Does Karl Rove Still Have The Magic?

Back in 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Court and Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, launched a national conversation on gay marriage.  Now the California Supreme Court may provide Republicans the same favor (I deplore these distractions).  We will find out at about 1 PM EDT; the WSJ blog has the relevant legal background but omits a key political point - in 2005 [and 2007] the California legislature narrowly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage; Schwarzenegger vetoed it as contrary to the 2000 referendum [Excellent background from Eugene Volokh].

In a mad fit of shameless self-promotion, I will cite this old post from Feb 2004 as shockingly insightful, or anyway, inciteful - my gist was that "Loving v. Virgina", in which the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, was *not* an example of an activist court.  In fact, since many states had already repealed such statutes (and since Congress had recently passed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act), my contention is that the Supreme Court ratified a societal change that had already occurred.

That will be quite different from the situation in California, clearly.  But as to what the popular will is in the Golden State, who knows?  A 2000 ballot initiative barring gay marriage passed with 61%; as mentioned, in 2005 the legislature ignored that; and now a new ballot initiative (this time in the form of a constitutional amendment) is poised to go on the November ballot.  It does appear that the people will be heard and a full judicial cram-down avoided.

MORE:  Ruling is here (172 page .pdf).  From p. 7:

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

I am not a lawyer and I have not read the rest, but my quick impression is that this is a finding of a right within the California constitution to gay marriage both in substance and in form (i.e., it will be called "marriage"), which brings the attempt to amend the constitution by way of ballot initiative into play for this November.  Loose the hounds!

DEPLORABLE DESCENT INTO SNIDENESS - Nothing about this yet at Sully's site?  Geez.

Team Volokh is reading what I'm reading.

Eugene Volokh:

California Supreme Court Holds That California Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Orin Kerr:

California Supreme Court Holds That There Is A State Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage in California

SNIDENESS REVISITED:  Lots of coverage by Andrew Sullivan (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); I liked this from his first post:

The most populous state now joins much of the rest of the Western world in bringing gay couples into the civic and human family as equals.

Really?  I would have inferred that they have joined Canada, Belgium, Holland, Spain and South Africa.  Not to overlook Massachusetts.  The list for civil partnerships is much longer, but that is not what this tussle is about.

I will agree with Andrew's point that this is not a clarion case of judicial activism, given the legislative support in 2005 and the high likelihood of a ballot initiative this fall.  Now, if the ballot initiative succeeds in amending the California constitution and the California Court strikes it down, we are into judicial wonderland.

SINCE YOU ASK:  My official editorial position has been that gay marriage is an idea whose time is coming (based on its strong support among the young and opposition among the elderly) and that it ought to arrive by way of the legislative process rather than by judicial fiat.

As to the merits, I have no idea how vast or trivial a social experiment we are talking about.  In Massachusetts and around the country black ministers were opposed - apparently they have had trouble promoting marriage to the young gangsta wanna-bes who are currently reluctant to do the white thing with their ladies; if marriage is further re-branded as a gay thing, they felt their challenge would be even greater.  Are they right?  And should we let the homophobia of a bunch of dysfunctional urban youth drive our social policy?  Or is this yet another liberal assault on the black family (To be filed under "What Else Is New?)

Well.  I think if we get to gay marriage by way of the tedious democratic process of mustering support and passing laws, we will be fine.  If we get there because some creative Obama judges, after contemplating the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, come to the realization that our Founding Fathers really did endorse gay marriage, well, that will be divisive and a distraction.  And we don't want that.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I am dating myself here but I am easily old enough to remember when the motivation behind the push for gay marriage in New York City was to enable gay tenants to pass along rent-controlled apartments to their significant other.  A bit later the AIDS crisis prompted a push for gay marriage to allow a spousal access to health insurance.  So the current talk about the desire for access to marriage as a fundamental expression of true love falls a bit flat to these tired ears.

ENCORE:  David Brooks on the conservative case for gay marriage as a stabilizing institution, from Nov. 2003.

FROM THE CANDIDATES:  Ben Smith of The Politico has statements from the campaign.  I like this summary:

... JMart wisely notes: Because Obama is not where the far left wants him to be (marriage) and McCain not where the far right wants him to be (a federal ban), this is not something either will probably make front and center.

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

Drudge is reporting that the court overturned the ban.

[nash]

In fact, since many states had already repealed such statutes, my contention is that the Supreme Court ratified a societal change that had already occurred.

I'm sorry, but that statement is downright stupid. The Supreme Court has no authority to ratify anything. The fact that "many" states may have repealed the statute doesn't mean anything if you believe in Federalism.

[Ranger]

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship...

Hmmm. Wouldn't that call for recognizing polygomy as well?

[ParseThis]

There are just too many scary people. Change is dead.

[Phelps]

There is a good chance that this will turn CA red just from turnout this year, and that dooms any Dem hopes at the white house.

[Danube of Thought]

I noted this at the conclusion of the CNN coverage:

"An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage."

I don't think such an appeal will be heard, if one is taken. It's my recollection that the federal courts defer to the rulings of the states' highest courts on matters of state law. Can someone with actual knowledge of this docrine clue me in?

[Pofarmer]

Why do the Dim's keep flogging this issue? Everytime it's put up for a vote it goes down by HUGE margins. I think California was the Closes. In MO it was by nearly 80%, I beleive Oregon was over 70%(no bastion of conservatism, there).

my contention is that the Supreme Court ratified a societal change that had already occurred.

I don't see where societal change has much to do with Constitutional law, which is where the Supreme court is supposed to fit in.

[Danube of Thought]

As a Californian, Phelps, I respectfully disagree. This state is as blue as they come, and is going to remain so. While there'll be lots of turnout in support of the pending ballot initiative, there'll be plenty in opposition as well.

[Gmax]

Several of you are misconstruing what TM posted. He was addressing "an activist court" and defining that as a court that tries to change society with it rulings. So if society had already changed, the court would not be leading but following and not activist.

Now I duck and I expect to be called an "Apologist to the great and powerful man behind between the curtain." Or maybe TM will pipe up and agree (or tell me I am wrong and you guys criticisms are spot on).

[Danube of Thought]

Let me make so bold as to offer this prediction: One way or another, the people will not be successful in overturning this decision by popular vote on the ballot measure this November. Either it will be kept off the ballot by some means or another (with the assistance of the judiciary, of course) or, having been passed, it will be struck down by this same court. On what grounds I cannot say, but I believe I've seen this movie before.

I also don't rule out the possibility that the ballot measure will be defeated at the polls...

[Gmax]

That would be a sea change. It has not even been close anywhere its been on the ballot, to my recollection. I guess maybe its possible Californians have had 2nd thoughts since 2000, but that is not so long ago that I would think it likely.

It will pump up turnout, and voter participation is almost always a good thing in a democracy.

[The Other Ed]

The ballot proposition may have trouble. One difference from the previous 2000 initiative is that there is now almost 4 years of experience in Massachusetts that point to the fact that legalization has not caused civilization to collapse. That heterosexual marriages were not effected in anyway. The only people whose lives where changed were the gay couples themselves.

In fact opposition to gay marriage in the state has dropped significantly, the most recent Massachusetts poll, in April 2007, found that 56 percent of those surveyed would oppose an amendment to ban same sex marriage.

[San Andreas Fault]

H'uh

What?

[Gmax]

100 - 56 = 44% support at most. Probably some ,"I dont know" " I am not telling you" "none ya business" and " could you repeat the question, again" responses too.

I dont see how that wins when you need 50.1% but maybe you did not mean "may have trouble" to be "will lose at the ballot box".

[BOATBUILDER]

GMAX--you are correct about what TM was saying, and TM is correct in saying it. So there.

Now if you can explain what you meant about "behind between the curtain" . . .

[Danube of Thought]

I'm confused, GMax. I think The Other Ed is saying that 56% would oppose a ban on gay marriage, not gay marriage itself. Am I missing something?

By the way, Arnold has just announced that he will not support the November initiative. Behold today's Republican.

[Sue]

I don't think such an appeal will be heard, if one is taken.

I saw somewhere that it couldn't go to the SC but I don't remember where or why.

[centralcal]

I read the same thing too, Sue - that it couldn't be appealed to the SC because the decision was based on the California constitution.

[The Other Ed]

Right. The poll was showing that support or at least active opposition to gay marriage had dwindled as people saw it in action here in Massachusetts.

And no, there have been no calls in the state to extend marriage to beastiality. No one is trying to marry their dog. Though there is a catlady down the street I'm a little worried about.

[Forbes]

Sully is busy getting his wedding gown out of the cedar chest, and taking it to the dry cleaners to get pressed. Things to plan and plans to make...

[Jane]

He was addressing "an activist court" and defining that as a court that tries to change society with it rulings. So if society had already changed, the court would not be leading but following and not activist.

That's my read too, altho reading is no longer my strong suit.

What I infer from that is that the CA Constitution extends a "fundamental right to form a family", which is an odd thing to begin with. Next year they will probably pass a measure giving a "fundamental right to health care" too.

(I just interrupted Amy and asked her what difference "gay marriage" in MA has meant to her life. She thought about it and said: "Absolutely none". She was married in a civil union in Vt and then married in MA a few years later to avail herself of the state benefits that go with marriage. She considers her marriage to be her civil union and the rest sort of pro-forma. They celebrate their anniversary on the date of the civil union. Her marriage here certainly didn't change anyone else in the Commonwealth. She may at some point be forced to marry again in CT since her wife works there -to get health insurance - and tax filing is a bitch - but I digress....)

[Pofarmer]

Several of you are misconstruing what TM posted. He was addressing "an activist court" and defining that as a court that tries to change society with it rulings. So if society had already changed, the court would not be leading but following and not activist.

I understood what Tom Wrote, I just don't think that's the place of the court. Society may come to conclusions that are unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the courts should rubber stamp them.

[Pofarmer]

Of what benefit is gay marriage to society?

[Danube of Thought]

I just checked, and as I understand it the initiative that will (perhaps) be on the ballot in November is one to amend the state constitution, so if passed it would trump today's decision. It needs only a simple majority popular vote to pass. The initiative that was overturned today was a legislative one; the only difference between the two is that in order to get an initiative amending the constitution on the ballot you need the signatures of a number equal to 8% of the vote in the last statewide election, vs. only 5% for a legislative initiative.

Safe to say there will be an intense debate out here for the next five-plus months.

[JM Hanes]

TM: Looks like you forgot to paste the URL into your Orin Kerr link. Eugene Volokh has also got a slew of follow-up posts, so be sure to scroll upward if you're interested in following the discussion there.

[Jane]

Of what benefit is gay marriage to society?

Probably the same benefit that straight marriage is. It affirms a commitment, makes it tougher to break-up, makes kids more secure - that sort of thing.

[sbw]

As long as Tom has his official position, mine is that the sensible thing is to address the ancillary issues like HIPPA regulations, health insurance and the like. I don't even think there is a good inventory. Let's get a handle on the financial costs associated with such partnerships.

For now, it would seem yeoman-like to clean up the mechanics to function in a gender-neutral way. Who knows, the future may not end up so contentious after all.

[Jane]

Let's get a handle on the financial costs associated with such partnerships.

The net result will be the lowering of everyone's financial incentives for marriage.

Of course if you are single and don't participate in those incentives that doesn't bother you much. But don't forget that no federal benefits apply - only state ones. So for the purposes of taxes all married gays file as single with the feds and married with the state. It's pretty much an accounting nightmare from what I've witnessed and on a net basis it's not much incentive.

From what I've witnessed marriage is an affirmation of how people feel, and that's why both gays and straights do it. The whole benefits thing is just a reason to argue.

[centralcal]

Jane: What about Pastors, Reverends, Priests, Rabbis, etc. etc. who may feel their religious doctrines preclude them from "marrying" gays? Since, in California, they are licensed by the State, can they be sued or prosecuted if they fail to comply?

[centralcal]

I shoulda said performing the marriage rite, not marrying - duh!

[Jane]

Centralcal,

Beats me, but it's pretty dumb to get married by someone who doesn't want to marry you.

I just keep thinking that if people stopped acting so stupid - things would go a lot easier on this planet.

[Rick Ballard]

"I just keep thinking that if people stopped acting so stupid - things would go a lot easier on this planet."

Jane,

The problem is that many of them aren't acting.

[Jane]

You are so right Rick. And the stupid gays who want to force people opposed to gay marriage to marry them are just making the rest of the world think that gays are jerks and shouldn't share the names of their institutions. Sometimes I think it is an excuse to not get on with life.

[cathyf]

What about Pastors, Reverends, Priests, Rabbis, etc. etc. who may feel their religious doctrines preclude them from "marrying" gays? Since, in California, they are licensed by the State, can they be sued or prosecuted if they fail to comply?

Catholics believe that a divorced person who remarries, or someone who marries a divorced person, commits adultery. So Catholic priests won't preside at any weddings involving a divorced person (unless a church court rules that the dissolved marriage was invalid.) And, no, they can't be sued or prosecuted for it.

[Danube of Thought]

I believe that, in order for the constutional amendment to appear on the November ballot, roughly 694,000 valid signatures must be submitted. One point one million signatures have been submitted (I don't know if the deadline for further submissions has passed), and the process of determining their validity is presumably underway.

One of the means by which opponents of initiatives have succeeded in voiding them is by fly-speck attacks on the language contained in them ("impermissibly vague," etc.) or in the summaries of their effects that appear on the ballot. Where the judiciary has a will, it will often find a way. I expect the fur to be flying on this one.

Should the November inititative succeed, I would expect it to be challenged immediately under the due process and equal protection clauses of the US constitution. That means one of the federal district judges in California will rule on it, followed by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit (take a guess as to the outcome), thence to the US Supremes. This quarrel is going to outlive me, of that much I'm certain.

[boris]

Of what benefit is gay marriage to society?

Probably the same benefit that straight marriage

The proper question IMO is what benefit is society to traaditional marriage?

If marriage is an instinct, a position that is well supported, then it should be obvious why the instinct would default heterosexual. Human nature constructs society to service and enforce monogamous reproduction rather than the other way around.

Culture certainly can modify instinct and the above is not a claim of biological determinism. Just a better explanation (than homophobia) for public reaction.

One answer to my restructured question: Service and enforcement is less important these days and the institution mostly just provides instinctual satisfaction. The explicit separation from combined biological reproduction and rearing may over time result in further reduction of any value it reatains for that purpose.

[boris]

* traditional ** retains *

Sheesh hit Preview, look it over, hit post THEN notice suddenly obvious misspellings.

[centralcal]

cathyf: If a Priest (or Pastor, etc.) refuses to perform a gay marriage, then could the gay couple scream discrimination and cause the State to rescind his authority (license) to perform marriages?

[Jane]

Centralcal - anyone can scream (or sue) anyone for anything. And some probably will. There are idiots everywhere.

[boris]

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am dating myself here

So you're married but still dating someone other than your wife. Does she know about it?

[bgates]

If marriage is an instinct, a position that is well supported
Yeah, that famous male instinct for monogamy.
then it should be obvious why the instinct would default heterosexual.
That really makes no sense.

[clarice]

centralcal, I expect in a truly whacked out place, they could. In a sensible place it would be recognized that churches are entitled to set their own standards for those for whom they'd perform the marriage rites--i.e., not for divorced people or those who not received a church dispensation to remarry.

[Danube of Thought]

I don't think any court would ever recognize a "right" to be married by a particular clergyman or even in a particular church. A right to have a Justice of the Peace do it might be another mattter.

[centralcal]

Thanks, Clarice, Jane - I was asking because my boss told me his Pastor (Protestant) has warned his congregation that he will have no choice but to perform a gay marriage ceremony if requested or lose his State license.

[boris]

That really makes no sense.

The word instinct sometimes is used for traits that arise by inheritance.

Arguendo: Research reveals that curvy women are more fertile which may explain why men are more attracted to them.

How? Do men subconsciously want to make lots of babies so the ID persuades the EGO to like curves? Wrong.

Think back to some hypothetical time when men had no particular preference. Some like curvy, some like other forms ...

Over time the men who prefer curvy had more descendants (per the arguendo above) hence men today are more likely to be descended from and inherit that trait.

The way I used the word, male preference for shapely form is an "instinct". Also applying the logic to marriage seems obvious to me.

[cathyf]

That's silly -- divorced people have never been allowed to get married in Catholic churches, and the government doesn't have anything to say about it.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

...in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship...

Which is an open invitation to the polygamists to move to California. Menage a ...

[cathyf]

Sorry, intervening comment -- I meant that cc's boss's pastor was spouting nonsense, not you, boris.

[Gmax]

Well before you go gaga on how wonderful gay marriage is, I think you need to look at places where it has been in place for awhile, like say Holland. My recollection is that studies have been done which link the decline in family formation and marriage to these changes in society. I am pretty sure these were linked on the Volkhoh Conspiracy site. But I dont have time to go search.

And the last votes that were taken on this in 2004 in about 12 or more States saw huge majorities vote to ban gay marriage. Remember Maasachusetts voted for McGovern too. I would not take it as a looking glass for America, or even for a looking glass of the blue states as a whole.

[Pofarmer]

Culture certainly can modify instinct

Which is a very powerful argument against gay marriage, if you value traditional culture and society. You don't reinforce behaviors that you don't support, and that don't support society.

[steve talbert]

Wow, most of the comments show people really lack a basic understanding of how our government is supposed to work. Courts are SUPPOSED TO BE ACTIVIST. They judge things that the voters/legislature comes up with to make sure it doesn't trample the minority view. It is supposed to be our THIRD BRANCH of government.

[Abadman]

"Probably the same benefit that straight marriage is. It affirms a commitment, makes it tougher to break-up, makes kids more secure - that sort of thing."

Well I see, its for the kids, how can anyone be against it?. I don’t think marriage does any of those things to benefit to our society. No fault divorce has made pretty sure of that.

As the nanny state increases, the financial incentives for marriage(and the stability the potential loss of those incentives gave to marriage) will diminish. Why buy the cow if the milk is free so to speak. Gay marriage will not be the stake through the heart of American families, but today marriage is a little less special in California than it was yesterday, a little less spiritual, a little less give and take between two people and society, a little more just commitment affirmation.

You do not ask someone to affirm their commitment to you. You ask them to marry you, with all the history and expectations that go along with it. I am not certain the underlying product is as important to proponents of gay marriage as the trademark name is.

[PJ]

You guys are a riot. Since when does a church have to do anything the state says (other than not rape kids, anyway)? The way the ruling was handed down, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Now, if we could just get priests to knock off the whold kid thing... Maybe that should go to vote.

[Gmax]

Gay Marriage bans passed during 2004 election:

AR-75%
GA-76%
KY-75%
MI-59%
MS-86%
MT-67%
ND-73%
OH-62%
OK-76%
OR-57%
UT-66%

A real squeaker in Oregon only a 14% margin.

[Pofarmer]

Courts are SUPPOSED TO BE ACTIVIST. They judge things that the voters/legislature comes up with to make sure it doesn't trample the minority view. It is supposed to be our THIRD BRANCH of government.

Oh, bullshit. The courts are there to uphold the law and the CONSTITUTION. That's their role. The CONSTITUTION is their to protect all of our rights. Sometimes the minority is just the minority. Being in the minority doesn't give you special rights.

[Pofarmer]

They tried to slip the gay marriage ban through in August in MO.

Passed 71-29.

[Danube of Thought]

I think it'll be tougher to get it passed in CA than in those other states, but the biggest barrier to its passage is going to be an array of challenges to the initiative itself--starting with the validity of the signatures, then the wording of the initiative and its description on the ballot; then there'll be the federal constitutional challenges. In the meantime, just about every gay couple in the state who wants to marry will do so.

[centralcal]

PJ - thanks. That is the kind of answer I was looking for. I can't just tell my boss, oh, well, your Pastor is just being silly!

I would prefer to have something of substance to respond with.

[bd]

So the rejection of a ban in AZ in 2006 merits no discussion? Or the passage by only 2% in South Dakota or by only 6% in Colorado?

Seems to me that the West is where this change will occur. Not to mention the fact that support for gay marriage rises as age falls so it is just a matter of time before the support crosses 50%.

[MarkJ]

In the case of Europe, I'm sure gays throughout the Continent will eventually be awarded marriage rights...just in time for them to be taken away by their new Islamic masters.

[Curly Smith]

You guys are a riot. Since when does a church have to do anything the state says...

Mormons and polygamy ring a bell?

[Tom Hilton]

My official editorial position has been that gay marriage is an idea whose time is coming (based on its strong support among the young and opposition among the elderly) and that it ought to arrive by way of the legislative process rather than by judicial fiat.

It would have, but the governor vetoed the bill--saying it's for the courts to decide.

[Walter]

Centralcal,

Have you considered the possibility that the pastor really wants to perform these marriages, and this explanation is just th rationale he's giving his congregation?

[Ralph L]

Didn't the easy divorces laws passed in the 70's do more damage to marriage--is anyone trying to change those (besides Dr. Helen)?

[Jane]

Courts are SUPPOSED TO BE ACTIVIST.

Huh?

Did I leave the country during dinner or something?

[centralcal]

Yes, Walter, I have thought of that :)

[kipp]

"So the current talk about the desire for access to marriage as a fundamental expression of true love falls a bit flat to these tired ears."

There are same-sex couples raising children who want the legal right to marry because the consider their family the equal to a heterosexual married couple raising children. Discounting their desire to marry because gay New Yorkers were more concerned about rent control 20 years ago is both non-sequitur and callously glib. At least you were honest enough to aknowledge your bias - but don't you think the gay families in this case might be worthy of a little more esteem than the anecdotal dismissiveness of your "full disclosure"?

[Rick Ballard]

There are polygamous groups raising children who want the legal right to marry because the consider their family the equal to a heterosexual married couple raising children. Discounting their desire to marry because gay New Yorkers were more concerned about rent control 20 years ago is both non-sequitur and callously glib.

There are polyandrous groups raising children who want the legal right to marry because the consider their family the equal to a heterosexual married couple raising children. Discounting their desire to marry because gay New Yorkers were more concerned about rent control 20 years ago is both non-sequitur and callously glib.

There are communes practicing a form of group living without boundaries raising children who want the legal right to marry because the consider their family the equal to a heterosexual married couple raising children. Discounting their desire to marry because gay New Yorkers were more concerned about rent control 20 years ago is both non-sequitur and callously glib.

There are NAMBLA members raising children who want the legal right to marry because the consider their family the equal to a heterosexual married couple raising children. Discounting their desire to marry because gay New Yorkers were more concerned about rent control 20 years ago is both non-sequitur and callously glib.

[Pofarmer]

There are same-sex couples raising children who want the legal right to marry because the consider their family the equal to a heterosexual married couple raising children.

That'd be great. And their percentage of the population isss????????

[hit and run]

BTW, since this thread kinda sorta started with a Rove premise, might as well mention this:

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: “We’re closing in on Rove. Someone’s got to kick his ass.”

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn’t, said Conyers, “We’ll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We’d hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested.”

Conyers said the committee wants Rove to testify about his role in the imprisonment of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, among other things.

“We want him for so many things, it’s hard to keep track,” Conyers said.

Conyers = Charlie Brown

Rove = Lucy

These supposed things Conyers is going to nail Rove for = A football

Then again, I don't know why I would single out Conyers, everyone and their dog (sorry, Snoopy) has been valiantly trying to kick that damn thing only to have it pulled away at the last second.

But keep trying guys! This time you'll kick it for sure!!!

[VIMH: Kick the football or kick Rove's ass?]
Yes!

[centralcal]

Poor Conyers - decisions, decisions. Should we hold him in contempt? Or should we "go and have him" arrested?

Nuts. They are all nuts.

[boris]

ISTM even if traditional marriage (TM) and civil partnerships (CP) were legally identical in every way that the non traditionals would consider CP to be a lesser institution because almost all breeders would choose TM over CP. "Instinctively" that is what makes TM the real deal and CP an imitation.

The actual effect is to eliminate TM altogether and substitute CP with the official tiltle "marriage" so that renamed CP becomes the real deal by forcing breeders to use it.

CP as CP isn't good enough so they take away TM and force everybody into CP as "marriage" and that makes it better for them but get huffy if TMs complain about having to switch to CP (as numarriage).

[Danube of Thought]

Just heard a lengthy discussion of the CA situation on Roger Hedgecock's local show. It reminded me of several items of interest in this squabble. First, the initiative for November doesn't "ban" anything; it simply defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Second, although the Court today issued a stay of its order for thirty days, the losers are going to ask the Court to extend that stay until the election. It has authority to stay it for ninety days, but I assume that if it wnated to it would find "inherent" authority to extend it further, given the possibilities for chaos. Third, if it does not do so, the various forms of such chaos are limited only by the imagination: since the initiative does not on its face apply retroactively, people who marry between the lapsing of the stay and the November election (assuming the initiative passes) will be in a unique legal limbo with respect to various public and private benefits.

This is gonna be good.

[Sue]

If they found an inherent right in the state constitution, how can it be overturned by the legislation? Wouldn't anything passed be sent back to the same court? And wouldn't they rule the same way they did this time?

[Pofarmer]

Hit and Run

That Conyers bit is parody, right?

[Jane]

There are polygamous groups raising children who want the legal right to marry because the consider their family the equal to a heterosexual married couple raising children.

Is that really true? Don't they just live in cults and have non-state marriages so they can escape some set of laws I'm not familiar with.

I don't know any polygamous people. I don't even know anyone who wants to be polygamous. Do you?

[Sue]

Jane,

Come to Texas. I'll point out a few. They've been all over the news. Though I don't know them personally, of course.

[Rick Ballard]

"I don't know any polygamous people."

Sure you do. You just didn't know they were polygamous. It's sorta like the fact that Obama is a child from a polygamous union.

Find a muslim community with a fair population (look in Dearborn or Jersey) and you'll find some.

I'll admit that polyandrous would be tougher and the NAMBLA fellows have become a bit cautious due to intrusions upon what they consider to be private matters but polygamists really aren't very rare anymore.

[Jane]

I've seen the ones in the news, but they aren't demanding a change in the marriage laws are they? I mean, there really isn't any percentage of poligamists around - right?

Maybe I need to get out more -

[hit and run]

Jane:
I don't even know anyone who wants to be polygamous.

Well, I don't know....

[VIMH: Don't bite]
Oh gosh, you're right, even as a joke that could be interpreted wrongly.

[VIMH: No, I mean let's see if anyone brings up polyamory]
NO! That's not what I meant.

[VIMH: Shhhh, lay low, let's wait this out]
::sigh::

[Walter]

Rick,

I know a group (two men and one woman) who have shared a house for the last fifteen years (in southern Illinois, no less).

Technically, though, they are not polyandrous. The two men are married to each other.

For a time in the nineties, it was fashionable for many of my gay and lesbian friends to sleep with members of the opposite sex. It's amazing what you have to do to shock people in some subcultures.

[Sue]

Jane,

It won't be long before http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/791263.stm>this comes here. In Utah, the ACLU is fighting against the law that bans polygamy. I haven't read the entire ruling today, but it seems from the snippets I've seen that they left the door open on that score.

[Rick Ballard]

Walter,

Is there any logical end to penumbras formed by emanations? Especially with a sophist such as Douglas working on the "discovery process"?

I wonder when BHO is going to be quizzed on this? The language he uses to duck, bob and weave should really be precious.

[Jim Miller]

Polygamous relationships are not terribly unusual, even in societies that formally ban them.

Some examples: Years ago, I had a neighbor in Chicago who was the mistress of a married man who owned a small company. He had children by both women, and supported them all. A few months ago, I heard a woman caller to a local talk show say that she knew a number of Muslim polygamous relationships in this area (Seattle). (She said she was in favor of them.) The Long Island congressman who just got caught was in a polygamous relationship. (And I don't exclude the possibility that his wife knew about the other woman.) A few years ago, a state senator in Tennessee was caught with several "wives".

And, of course, there is Hugh Hefner, who for some time has been accompanied by seven (eight?) young women.

In general, I am opposed to polygamy for a number of reasons. For instance, I think that when it is widespread, it makes a society far too inclined to war on its neighbors.

But it does exist -- almost everywhere.

[Danube of Thought]

Sue: If the ballot measure succeeds in November, it won't be legislation. It will amend the constitution that the four justices just purported to interpret, and the constitution as amended would trump the unamended constitution on this issue.

[Chris]

TM,
"FULL DISCLOSURE: I am dating myself here..."

Coming out day? Couldn't resist. Gonna be a long summer.

[Jane]

Oh I know a few mistresses and more men who have them. I don't find that terribly bothersome. I can't imagine the threesome getting together under any circumstances, even in the situations where everyone knows about everyone else.

And I'm perfectly aware of the whole slippery slope argument. I just think people's private lives should be private - and I think if two people want to get married, bully for them. And I suppose if five people want to get married, I don't care much about that, it just seems silly to me. Wasn't it the guy who founded Walmart who had a wife in the US and another in Europe and it worked out just fine for all of them.

I'd worry a lot more about the relationships involving people where the women have fewer rights than men. If all the parties are equal, well then who cares?

[Sue]

Sam Walton had 2 wives? I didn't know that.

[Jane]

Yeah, one here (who hated to travel) and one in Europe.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Hmmm. Wouldn't that call for recognizing polygomy as well?

Dude, I don't think *anybody* recognizes "polygomy".

[boris]

If all the parties are equal, well then ...

Situational is fine to a point. Sometimes traditions are just ancient solutions to social problems that have been long forgotten.

[Sue]

Jane,

I don't think so. He may have had a mistress, but I think he was married one time to Helen, who inherited his fortune.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Wow, most of the comments show people really lack a basic understanding of how our government is supposed to work. Courts are SUPPOSED TO BE ACTIVIST.

This, it appears, is a use of the word "supposed" in the sense synonymous with "imagined."

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Mormons and polygamy ring a bell?

No, actually. Look it up.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I know a group (two men and one woman) who have shared a house for the last fifteen years (in southern Illinois, no less).

Good God, Walter, either there's more than one of them, or we know the same people.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Okay, so I've got a question: why should the State particularly recognize any form of marriage? Why not just define a "family corporation" and let the churches handle their own issues?

[kim]

Well, Sue, Helen was rich in her own right. Sam's start-up money came from his father-in-law, and he'd arranged it so that all the money Sam made was jointly held by the couple and their children.
=========================================

[Sue]

I still don't think he had two wives. You would be able to find it on the internet and I can't.

[Jane]

He may have had a mistress, but I think he was married one time to Helen, who inherited his fortune.

Sue,

I'm loathe to find the proof, but I do have it from a very good source. Makes no difference to me tho.

Charlie,

I'm with you - I don't get it. But lots of people really swear by it.

[Sue]

Makes no difference to me tho.

Well, me either, but I find it interesting especially since the left hates Wal-Mart and I can't even find it on a throw away blog. Something like that would have been meat for their barbeque.