping marriage are focused on the rights associated with the institution. The advocates of marriage are focused on the responsibility associated with the institution. The rights emit from the responsibilities and are necessary to carry them out. Parental rights and marital rights are about government keeping out of the way while the family fulfils its role in civilizing the next generation. You want gays to have what you see as rights while undermining the responsibilities. That dog don’t hunt.
While you are quoting me, remember this one “A society without tradition is no society at all. It is just a collection of people who happen to live at the same time”.
The big differences between these CA and MA rulings and other variations on marriage is that the historic variations are just that– variations on a consistent theme that marriage is a mixed gender institution which is the moral foundation for joining and raising a family, while these ruling fundamentally change it. You are talking about an institution which predated written history. It has been wildly successful so let’s fundamentally change it. That makes no sense.
There is no argument which can withstand 6,000 to 50,000 years of known precedent. There is no court worthy of imposing itself into such a fray.
Al, don’t you get it? David is a religious conservative. They believe in a small government that stays out of our lives as much as possible except when something bothers them.
David, can you imagine how much less colorful humanity would be without the presence of those interesting people who exist somewhere between the male and female? Homosexuals are your brothers and sisters. Why do you want to deny them the liberty that you enjoy? The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal. Back then people were arguing that black men and women were somehow less than human and were not entitled to the same liberties as “normal” human beings. Then blacks were not allowed to marry whites for all kinds of bullshit Godly reasons.
Today we have people like you arguing that people who want to marry people of the same sex are not fully human beings and are not entitled to the same liberties. An argument backed up with all kinds of Godly bullshit. Why not err on the side of liberty? Why not argue for more freedom for all rather than less freedom for some? For two and a half centuries we have been at the vanguard of human rights. Why have we hit this roadblock? Because you have your human rights you no longer see a need to fight for others?
Funny, if you read the scriptures, you will see an endorsement of interracial marriage and a warning against interfaith ones. The reason is that inter-faith marriage causes conflicts. Christians were told not to leave such relationships but not to seek them out. I Corinthians 11
Moses married a black woman. He was condemned and God judged those condemning him not Moses. Rahab was a Canaanite convert (a descendant of Ham) and she was in the geneology of Jesus. Ruth was from Moab. She was the great-grandmother of King David.
Why does this argument of comparison keep coming up? It is a search for legitimacy. Marriage is not fundamentally changed with an interracial relationship. It is with a same-sex relationship. Making that point does not degrade anyone. It points out the obvious. Society benefits from stable marriages. Civilization as we know it is founded upon heterosexual marriage and family. That has nothing to do with large or small government. It has nothing to do with being a religious conservative or not. It has to do with common sense or the lack there of.
Ironically, this ruling is not just an affront to traditionalists, it is disrespecting gays and lesbians who are trying to build their own institutions and traditions by saying yours are inferior and therefore you must comply with the heterosexual ideal.
Re: # 85 - “Religion is what separates us from base instinct and raises us to a higher level.” - Whooooa whoa whoa. There are pleeenty of people without religion that are not operating on ‘base instincts’ and are living moral, fulfilling lives. You can make the argument that they’re not ‘truly fulfilling’ without God, but you can’t assert that it is solely religion that provides the basis for morality.
Sorry for once again going off the main topic. To veer back on, I still have to disagree that allowing