My word… If only Alex held liberals accountable for their transgressions against our democratic system of government with the same vigor in which he takes conservatives to task for their “deviance” from his personal orthodoxy!
No matter how you feel about the issue of Gay Marriage, American Democracy–it’s foundation consisting of the principles of Separation of Powers and Constitutionalism–was greatly harmed by the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court today. Not irreparably perhaps, as the decision will undoubtedly lead to another constitutional amendment initiative. But instead, the decision represents just the latest wound in a death by a thousand cuts.
Alex accuses conservatives of perpetuating the culture war, but has nary a word of admonishment for the Iowa Supreme Court’s act of judicial activism, which is just another broadside in a war that they began and have aggressively waged for four decades.
I actually believe that Alex is correct in his assertion that Gay Marriage is inevitable as people under thirty, by a 2-to-1 margin, support the right of Gays and Lesbians to marry. I can image that in two decades time many of the marriage amendments that we have seen passed recently will be replaced with amendments which state something along the lines of, “the legislature shall make no law which infringes upon the right of two people to marry regardless of gender.”
That day, which Alex and the like long for, will only be delayed by actions such as the those taken today by the Iowa Supreme Court. Societal change that does not emerge organically always comes at great cost and its “victory” is never viewed as legitimate by the defeated. Every time that societal change is dictated by fiat, instead of filtering organically up from “The People”, it serves to harden the hearts of those who opposed the change and, therefore, feel subjugated by its imposition on them.
The day when the voters of this nation democratically elect those who will legalize same-sex marriage via the legislative process will probably come within our lifetimes. And If and when it does, it will signify that the hearts and minds of the people who comprise American Society have changed on this issue. No matter how much those who oppose Gay Marriage will undoubtedly be upset by this change, there will be no doubt that was the will of “The People.”
Until then, it is important that people who call themselves “Conservative” and believe in the foundational principles of American Democracy to oppose the degradation of those values with the same vigor as they work for the victory of position which may conflict with the Republican Base.
Victory, both real and moral, will (and always must) stem from coherence. We are Conservatives after all…
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Kavon, the Courts have often sided with individual rights against majority rule — as they should.
In fact, that’s the primary thing that distinguishes a Constitutionally limited republic from an absolute democracy.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
#1 Completely false statement.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Metro,
That is the argument in a nutshell, isn’t it?
The problem is that marriage has never, in the history of our Republic, ever been conceived of as a right. It is a legal status which is up to the people of each state to define for themselves. There has never been a “Freedom of Marriage” as there has “Freedom of Speech” or “Freedom of Religion.”
For courts to impose their personal beliefs (to make marriage a right) on documents that were written nearly two-hundred years ago, is tyranny. Just as when courts have restrained economic freedom through activism.
You have spoken out for the need to protect our economic and individual freedoms which are under attack at this time. But when you side with the Judicial Activists on this issue, you give them permission to restrain your economic and individual freedoms as well. Can’t you see that? No one issue exists in a vacuum. Siding with the opposition on one issue in which you agree with them gives them the power to destroy everything else you cherish.
And for what? A victory that you will live to see regardless? As I wrote earlier, I believe that the day will come when VOTERS elect candidates who are on your side of the marriage debate. You will enjoy a real victory then, not the temporary and empty one of today.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Well said. Kavon is the adult in this room. Our Constitution is getting ripped mercilously…it is holier than the Pope right now.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Great post Kavon! It is one thing to argue for minority rights (in this case homosexuals,) but to do it through to courts is not healthy constitutionally.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
What are you talking about, Kavon? The Iowa decision was constitutional. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution is very explicit in clarifying the fact that any power (i.e. deciding on issues concerning marriage) not vested by the Constitution in the federal government is reserved to the state governments and the people. From a national constitutional standpoint, this is completely legitimate.
Now, if you’re talking about the Iowa state constitution, the Iowa state constitution never gives the Iowa legislative branch the authority to ban gay marriage, or interfere with the issue of marriage in any way. As Article I Section 2 of the Iowa state constitution points out, all rights are inherent in the people, not the government. The burden of proof to restrict the lives and liberty of its citizens is on the government to prove it has that authority, not on the people to prove they have such rights. And, as Article I Section 25 of the Iowa state constitution clarifies, just because the Iowa state constitution lists a limited number of rights inherent in the people, does not mean that the people do not have any other rights.
The Iowa constitution does not authorize the legislative branch of the Iowa state government to act as a tool for the majority to restrict the lives and liberty of the minority, and even if the Iowa constitution did presume to authorize such a thing, there would still be the even deeper ethical issue about whether the Iowa state government ought to have that presumed authority.
In any case, the Iowa court ruling was legitimate under the federal Constitution, the Iowa state constitution, and, in my opinion, basic ethics.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
So, Kavon et al, were you against the courts mandating interracial marriage?
You’re fine with the majority setting that limit, too?
Individual rights include equality before the law.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I posted this in Alex’s thread. I’ll post it again here.
Here are some interesting articles about the results of gay marriage in Canada:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_marriage_lessons_from_canada/
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html
I really like the third paragraph from the first article:
“Marriage as an institution is meant to constrain human behaviour, not liberate or grant rights. Put differently, where individuals have both rights and responsibilities, marriage falls more in the latter category; it is a responsibility, not a right.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Kavon, first, Iowa has no initiative process, so the premise of your
article is flawed. The Iowa legislature would have to act to get this
on the ballot.
Second, marriage is not a right, but equal treatment before the law is.
Marriage Law is not really about relationships and sex, which are protected
by the First (association) and Ninth (privacy) amendments to the federal
Constitution. The issue in gay marriage rights is about the right of
gays to exclude families (who have often already excluded them) from personal
decisions in the same way that heterosexuals do.
What rational basis can you find for families to have a say in the lives of
their gay married children that they no longer enjoy with their straight
married children? Procreation doesn’t cut it, because the ability to
procreate is not a requirement for marriage – else you would have to exclude
women past childbearing age from marriage. If you can’t exclude the infertile
you have no rational basis for excluding gays.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
4. In matters of constituional law, yes. What’s your point?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Also, do you really think all our State Supreme Courts somehow got infested with “judicial activist” bogeymen — including so many appointed by Republicans, and in states like Iowa?
Or do you think they simply couldn’t reconcile a body of law ensuring equal rights with excluding gays from marriage?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
BTW, just in case some of you are forgetting: Extremism in the defense
of liberty is no vice.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
5. Joe, that is the place to do it. The legislature is by nature
the realm to enforce Majority rights. The Courts are the gaurdians of
minority rights.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
6. Let me also add that under Amendment XIV, Amendment X is overturned
in matters of equal protection.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
10. I don’t think most of the Iowa Court is Republican. Tom Vilsek was
Governor for a while. Iowa has judicial removal elections for their
High Court. It will be interesting to see if any of the Justices are
removed because of this.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Metro,
I understand how important this issue is to you. So I understand why you would bring up the horrible way in which this issue was used in the past by people with nefarious motivations. I would just ask you to consider the implications of giving the folks who disagree with you on probably 80% of everything you hold dear such power.
Josiah,
First off, thanks for defriending me on Facebook BTW
. Not sure what I did to deserve that.
Secondly, I was referring to the Iowa State Constitution, of course. Your analysis leads to more incoherence. You stated:
But the Iowa SC did not say that the Legislature has no right to restrict all marriages, or get out of the marriage business altogether did it? They did not say that the state must give marriage licenses to all comers, did it? People who want to marry four other guys or gals? Or people that want to marry their pet cat?
Of course not… The state of Iowa is still in “The Marriage Business” isn’t it? They will still be granting marriage licenses, but now they will be granting them to those who the Supreme Court Justices want them to, instead of The People of Iowa via the democratically elected Legislature.
This is not protection of the minority against majority rule. This is a battle over whose vision of what our society should look like prevails.
And with that, I am off to run errands folks. Please continue the stimulating debate in my absence.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Yes. Kansas has one of the most liberal Supreme Courts in America. It happens.
In fact, the SC of Kansas decreed increased spending in education and rewrote the state budget in that area themselves. That’s right, the STATE SUPREME COURT allocated money in a state budget.
Now look at what the Obama Administration feels it can get away with. Chilling…
OK, with that I am off.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Kavon, regarding the meaning of your response to Metro on agreeing with
those with whom one is opposed most of the time – the law is about
truth, not tribalism. That is a rather Talibanist objection.
As for your responses to Josiah, your response shows a lack of understanding
of the rational basis test. See my remarks in 8.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Kavon,
Firstly, I defriended you on Facebook months ago when you booted Alex Knepper to silence his criticisms of Sarah Palin, which I thought very unprofessional.
Secondly, I agree with you insofar that people do not have a moral right to receive “licenses” from the state, however the state of Iowa’s constitution mandates that any privileges or immunities granted to one group of citizens must equally belong to all citizens (Article I Section 6). In other words, there must be equal treatment of citizens before the law. As for your slippery slope argument, from an ethical standpoint, I personally don’t see anything wrong with polygamist relationships among consenting adults. From a legal standpoint, I’m not sure exactly how that would work. As for human-animal marriage, the buck would stop with “citizenship.” So, I guess, unless the Iowa state government made animals “citizens,” then state marriage contracts could not possibly be extended to human-animal relationships.
I also agree with you in what I think you are implying about the state of Iowa being in the marriage business, in that I don’t think the state of Iowa, or any government for that matter, should be “in the marriage business” at all. Marriages worked just fine for millenia before governments started licensing and regulating them. So, in that sense, I think the best way to ensure equality before the law for all citizens, would be to do away with all marriage licensing for all citizens, and just let people decide for themselves who they want to marry and how they want it to work. It’s a matter that should be left solely in the hands of the individuals concerned, probably their families, and their churches if they want.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Once again, it was an Iowa court making a ruling under the Iowa constitution. It has nothing to do with the US Constitution, which is not being “ripped” or “shredded” or whatever hysterical verbiage you wish to use.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Interracial marriage? Just because a woman is from Bangladesh or something, she’s still a woman. Same for men. How do you equate interracial marriage with same-sex marriage? This type of confusion might be why our country is deteriorating like it is. Someone needs to write a primer on the Constitution, a real-basic like one. We could all benefit from that. It is the Constitution that keeps us from the law of the jungle, people. Women like me, homosexuals like some of you, and our small children will NOT fare well under survival of the fittest circumstances which will come about once competing factions selfishly and ignorantly do away with our constitutional protections. Aren’t there any conservative constitutional lawyers out there that can put up a fight for us little people?
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
BobH, have you heard of the separation of powers? Let me break it down even simpler. Would it be OK if the governor of Iowa came out and announced that by Gubernatorial decree, Iowa would now recognize marriage between same-sexers as legal? If he just shut up the legislature, and the courts, and the people petitioning, and said he was going to decree that new law and too bad for the complainers. Are you cool with that? Because if you are, there’s no point in trying to reason with you further.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Perhaps then you might understand the difference between state and federal courts and between the US and Iowa constitutions.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
19, Marriage is a civil institution, and should be, precisely because
it strips families of their rights over an individual, which are then given
to the new spouse. While getting government out of the “marriage business”
has its enticements, it fails when faced with the question of who speaks
for the incapacitated spouse and who inherits (both legal questions).
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
21. Before SCOTUS ruled in Viginia v. Loving, most southern states had
laws against blacks marrying whites. The majority believed they were doing
so to preserve the white race. The court found that this basis was not
rational and a violation of equal protection.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Why yes, I have. I’ve also heard of the checks and balances built into the Constitution of the Unioted States and (I presume) the constitution of Iowa (which are not the same thing, by the way).
The “check” which the courts have over the legislative branch is that they have the right to review laws and rule on their constitutionality. While I may not always agree with their interpretations, for them to make such interpretations is in no way a violation of separation of powers.
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
True conservatism =/= having the government dictate what is moral and socially acceptable where no one is being harmed. The fact that heterosexual Republicans care so much about this issue is baffling to me. I would think that most other conservatives like me would prefer that the government not control behavior based on nothing more than tradition. But it seems that when the government ties to mandate or limit an activity in which they would like to participate, only then they take offense and complain about government overreaching.
To quote Holmes, as the Iowa Supreme Court did, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid
down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
22. The Mayor of San Francisco tried to do that and began performing
gay marriages. He was stopped. It is not the role of the executive to
change the interpretation of the constitution by decree, although he
could order his personal lawyer to way in on a court case on his behalf
(although he cannot force the elected Attorney General to support his
position). If you need a Primer on the constitution, I suggest you try
a community college class on American Government.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/
Neither Huckabee nor Palin responded to an immediate request for comment on the Iowa ruling. (If we hear from them, we wil be sure to update the post.)
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who ran unsuccessfully for the nomination in 2008 and is an almost-certain candidate in 2012, did offer a comment on the decision when asked by the Fix.
“I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts,” Romney said.
Romney struggled to convince social conservatives of his bona fides during the 2008 campaign due to his past statements in support of gay rights. He is making sure there is no such uncertainty in the minds of social conservatives next time around.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
For years studies have shown that children who stay with their father after a divorce are better off than those who stay with their mother. So in that regard, Gay marriage will increase the number of single fathers which will benefit society as a whole. …………
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I don’t think it can gets any more juvenile than that.
So, are we going to start eliminating bathrooms for men and women? We must blindly treat all citizens equally right? So why do we have a retirement age?, and those Amish people have no more excuse to avoid the draft anymore. Let’s treat all citizens exactly equal regardless of age, gender, race, religion.
That’s really a smart argument.
OR…
How about we honor the traditions that made this country the greatest country in the history of the world and not destroy it by stupidity, ignorance, and self-love.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I not only defriended Alex, but I reported him to FB Management. LOL!
Amazing what happens when anger consumes one-self, over a political discussion. We all are capable of acting like children.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Huckabee comments, no comment yet from Palin, Jindal, Sanford, Newt, or Pawlenty.
Only Romney and Huckabee so far.
“Huckabee called the decision “disappointing”, adding: “All Iowans should have a say in this matter, not a handful of legislative judges. This issue is too important to not be made by the people of Iowa. It is my hope that the Legislature will take the necessary steps to properly resolve this matter.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Those in favor of gay marriage are failing to realize an important point. Yes, public opinion is shifting dramatically in favor
of gay marriage especially in the 18-30 age group, but have you ever considered WHY? WHY are young people so willing to accept it?
Well if it isn’t obvious enough, they are completely disillusioned with marriage period! It has no value or significance to them,
because they don’t even know what a real marriage is! Ask a college student who’s shacking up with a different girl every other
night whether he cares if gays marry; of couse he doesn’t! Ask the daughter of a single mother whose dead beat Dad left them when she was a baby whether marriage has any significance in her life and is worthy of being protected, of course not! Ask the couple who’ve been
living together for 7 years out of convenience whether gays marrying has any effect on them; of course not! And ask the adulterous
husband or wife whether their commitment to eachother will in any way be undermined by two women marrying; of course not! Yes,
I believe America is heading towards a complete embrace of any number of definitions of marriage, but can you honestly say that
this trend is a good thing! That apathy and general distrust of the institution of marriage is a victory for the gay community?
That marriage has become such a joke that now gays can have at it? It’s not gays fault that heterosexual marriage is deteriorating
. But i’ts failure is in a lot of ways why we’re even having this discussion about gay marriage in the first place?
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I also disagree with Kavon that marriage will ever be voted out as a singular relationship between a man and a woman by the American people as a whole.
Reasons:
1) people who don’t live in families and communities built around real families with multiple familial connections live longer. For example, my wife’s sister and husband came to visit over this week and we were refreshed by our 5 nieces and nephews. Gay relationships are much, much less likely to result in those kinds of stable community relationships.
2) people tend to become much more conservative as they age.
3) people who are liberal tend to die younger.
I’m more optimistic about this, especially in light of the socio-economic pressures that are starting to get people to return to Good, Natural, True values.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
While I support gay marriage, and while I do agree that the courts exist to protect individual rights from majority rule, I tend to agree that the majority does have the right to set policy on this issue, and that individual rights aren’t being violated by the states that refuse to approve it. I’m actually supportive of SCOTUS decisions like Lawrence v. Texas because I think laws preventing consensual sex between adults ultimately violate the property rights of the individuals in question (as their bodies are their property). I also think laws against prostitution and drug use violate those same property rights. I would legalize and tax both. My big problem with the right to an abortion is not the right to privacy that it’s based on, but that only the woman’s property right to her body is being protected, not the child’s property right over its life (of course, when that property right attaches can and will continue to be debated).
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
#35,
bull-crap!
People live their lives based on the values they are taught as children…and….
Many people actually become more liberal as they age. Post-secondary education experiences play a large role in that.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
#36 DaveG said;
A very ambiguous statement. You support gay people that are married? You support states right to decide on gay marriage (vote or courts)? You support the federal courts or legislation to support gay marriage?
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
My conclusion to all the tongue lashing and arguing back and forth over the 2 or 3 threads addressing this issue?
If it wasn’t apparent before, folks the breakdown of the Republican coalition is well in hand.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
34. I hardly think marriage is out of style, given the popularity of
Bridezilla inspiring wedding magazines, celebrity weddings and wedding TV.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
31, what made America great was its ability to mobilize when the world
was threatenned by Fascism – that and the ability to advance the circle
of freedom ever wider as time goes on. Considering it started out as
a nation controlled by white male property owners, where women were basically
considered property, into what we say today – I don’t think you can claim
without a great deal of self delusion that what makes us great is our
unchanging social tradition.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
#40,
I disagree.
It is going out of style and many of us under-35 find little appeal in a marriage contract.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
BobH, so you are saying that for some reason Iowa government has a different set-up than the rest of the country? No separation of powers there? Admittedly, I was not aware. Never been there. I’ve eaten their corn.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
One thing I’m pretty certain of is that once gay marriage is accepted, so will many other forms of marriage, such as polygamy. Also brothers marrying brothers, sisters marrying sisters, brothers marrying sisters after the age of fertility, same with a bunch of others. Hey, we could even see humans marrying their dog or horse. What keeps them from arguing the same argument the gays do now. They can claim they are born that way just as easily.
Its a stupid argument to act as if polygamy is different as Alex argues. Heck, I think its pretty darned obvious that its natural for male or female to desire to be with more than one person in their life. This would keep them from cheating; they just figure the more the merrier!! The thought is repulsive to me, but there is no doubt in my mind that is what will follow if we drop our guard on this.
I still maintain that this is all about money! If it weren’t they could ‘jump over a stick’ or do something special within their own realm. That’s fine, but I say to that, bring up individual rights that you feel you deserve individually, (or packaged together) and let the people vote on it. You deserve no free rides for social security benefits etc., and I sure as heck don’t want my insurance premiums raised just so you guys or gals can sin your life away. I’m not afraid to say that I think its a sin, and I think we have a God given responsibility to fight for right. Like I said, I’m not into depriving them of certain rights such as visitation, or rights to inherit property etc., but to marry, that’s ordained by God. If there is precedence for any of these marriage situations, it would be that of polygamy, because it comes from biblical tradition. Cities were destroyed for engaging in sodomy. I’m not going to do anything that would encourage any of the next generation to go this sinful route. What they do on their own is none of my busines, but I don’t plan to help them along.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
#39- Yeah, pretty much true. The entire party is in disarray right now.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
.
http://www.nomarriage.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Marriage is going out of style? It seems to be a hotter commodity than ever. But you do hear this frequently from different sources:
Religion is going out of style, marriage is outdated, conservatism is outdated, the Constitution is no longer necessary, all the underpinnings of this great country – going out of style. Not needed anymore. They’re just too….restrictive, stifling you know. (read this paragraph out loud using an exaggerated British accent so you can sound really sophisticated).
Interesting opinions to be found on a conservative blog. And I personally, don’t believe any of it. I think more than anything, certain groups and individuals are simply taking stands on issues and making war on others that will once and for all establish what each of us value and stand for. Then, one of the two groups will be rooted out. It’s a war of ideology. The messages of both sides are being purified right now, it looks a lot like chaos really. But then either order, or chaos, one or the other, will overpower the opposite. Of course I see our traditional institutions and conservatism as orderly, liberalism and Obama style power grabbing I see as chaotic.
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
My house is pretty dang chaotic, I shall now go and make order out of it. (I am still using the British accent)
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
47 correction – I didn’t mean once and for all. I guess it’s kind of an ongoing generational battle, as long as the power balance doesn’t tip tooo far in favor of chaos.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Not much of an issue for me one way or the other, although I’m not a fan in general of activist courts legislating from the bench.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Liz, I am not arguing in favor of ending marriage. I only question the motives for those who want to get married.
I support traditional instituions…I have to, as I am a conservative. Many pro-choice and pro-equal marriage Republicans are still traditionalists.
People do not take marriage seriously anymore. People are too quick to get in to a marriage and too quick to get out of one. This institution is devalued and it depresses me.
Young people especially. Most young people lack a worth ethic, values or a clue on how to work at a successful relationship.
It has nothing to do with queers, it is the lack of values of the younger generation that is harming our society.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
work*
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Polls: Majority of Americans oppose gay marriage
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/03/polls-majority-of-americans-oppose-gay-marriage/
“Fifty-five percent of Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted in December said that same sex marriages should not be recognized by law as valid. Forty-four percent said gay marriages should be legal.
A Newsweek poll also conducted in December had similar results.”
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
If there is precedence for any of these marriage situations, it would be that of polygamy, because it comes from biblical tradition. Cities were destroyed for engaging in sodomy. I’m not going to do anything that would encourage any of the next generation to go this sinful route.
And herein lies the real reason for your opposition.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
All this discussion on the topic and STILL nobody really gets it! Those clamoring for “legalizing gay marriage” don’t understand it’s already legal! Don’t believe me? Show me a single case where someone was prosecuted for an illegal marriage on the basis of it being to a member of the same sex. Heck, show me a law on the books that makes it a criminal act for two members of the same sex to get married, period! Here’s a hint: the best you’ll be able to show is that the law sets a definition for a specific social contract that they will grant rights and priviledges for. That’s not making same sex marriages illegal, just not legally recognized. Big difference between the two.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney:
“I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts.”
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (via Twitter):
“Iowa Sup. Court dec. to allow same sex marriage is disappointing. All Iowans should have a say in this matter, not legislative judges … must fight to preserve family and amend the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as one man and one woman.”
South Carolina governor Mark Sanford:
Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for Sanford, did not react to the Iowa ruling specifically, but said the governor is “against same-sex marriage.” Sawyer pointed out that “South Carolina passed a same-sex marriage ban last year, and the governor was supportive of it.”
Alaska governor Sarah Palin:
Bill McAllister, a spokesman for Palin, said that as of this morning, “we haven’t dicussed it.” Palin has said she opposes defining marriage as anything but between a man and a woman.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Uh … no, that isn’t what I said at all, and I am at a total loss as to what in my comment led you to that very strange conclusion.
But then, you are a Rombot, a category of being remarkable for their strange thought processes.
I note that, while bringing up something I did not say, you did not address what I did say — that courts have the right (under the US and presumably the Iowa constitutions) to review the constitutionality of laws under their jurisdictions.
By the way, congratulations on (very belatedly) catching on that this is an Iowa decision we’re discussing.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
#54 – Partially, I’ve articulated economic reasons for it to; plus I believe it would contribute to the demise of our country.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
58 – Oh no! Committed gay couples are killing America! Hide the children!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
All this discussion on the topic and STILL nobody really gets it! Those clamoring for “legalizing gay marriage” don’t understand it’s already legal! Don’t believe me? Show me a single case where someone was prosecuted for an illegal marriage on the basis of it being to a member of the same sex. Heck, show me a law on the books that makes it a criminal act for two members of the same sex to get married, period! Here’s a hint: the best you’ll be able to show is that the law sets a definition for a specific social contract that they will grant rights and priviledges for. That’s not making same sex marriages illegal, just not legally recognized. Big difference between the two.
Ugh, don’t be stupid. You’re playing word games.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
#51 Kris Lorelli does not take marriage seriously. Kris Lorelli does not value marriage, to him it is devalued.
I just thought I’d take out the word, “people” and put in someone specific. Now how do you feel about your (modified) statements? Are they still true as far as you are concerned?
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
My impression is that BobH is patronizing and not interested in resolution, simply in being “right.” I got no time for that honey.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
OK Alex, here’s my true feeling on this if you can handle it. Homosexual activity is a selfish act. The kind of traditional marriage as a foundation for child-rearing and as a basic building block for society, is an unselfish act that benefits the children, and the state, and the nation. The Constitution doesn’t protect selfish acts, especially those that don’t benefit society, or the state, or the nation. Why should it? The Constitution is a code meant to protect individuals working together for the benefit of the whole, NOT protect detractors that would chip away at societal foundations for their own selfish ends. The Constitution protects rights granted to us by our Creator, and homosexual acts or other sexual deviance cannot reasonably be construed to be included in the thought processes of the Founding Fathers. Do you have a decent argument as to how protecting and promoting homosexual relationships would benefit society? Can you argue it is a Constitutional right intended by the Founding Fathers? OR would you concede it is an invented, attenuated right made up by activist judges? Now I’m not fully invested in all of this statement, though I easily could be. Let’s see if you have a decent argument to sway me from it. With your help I might refine it some.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Liz #63, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!! For such a in-depth and well-thought out response as to why gay marriage is wrong and should never be a protected right under the Constitution. There’s a lot more to it than that, but you really hit point that made so much sense that I never thought of before. A gay-marriage is faux “right” — that will result in violations of fundamental rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Just read about what happened in Canada.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
By the way, young people that are disillusioned with or don’t value marriage, have been taught that. TV programming, government schools, and single-parent families all devalue marriage. It’s not that marriage does not have value as an institution, it still does, just as it always has. Society, due to people that don’t respect the value of traditional marriage and wish to destroy or re-define it, suffers as a result. Can anyone argue why changing the definition of marriage to include same-sexers strengthens families, states, or the nation in anyway? It really doesn’t, that is obvious. It simply concedes an indulgence to a small group of very insistent, very aggressive people who are angry for personal reasons at religion and it’s existing institutions. The homosexual movement CLEARLY is trying to frighten and cow society into throwing away it’s tradition, because THEN the movement has a stepping stool from which to launch the argument that NOW same-sex marriage is legal, so churches that teach against sexual deviance MUST be deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHAM, we just became a godless society, where big brother replaces families and God as the governing authority.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Well thank YOU Fredrick, it was feeling a little lonely out here.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Fredrick, I love your excitement. If you want an awesome but challenging read about all of this, Try Robert Bork’s THE TEMPTING of AMERICA. THat guy was a freakin’ rocket scientist when it comes to Constitutional Law.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Bork points out that abortion is another one of those “faux” rights, to coin your term. I guarantee you Thomas Jefferson and friends were not considering that to be an un-alienable right endowed by the[ir] Creator when they were writing up the governing docs for this nation.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
By the way Kris Lorelli, I laughed at your Switzerland deal, I have been looking into moving to Switzerland for a while now, seriously. I want to re-iterate my point that marriage isn’t a commodity with fluctuating value or utility, it has a fixed value and a definite usefulness. If YOU think it has value, then value it. The more people that respect and value it, the better the quality of marriages in our society gets overall. Look, when we talk about the family being the basic building block of society, if no new families are being formed because we are taught there is no value in it, society crumbles. You don’t want to be part of that now Kris, do you? Start valuing marriage!
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Liz, the original Bill of Rights included #9 and #10:
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
-retained BY THE PEOPLE. BY THE PEOPLE. Wow. Thanks. That was what I was looking for. Not the judges, eh? But the people. Right on. I thought those founding fathers were leaving me standing…
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Discuss amongst yourselves, I gotta go although I regret missing a good round with the formidable Metro.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
OK Alex, here’s my true feeling on this if you can handle it. Homosexual activity is a selfish act. The kind of traditional marriage as a foundation for child-rearing and as a basic building block for society, is an unselfish act that benefits the children, and the state, and the nation. The Constitution doesn’t protect selfish acts, especially those that don’t benefit society, or the state, or the nation. Why should it? The Constitution is a code meant to protect individuals working together for the benefit of the whole, NOT protect detractors that would chip away at societal foundations for their own selfish ends. The Constitution protects rights granted to us by our Creator, and homosexual acts or other sexual deviance cannot reasonably be construed to be included in the thought processes of the Founding Fathers. Do you have a decent argument as to how protecting and promoting homosexual relationships would benefit society? Can you argue it is a Constitutional right intended by the Founding Fathers? OR would you concede it is an invented, attenuated right made up by activist judges? Now I’m not fully invested in all of this statement, though I easily could be. Let’s see if you have a decent argument to sway me from it. With your help I might refine it some.
A few questions:
1) Do you believe that individual rights are important insofar as they protect the individual, or do you think that they all only exist to further society?
2) Do you believe that people have the right to pursue happiness as they see fit, as long it harms no one else?
3) Do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? Do you believe that it is an ideology? A movement? Do you really think that it’s a conspiracy to overthrow churches? Are you insane?
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Fredrick, I love your excitement. If you want an awesome but challenging read about all of this, Try Robert Bork’s THE TEMPTING of AMERICA. THat guy was a freakin’ rocket scientist when it comes to Constitutional Law.
It’s a good book. He should have been a justice.
He was also intellectually honest, unlike you.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
#71: Every day Liz proves she is the dumbest person on this site.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Although Liz took the prize of the day for not understanding the point about interracial marriages.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Alex,
I believe marriage is essentiial to society. The family is the best place for people to learn and grow. Single parents have higher welfare rates, etc.
Now, comparing gays to singles is unfair. But it seems to me, anything that I (or a lot of people I trust) feel that may change the family further.
A society accepting an alternate definition is disconcerting.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Yes, a majority of young people do not value marriage, sex, work, etc….I believe that, but I get your point on how I generalized.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Liz,
This is why I do not ‘Christian bash’ as Alex does. Although I am a non-practicing Catholic (agnostic), I still cherish the values one obtains from faith.
Morality can be taught in so many ways.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Metro, don’t be a j/o, Liz has not gay bashed, as others have. You two just have a philosophical disagreement.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
#80: I don’t confuse ideology and intelligence. I can disagree with someone but respect their intelligence, e.g., Matthew Miller.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
#60 Ugh, don’t be stupid. You’re playing word games.”
No, actually, I’m objecting to the emotionally-charged rhetoric carelessly flung around by both ends of this debate. For instance, comments about “destruction of the family” are usually based in the misguided notion that equates homosexuality with various deviant sexual practices (leather chaps, crossdressing, and a variety of others). Similarly, complaints about “equal rights” are usually masks for “acceptance.” There’s a lot going on tonight at home, or I’d expound. I’ll probably post on this subject, since so many people just HAVE to comment on a topic that almost NOBODY is honest about their reasoning (or has bought into misinformation) for being for or against it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Metro, don’t be a j/o, Liz has not gay bashed, as others have.
Are you f’ing kidding? She said that gays were selfish deviants who want to destroy the church!
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Similarly, complaints about “equal rights” are usually masks for “acceptance.”
I’m quite upfront about it. I want acceptance. And I think that anyone who has a problem with gay people is either uneducated or a malicious, bigoted creep.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I’m just wondering what everyone against gay marriage thinks the argument against interracial marriage was.
It was that marriage had always been between two people of the same races, that introducing interracial marriage would introduce a deviant practice to the mainstream, that we shouldn’t redefine marriage, that it would harm the traditional concept of the family…
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Having interacial parents doesn’t deny a child a mother and a father. Babies born out of wedlock, divorce, voluntary single
motherhood and gay adoptions do. If individuals by their choices want to deny their children a loving mother and father, fine.
But why should the government get involved with promoting anything but the ideal situation for a child?
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
What can a mother and father really provide that two mothers can’t?
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
You’re the one with all the answers! Why don’t you lecture us on how a child doesn’t need a mother and a father. Lets hear it!
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“What can a mother and father really provide that two mothers can’t?”
My adolescence would probably have lacked a treasure trove of ’80s-era Playboys. I wouldn’t be the person I am today without that watershed discovery.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Oh, and when you come up with your brilliant reasons why children don’t need a mother and father, you might want to share it with
the federal government so they can use your analysis to defend their sanctioning of gay marriage.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
From the last time we had this discussion:
http://race42008.com/2008/10/10/the-problem-with-gay-marriage-is-marriage/#comment-365908
http://race42008.com/2008/11/10/you-dont-say/#comment-382318
http://race42008.com/2008/11/10/you-dont-say/#comment-382327
http://race42008.com/2008/11/10/you-dont-say/#comment-382366
http://race42008.com/2008/11/10/you-dont-say/#comment-382375
http://race42008.com/2009/03/07/is-this-the-face-of-the-future-of-the-conservative-movement/#comment-414519
http://race42008.com/2009/03/07/is-this-the-face-of-the-future-of-the-conservative-movement/#comment-414561
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
A single mother or a single father or two mothers and two fathers can be (and in tens of millions of cases are) excellent parents and well adjusted children (Alex, Win, etc…).
But based on the structure of our society, no one can deny that a mother and a father, in a healthy and loving relationship, active in their childrens lives, make the ideal parents for the society we live in.
Of course, how many households have a mother and a father, who have a healthy relationship and are active in their childrens lives? The minority of households.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
You’re the one with all the answers! Why don’t you lecture us on how a child doesn’t need a mother and a father. Lets hear it!
I’m saying that two mothers can be excellent parents or crappy parents, just like a mother and father together can be.
Oh, and when you come up with your brilliant reasons why children don’t need a mother and father, you might want to share it with
the federal government so they can use your analysis to defend their sanctioning of gay marriage.
You assume that the federal government listens to citizens!
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Iowa: ‘The Gay Marriage Mecca’?
Potential GOP Presidential Contenders Weigh In on Iowa’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
NYPD Sees Threat in Israel-Iran Tensions
The New York Police Department has prepared plans to beef up security at the city’s synagogues and other Jewish sites amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, officials confirmed Friday. Concerns that Muslim extremist groups might retaliate against civilians in the city’s Jewish community if Israel were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities prompted the NYPD to put together a response plan that includes deploying extra officers, including heavily armed Hercules Teams, to synagogues, Jewish community centers and Israeli diplomatic offices.
Analysis: Unemployment growth could hurt Obama
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke calls them “green shoots” — the rising housing sales and factory orders and small market gains that signal an economy coming out of its downward spiral. Friday’s new jobless figures trampled them.
Boston Globe faces $20M in cuts or closure
The New York Times has threatened to shut down the Boston Globe if the paper doesn’t come up with $20 million in cuts within 30 days in a dramatic act of brinksmanship at the beleaguered broadsheet.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
This would be a victory for Mitt Romney. Every print journalist in MA dislikes him.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Goldman,
It sounds like Palin and Jindal didn’t believe there to be any benefit from slamming the court ruling.
Strong signs from Pawlenty and Sanford that they are running in 2012 with their comments.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I agree with Kavon that gay marriage in America seems inevitable. But as he noted, this sort of judicial activism kills the political process.
The focus on SC Justice nominations and the constant protestors on the steps of the Court are evidence that the focus for issues dear to peoples’ hearts has become the Supreme Court and not election day.
People are more inclined to try and persuade 5 justices to accept their point of view rather than vote in a legislative majority who will make law legitimately.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I fail to see how this is “Judicial Activism”. Maybe if Iowans didn’t pass laws that ran counter to their own State Constitution, courts wouldn’t have to smack them down. Here’s the relevant part of the Iowa Constitution, FYI:
No constitutions are being shredded – they’re being upheld. That much should be obvious from the fact that so many of you want to change the Constitution because you don’t like the consequences of upholding what it currently says.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
95 – Sounds like they could use Romney’s help about now. Ha.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
98 – I take it 14 year olds are allowed to vote in local races in Iowa? No legal drinking age?
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Big S,
It doesn’t help that we’re not exactly Iowan constitutional scholars. But, it’s far from clear to me that that privileges or immunities clauses should be applied to something like gay marriage. What is meant by a general nature? Is marriage a law of a “general nature”? Without looking at any of the history behind the provision, I’d imagine that marriage wasn’t the sort of thing they had in mind. I’d like to see the Iowa marriage statutes.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
GetReal’s example is spot on, and I’d imagine that’s precisely why the phrase is “all laws of a general nature” not simply “all laws”.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
102 – another example, can two 11 year olds marry each other in Iowa without parental consent? According to that particular reading of their state constitution, it would appear they could.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:04 am
#101
Oh, come on. It’s not that complicated. You don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to figure out what it means. It really doesn’t matter what the opinions of the framers of Iowa’s constitution were, because they didn’t bother to write them down at the time. One of the things they did write down, though, was a judicial framework through which the Constitution may be interpreted and disputes may be settled. Sometimes legislatures pass laws that are in conflict with other laws, or even a constitution itself, and they must be brought into harmony to keep order. Anti-gay-marriage activists understand this – otherwise they wouldn’t want to change the constitution to fit their favored law. This is not judicial overreach – it’s a judicial obligation. All you’re doing is looking for some vagueness in the constitution to assert that the law is not in conflict with it, and that since the framers didn’t say anything about gay marriage, that the equal protection provisions should somehow not apply. As they say in my field, though, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’re going to have to do better than that.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:08 am
MEM: You’re of course right that none of us are knowledgeable on Iowa law — which is why I have stayed away from discussing the right/wrong of the decision and limited myself to the clear fact that the court has the right to rule on the constitutionality of Iowa laws.
While I am sympathetic to the outcome of the case, I agree with one of Kavon’s original points — which I’ve made elsewhere — that such decisions are actually setbacks for the cause of gay rights.
Gay marriage is going to happen, and relatively shortly, so it is best for everyone that it come in the manner that will cause the least ill-feeling among all but the hardcore homophobes.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:10 am
#102
The age limit thing is a total red herring. They exist because minors are not considered able to make certain kinds of decisions on their own – that is, they can’t consent. Are you really going to try to assert that gay adults fall into the same category – that somehow, they are less capable that straight adults? Go ahead – I dare you.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Big S–
If you know anything about the 14th and 5th Amendments, it is that the Equal Protection Clause and similar clauses found in state constitutions don’t guarantee equality in the sense of fairness or to set everyone on equal footing.
If that were the case EVERY SINGLE law WITHOUT EXCEPTION would have to be struck down. That is a legal fact. Equal protection doesn’t even guarantee that laws won’t be based on race, and if nothing else, at the very least, the equal protection clause and the 14th Amendment itself was meant to prevent race based classification laws. Regardless, it does not completely bar race based classification laws–it only heightens the scrutiny at which the court must use in weighing the interests of the government and the rights of the people and it establishes a presumption of unconstitutionality of race based laws unless the State can prove its case.
So if you’re going to argue that this court’s ruling wasn’t judicial activism and overreaching of the court’s purpose, notwithstanding the statutes of Iowa, then you’re “going to have to do better than that.”
April 4th, 2009 at 12:30 am
And what about the “upon the same terms shall not belong equally belong to all citizens”. What are the “terms” of the Iowa marriage laws? It seems obvious that the law they overturned explicitly or implicitly denied that “love” was a term of the contract. If the terms were, effectively, “people may marry a person of the opposite sex” then clearly gay couples did indeed have marriage on the same terms as straight couples. It’s a non-sequitur to say that love really ought to be the standard because, of course, that’s precisely the question in dispute and precisely what the Iowa legislature was trying to resolve when they passed the law. If I passed a law giving tax credits to small businesses you could argue that you ought to be included, but I’d rather reasonably point out that the tax credits were available to you on the same terms, and that it’s not my fault you’re not a small business owner.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:39 am
#107
Didn’t the court decide that the law did not meet the more stringent requirements for constitutionality – basically that the State did not prove its case? It’s interesting that you bring up the presumption of unconstitutionality. Under the framework preferred by most of the anti-gay-marriage commenters here, there is an implicit presumption of constitutionality for any law passed by a majority (as long as they themselves are in that majority, of course). All of this arguing over constitutionality is silly anyway, since the court is constitutionally empowered to resolve disputes between various (levels of) laws. It’s a completely ideological phenomenon that always comes out the same way: if the court decides a law you like is unconstitutional, you’re just going to up the ante and declare the court itself unconstitutional (let’s see how they like that!). It’s not a serious argument, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:41 am
I encourage you to keep hammering away on this point. It’ll hasten your side’s loss in this argument.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:45 am
No legal drinking age?
Supremacy clause?
April 4th, 2009 at 12:59 am
You’re right about which question is in dispute. The court found, in essence, that any standards the State had delineated to exclude homosexual relationships from eligibility for marriage and all of its accompanying privileges did not meet the individual liberty test implicit in the equal protection clauses. Looking at it another way – if you’re asking whether love, child bearing capability, etc. should be the criterion for recognizing a marriage, you’re asking the wrong question. None of those tests apply to straight couples, and if you’re using any of them or the uncertainty therein as your justification for excluding gay couples, you’re probably already violating equal protection.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:12 am
44. Dogs and cats, LIVING TOGETHER, ANDEMOMIUM! (10 points for anyone old enough to understand the movie reference). It is not up to society to define sin or prevent or punish it. Society is about regulating social relationships, where necessary. When you have families who try to exclude their gay child’s partner from their rightful place as THE decisonmaker when they are incapacitated (even though they haven’t actually spoken with the child because they believe he or she is living in sin), then it is right and proper to provide for a legal solution to enforce the rights of the couple.
53. This is the United States of America. We don’t enact or enforce rights because the majority favors them, but to protect the minority from the majority. The problem is not legislation from the bench, but legislation by the Iowa General Assembly which tried to impose a view of marriage that did not apply to everyone. Those who were excluded protested. That is why we have courts and judicial review. If you don’t like the rule of law, move to Venezuela.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Big S,
Oh, I understand the rationale. I just find it patently ridiculous. A historical analysis that puts “love” at the center of marriage is beyond shoddy. Read any Jane Austen book, and you’ll notice they’re exceedingly less romantic in tone then the films. There’s all sorts of talk about good matches and compatibility, but surprisingly little about actual love. Even the queen of the romances herself was a practical schoolmarm. And Austen is but 200 years removed from us. How do you explain the past practice, all the world over, of divorcing your wife is she didn’t bear you children? Or how about the existence of dowries? Culturally, a daughter’s children were thought of more as part of her husband’s family. So you have parents paying to send their daughter’s off, in part, because the daughter’s weren’t thought to add to the family legacy (it also had to do with the way inheritance laws were set up). Etc. I’m not saying that the old notion of marriage was entirely better; simply that it was substantially focused on child-bearing, child-rearing, etc. So forgive me if I scoff at their silly claim that anyone defining marriage as essentially about those things must be acting in bad faith.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:19 am
In my observation of this issue, it seems apparent that many so-called Christians believe that they are somehow required to persecute gays and lesbians for their own good and that somehow God hates fags. Neither is true. The sin of Sodom was bad urban planning. Locating a city near geologically active salt flats is a great way to have a city covered in molten salt. Its about as stupid as locating city neighborhoods under canal level and wondering why you get flooded out. You are, of course, free to believe that God is an asshole. Just don’t be shocked if I don’t share your view.
Speaking of religious overtones, I would hope that the bishops don’t pull the same stupidity they did regarding recognizing gay spouses that they did with gay adoption in Boston, by closing Catholic hospitals rather than complying. Of course, in most cases, religious orders, not bishops, own the hospitals, so there is less danger.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:29 am
63. The Constitution is meant to form a political union among states. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals form the majority under both that polticial union, and since the enactment of the 14th Amendment, from the majorities in their own states.
God created gays to be gay. Unless you have the temerity to argue with God about his work, I suggest you leave it there. As for homosexual relationships being selfish, you obviously don’t have to many openly gay friends. Pity.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:35 am
68. If you are using Bork, that explains a lot. Bork is a dinosaur. The reason abortion was not added to the bill of rights, or considered either way, was because no one was trying to regulate abortion. The reason gay rights weren’t considered was because two guys living together would keep it in the closet. There was no such thing as medical life support. When people got sick, they either got better or died, mostly the latter. Current technology is what raises the issue of the rights of the spouse versus the rights of the family.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:45 am
86. The point of the whole case is that it is not up to the government to promote anything. People make marriage, not governments.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:52 am
105. I care little for the feelings of either hard core homophobes or hard core racists. Offending either group is just icing on the cake.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:57 am
107. Race was the motivation for passing 14 or 15, however the intent of the framers of these was actually more expansive, going back to Madison’s attempt to protect freedom of speech and conscience rights from interference at the state level. Predictably, the states did not accept that provision in the Senate in the original bill of rights. If you really want to find out what the framers of XIV meant, read Democracy Reborn by Garrett Epps. Also, take a look at A Neccessary Evil by Gary Wills.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:12 am
114. The fact that childrearing is no longer considered a requirement for marriage kind of proves the equal protection point, as well as the “evolving standard” point with regards to marriage.
While gay marriage is somewhat about the “dignity” of marriage for gay couples, the major issue is the rights of the spouse versus the right of the family. Unless you can come up with some rational basis for saying that the family of a gay child in a marriage should have more rights to assert itself than the family of a straight child in a marriage, then you have no argument.
Marriage is not so much about the couple, but about the right to exclude the family. If I get sick, my wife has all the power and my mother has none – as it should be. After my wife, after she reaches the age of majority, my daughter is the decisionmaker (unless I find a new wife or after gay marriage is universal, a husband). My family of origin is the last in line, again, as it should be.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Michael, actually it’s “mass hysteria”, not “pandemonium.” And, I ain’t afraid of no ghosts.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
117 – To the contrary, Abortion was illegal during those times.
106 – I didn’t see any “unless they are too young to know any better” exceptions in the language.
April 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Here’s the thing – by dragging “what marriage is really about” into the argument, you’re poisoning your own rationale RE: equal protection. There is no legal test for what a straight couple’s marriage should be based on, so asking what a gay couple’s marriage should be based on would lead to unacceptable differences in the way two groups are treated under the law. You aren’t really suggesting that there should be laws outlining what are acceptable reasons for straight OR gay couples to get married, are you? If not, then I fail to see how your point relates to the legality of gay marriage.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
GetReal,
That is simply untrue.
From the time the Constitution was drafted until the mid-19th Century, life did not legally begin in America until after a pregnant woman detected fetal movement in her womb (~20 weeks gestation). Not only was the practice of aborting previable fetuses not a crime in Jefferson’s day, but even the deliberate killing of a developing child after quickening was treated simply as a misdemeanor.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
125 – How does being a misdemeanor make it untrue? Sounds more like at the time, pre-20 weeks was difficult to prove.
Also, an 1812 ruling over 20 years after the Bill of Rights was adopted does not disprove abortion being illegal at the time of the Constitution.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Because the deliberate killing of a developing fetus up to the point of quickening was not illegal. Today, 96 percent of all abortions are performed within 16 weeks, or prior to ‘quickening.’
Jefferson, in 1812, recognized Blackstone’s Commentaries, which our Founding Fathers relied upon in drafting our Constitution, as the “most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue.” He understood the decision was then, as it remains today, ultimately one for a pregnant woman, herself, to make.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
So if it was at the time recognized as perfectly legal, why did they take the guy to court in the first place?
April 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
128. Because prosecutors who feel morally justified tend to overreach,
which is also an argument for choice today.
Abortion remained an offense punished by a fine. If your only protection
is a fine, you never had a “right to life.” I am fine with creating a
right to life at some point during gestation, although the earliest I
can see being reasonable is the commencement of the fetal heartbeat,
although this may be problematic because the concept of equal protection
would then apply to these children, which means that if one of them dies
(as they tend to do) their death becomes a tort, which complicates the
practice of obstetrics in a way that is not beneficial to the majority
of the unborn. The best legal line is probably assisted viability – although
it must be clear in law that such assistance is not mandatory until
the third trimester. It should never be legally required to keep someone
going by hooking them up to a machine. Life is not a fetish.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Isn’t it odd that when we disagree with any Supreme Court decision, we call them ‘activist judges’. When we agree with their opinions, we call them ‘right on’. Can’t have it both ways, folks. Sorry
September 12th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
1001 ways to stay young…
Your topic Not What I ExPected ” Soliloquies of A Stranger was interesting when I found it on Saturday searching for 1001 ways to stay young…