I Like His Positive Attitude!

The invaluable Bill Jacobson tells us that the Elena Kagan nomination closes the door to gay marriage by way of Supreme Court cram-down a la Roe v. Wade:

But on one issue of critical importance to the left -- the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Kagan has staked out a very clear and unequivocal position: There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

In the course of her nomination for Solicitor General, Kagan filled out questionnaires on a variety of issues. While she bobbed and weaved on many issues, with standard invocations of the need to follow precedent and enforce presumptively valid statutes, on the issue of same-sex marriage Kagan was unequivocal.

In response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn (at page 28 of her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire), Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same sex couples to marry (emphasis mine):

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

This doesn't mean that Kagan opposes gay marriage. But she clearly believes it is a matter for the political process, not a constitutional right.

Hmm.  I take from that questionnaire that she firmly believes that pretending to disbelieve in a constitutional right to gay marriage was important to her political process; I think she is about as opposed to gay marriage as Obama himself and I am confident that she will grow in office (and be lauded for that growth!) as she comes to a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the issues.

As to the possible consequences, I am not so sure.  My official editorial position has been that a Supreme Court cram-down of gay marriage would be divisive in a very similar manner to Roe v. Wade (and should not yet be compared to Loving v. Virginia).  Since the gay rights agenda has been making progress through the legislative process, they should stick to that.

However, the flaw in the Roe analogy (it now seems to me) is that science is unlikely to settle the fundamental Roe-related issues of when life begins and where the soul resides.  Forty years of experience with abortion simply cannot persuade opponents that innocent babies are not being murdered, so Roe can be divisive forever. 

But gay marriage (and opposition thereto) is based more on culture than any underlying, unanswerable questions - generational attitudes are different, and a few years (or decades) experience with gay marriage would resolve most questions about whether it is a sensible social experiment.  So if there is a Supreme cram-down and if we are lucky, we will eventually find that gay marriage is helpful or at least harmless, and move on.  A court decision would trigger a culture skirmish, not a full lengthy war.

That said I still strongly prefer the legislative approach and will probably deplore Kagan's endorsement of a federal right to gay marriage when she eventually gets there.

FWIW:  My evolving editorial position is that the analogy to Roe v. Wade does not work - after the eventual judicial cramdown of gay marriage a few years (or decades) ought to resolve the question of whether it was a sensible social experiment.  Ongoing experience with abortion will not resolve questions about when life begins or where the soul resides so that contention can go on forever.

Comments

[Clarice]

I think legislatures will get there before the Court does.

[peter]

OT, but kind of ironic that the pitcher who had a hissy fit because A-Rod walked across the pitcher's rubber threw a perfect game. Yankee fans still mulling the consequences. LUN

[Captain Hate]

Yankee fans still mulling the consequences.

After reading that thread I feel like a rubber-necker passing a highway accident.

[David Barnett]

I'm not sure that her answer is unequivocal. Try reading it in a way that a liberal would consider cagey but not quite dishonest. For a fan of judicial supremacy and a malleable Constitution, "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage" may simply mean "The Supreme Court has not yet declared a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

In part (b), answering "Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage", she notably does not say "Yeah, I just did in part (a) of this question."

[boris]

"we will eventually find that gay marriage is helpful or at least harmless ..."

How would such a finding occur? Would continuing decay of traditional marriage and continuing rise in unwed birth rates be perceived as enlightenment and increased sophistication? Yay.

If someone noticed a worsening of the worsening would they be allowed to say so?

[Jack is Back!]

Alex may be able to take on Braden but he is mum when it comes to Braden's Mom:)

I still say Kagan is going to get both "don't ask, don't tell" and Harvard Law military recruiting ban. Add that to the gay marriage arguments and this may end being a 3 way circus on gay jurisprudence issues. Remember "Act UP"? They may pull a Code Pink at the hearings. This could be an Orville Redenbacker 3 for 1 exclusive at the nearest supermarket.

[What am I talking about? Don't ask me and please don't tell me.]

Exuberant, and luxurious. And that determines the cultural response.
=================

[boris]

"... based more on culture than any underlying, unanswerable questions ..."

So it is written ... choice of mating partner ? Born That Way ...

... choice of mating custom? mere social convention doncha know.

[Mom]

There is no federal constitutional right to opposite-sex marriage, either.

[Greg Ransom]

Sotomayor & Kagan went to the same college, took a degree in the same subject there (history), are from the same state (New York) and city (New York),both are unmarried, both are childless, both wrote op-eds for the same college newspaper, both went to Ivy League law schools and both taught at Ivy League law schools, etc.

In a nation with thousands of universities and colleges and millions of towns and cities, and hundreds of law schools, and millions of married people with children or grandchildren, you'd think it would be possible to find two nominees weren't exactly identical -- in short --

Where's the diversity?

[Greg Ransom]

Kagan's big interest in college was .. wait for it .. socialism. This seems to be the one big thing Kagan & Obama have in common -- a powerful early adult interest in socialism, and then mostly an empty or "stealth" record of substantive scholarship on any topic after that ...

[Pofarmer]

I think the left's reaction to Sarah Palin tells us how they view diversity.

[Clarice]

A whopping 41% of American children are born to unmarried mothers. I predict that this trend will continue if not accelerate and the argument that children are best raised by a set of heterosexual parents will be ignored along with the assertion that society has an interest in protecting and preserving such relationships.

I am increasingly sure that I have no idea what the future will look like. This is a small part of it.

Will we see a switch in housing patterns to accommodate this new reality? Will apartment complexes with central child rearing facilities become more common? (In small ways, like food preparation the shift that accompanied women entering the job market is obvious. The largest portion of the grocery stores in this urban area is devoted to pre-made food and food courts, not raw materials for making meals.)

For example, as the world grows increasingly complex and occupations with that, will we simply test the IQs of our citizens and alter educational provisions and welfare benefits for those with less than normal intelligence? Are we wrong to expect that they can support themselves these days?

I've no idea.

But I do know the trend is against heterosexual married parents.

[Rob Crawford]

But I do know the trend is against heterosexual married parents.

That will end once we stop subsidizing the alternatives. End the welfare state -- either because we choose to, or because we have no alternative, or because civilization has effectively ended -- and married with children will return to the norm.

[Frau Oma]

Fresh and Easy, Clarice?

On the first day of my family visit in the Great Northwest, I had to correct my granddaughters in their appraisal of Sarah Palin. Sheesh!

P.S. Howartd Zinn still sucks, too.

[laura]

It seems increasingly clear to me the constant undermining of traditional morality by a whole raft of groups from hollywood to the education gurus, has had its desired effect. The government must step in and impose order and provide for the population's welfare. The less a populace can govern itself through self control and voluntary community the more power the government gives itself through regulation and entitlements.

Ayers et al have won.

[Pofarmer]

Laura, if it makes you feel any better, eventually it will all collapse.

[Janet]

I agree Laura.

[matt]

I am reading an excellent bio of Daniel Patrick Moynihan right now, and the heat he came under for his report in 1965 was incredible. His views were completely distorted. from that point onwards it's been downhill. The marriage penalty, divorce, gay rights, alternative lifestyles, etc have torn apart much of the underlying social fabric of our society.

Nixon's introduction of the earned income credit was supposed to address some of the issues of poverty, but instead blossomed into more and more entitlement programs. Our compassion became destructive. Exactly the values that society wished to promote.

That an an insidious infiltration by the Left pretty much ensured the edifice would come crashing down.

The social norming so beloved of Bismarck and the social thinkers of the 19th century has blown up in their faces.

[matt]

that was pretty cryptic....sorry...jet lag...

[Old Lurker]

Matt, it is telling how many prog programs backed by Reps seeking "approval" are alive and strangling us today. Nixon and the tax credit you mention, and EPA and OSHA and Clean Water come to mind. And others all the way to W's drug entitlement are too numerous to list. Not to mention their support of appointments who proved to be enemies of the country envisioned by the Founders.

[Jack is Back!]

Pat Moynihan. What a guy. He wrote more books in a year then the rest of the Senate read.

Clarice, did you read over at HA, the transcript of Kagan's opening argument to the SCOTUS on Citizens United and how she didn't get more than 30 words out of her mouth before Scalia corrected her like some 6th grader confusing Canada with the United States in geography class? Then Kennedy brought out the cane and smack her for not listening. I mean, even as SG she couldn't tell the difference in that case between what it was about (expenditures) and what she was arguing about (donations).

In the immortal words of Ben Crenshaw before the single matches at Brookline: "I have a good feeling about tomorrow":]

[The genes have no need to catch up; exuberance and luxury have been around for quite awhile.]

c, you can argue that once culture has changed the survival advantage given to children by heterosexual married and constant parents will be lost, by what I would respond that it will be lost only when humans have changed.
===============

[I even fool myself regularly.]

Don't ever get in a crypting match with me, my dear Matt.
============

[Janet]

So if there is a Supreme cram-down and if we are lucky, we will eventually find that gay marriage is helpful or at least harmless, and move on.

I disagree. It will be harmful. Every society that embraces and promotes homosexual behavior ends....because it does not end there. Where humans will go when there is no religious or societal boundaries is a very ugly place. You can get a glimpse at Zombietime & look at the Folsom St. Festival. These are not people enjoying sexual freedom...these are people enslaved to sexual sicknesses. We tear down traditional marriage, and anything goes....absolutely anything.

[boris]

The exuberance of low slung genes is not a luxury society can afford to ignore.

[Clarice]

Heh. boris!!

[Captain Hate]

Ayers et al have won.

Not while I'm still breathing.

[matt]

I do find it tolerable odd that Ms. Kagan seems to have such a weak dossier and no paper trail. I wonder if she, like Obama, was groomed early on by someone.

I believe a reasonable person must conclude that the President of the United States has done his best to hide his past. Is this true with Ms. Kagan as well? She had the more public life, but still, I want to see character references and specifics.

[Old Lurker]

OT, or maybe not too OT if it gets to the SCOTUS, but catching up on my reading I see Powerline did an update on the Fed's wanting our retirement funds. LUN. Yes I know many say "that'll never happen" but I do not share that optimism.

[Rob Crawford]

OL -- I thought the Powerline piece was entirely too skeptical. They at least admit the government and its leeches want our money; they're entirely too sanguine about the probability of it happening.

[matt]

OT, but a CSM friend of mine told me this am that there is a major survey of the uniformed services being taken by the DoD on "don't ask, don't tell".

I wonder how that will be spun.

[Janet]

All the "that'll never happen" stuff is happening right now.

[Rick Ballard]

Nor while I continue to breathe, either.

The cheap thin plywood facade of the failed socialist fantasy is peeling, cracking and crumbling worldwide.

I can see November from my house, clear as a bell.

[Rick Ballard]

Nor while I continue to breathe, either.

The cheap thin plywood facade of the failed socialist fantasy is peeling, cracking and crumbling worldwide.

I can see November from my house, clear as a bell.

[boris]

You can say that again.

[boris]

er ... double ditto ...

[bgates]

A confusing line from Peter Beinart on Kagan's attempt to incite the military to shrug off civilian control:

Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag.

Meaning, I suppose, the military should be kept off campus only on May 5.

[Jane]

"I think legislatures will get there before the Court does."

Gawd I hope so. As someone in approval of gay marriage, anything else is a disservice.

Meanwhile day 3 - in which I admire men's pants is up at You too.

LUN

[Jane]

BTW - the secrets I now know....

[Rick Ballard]

Boris,

I don't know if it's TyphusPadDeLuxe or dying mouse.

OL,

I think the DemMarxists will make a grab for the retirement accounts but it will start with a nibble based upon "protecting the financial consumer" from the Wall Street sharks. Say, 25% mandated to be invested in 1% US Bills.

[boris]

"anything else is a disservice"

There is another POV that I doubt you would agree with but IMO is valid.

In two states where both traditional form and civil union form were available judges claimed that the traditional form unfairly received greater status and respect. Therefore the only fair remedy was to eliminate the traditional form, reassign all traditional couples to the civil union form and rename it "marriage".

The argument I see as valid is that amounts to a taking. A higer valued institution is taken and replaced with a lower valued institution. Seems to me the people subject to the taking should get to decide the issue.

[Pofarmer]

Now, hold on boris. Citizens deciding their own fate and having input on the laws that govern them?

How quaint.

[coincide]

Matt, they're therapy shoes, so don't scare anyone.

So, anyone like the supreme health care commiseration thing? This was planned, like 5 sustainable budgets and O and that guy who just left. It's those Greeks. Soon, they'll want AID like everyone else.

[bunkerbuster]

``low-slung genes''? lol...
And you guys wonder why women and ethnic minorities won't vote for your candidates.

If the 10 percent or less of gay people pose a measurable "threat'' to marriage, then the institution itself must be puny. I take a more sanguine view of the benefits and appeal of marriage.
Economic liberty is what's destroying marriage in the mainstream, not any government programs or cultural openness to non-mainstream lifestyles. It's the simple fact that in America, and in most of the rest of the wealthy countries, a woman need not be married to survive.
While Clarice seems to want to blame food courts and welfare, the education/economic liberation of women is far more to blame. Women now earn college degrees at higher rates than men. And with that, they have far less reason to remain in marriages that don't benefit them.
Look around and you'll see. In Asia, divorce rates are much lower, and discrimination against women in the working world is egregious, open and ubiquitous. Hundreds of millions of marriages carry on mostly because the women have no realistic choice but to accept whatever their husband demands, since he pays the bills.
If you want marriage in the U.S. to return to what it was in the 1950s -- or to what it is in Asia today -- you'll have to take away womens' economic freedom. So when you advocate for that, don't be surprised that women don't rush to vote for you.

[peter]

I guess Lynne Stewart wasn't available, so Kagan was the next best choice.

[boris]

another bb straw dummy ... zzzzz

[Thomas Collins]

Uh-oh. Matt's and kim's posts at JOM, Matt's posts on his blog, and kim's sometimes ironic, sometimes wistful and sometimes epic poem oriented JOM stage names, always make perfect sense to me. I must be missing something.

[jimmyk]

Economic liberty is what's destroying marriage in the mainstream, not any government programs or cultural openness to non-mainstream lifestyles. It's the simple fact that in America, and in most of the rest of the wealthy countries, a woman need not be married to survive.

That would explain the low marriage rates among poor black women, right? Oops, maybe not. BB, do you have any facts at your disposal, or do you just make stuff up that suits your prejudices? Because if you look at actual census data, you would see, for example, that among women in their 30s, the demographic group with by far the highest "never-married" percentage is low-income blacks. And among black women, the percentage classified as "married, spouse present" is increasing in their level of income. Kind of goes against your theory, doesn't it?

[Janet]

Women now earn college degrees at higher rates than men. And with that, they have far less reason to remain in marriages that don't benefit them.

...because if something doesn't benefit ME then to hell with it. I,I,I,me,me,me...
You are probably right bb, and that is one of the big problems in our country. Where have all the grown-ups gone?

Marriage is a specific defined word. Some people want to redefine it...well, how bout we redefine some other words.
Sr. citizen - I would like all perks that are given to Sr. citizens to be given to me because "I am a Sr. citizen".
Minor - next time I am caught robbing a store I want the same laws that apply to minors to apply to me because "I am a minor".
Black - when I apply for college I want to be able to claim minority status because "I am an African-American".
Charity - my family would like to stop paying taxes so therefore "we are a charity".
None of these things are true if you use the traditional definition of Sr. citizen, minor, black, or charity...but if we are gonna start redefining things then maybe we should really go all out.

[boris]

Hey ... let's define straw dummy so that everything posted by bb is a straw dummy ...

New definition: same as the old definition ... lol

[Thomas Collins]

The exchange of Sotomayor and Kagan for Stevens and Souter leaves SCOTUS about the same: four real judges, four folks who use the position of SCOTUS Justice to act as superlegislators, and Anthony Kennedy bobbing and weaving to the tune of who knows what (but sometimes coming up with great opinions, such as in the Citizens United campaign finance case).

[Thomas Collins]

Eugene Volokh has a positive assessment of Kagan's scholarly output (see LUN). Volokh argues that, given the period that Kagan had time to devote to scholarly pursuits, she was fairly productive as a scholar (Volokh points out that Kagan's stint in the Clinton Administration and her service as Harvard Law School Dean wouldn't have left her much time for scholarly writing).

[Thomas Collins]

Whoops! Here is the LUN to Volokh.

[ignatz]

--Hey ... let's define straw dummy so that everything posted by bb is a straw dummy ...--

How about we just define bb himself as the straw dummy?

[boris]

that works too

[Thomas Collins]

Totally off topic alert.

Tedy Bruschi does well as an ESPN analyst. Tedy's analysis of the NFL banned substances rules are better than many judges' analysis of legal topics.

[Janet]

I figured Barack Black Eagle would have nominated a Crow Indian for the SCOTUS. By the way, I am a Native American too, and would like the rights and perks therein....maybe open a casino.

[Danube of Thought]

"Every society that embraces and promotes homosexual behavior ends...."

If it's any comfort, so does every society that doesn't embrace or promote it.

[boris]

Whew ... I feel so releived already ...

[boris]

now if only i kud speel

[Clarice]

Janet. really!
Say...SCAM's been a little quiet lately. Let's say your tribe adopts me; we locate some artifacts under the Watergate hotel and start a casino there...Just thinking out loud here...Have your girl call mine.

[sbw]

Thanks, DoT. I can agree with that.

It puts the previous presumptuous assumption to which it was directed in context.

[jimmyk]

The exchange of Sotomayor and Kagan for Stevens and Souter leaves SCOTUS about the same

Yes, but it extends by decades this precarious balance where we are one heart attack away from being ruled by five statists who believe the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.

[Clarice]

OT:
Big Government reports that Mullah Omar was captured by the Pakistanis in March but the CIA and DoS were apparently not informed of that by the military intelligence people who were informed of it.

http://biggovernment.com/bthor/2010/05/10/exclusive-mullah-omar-captured/?utm_sour>Sounds improbable but this is the anything can happen clown show

[Thomas Collins]

Yes, jimmyk, I agree. I didn't take into account that the superlegislators have a robust rookie instead of an aging veteran. In addition, "growth" usually proceeds in the direction of judge to superlegislator, not superlegislator to judge.

[srp]

If you are a Burkean conservative, you ought to favor gay marriage, which is about regularizing existing family arrangements--two spouses, kids, shared mortgage--not creating some sort of Black Mass parody of marriage. Lots of gay folks actually like traditional values of monogamy and domesticity. Getting in their way seems counterproductive.

As for process, I completely agree that gay marriage should be introduced through state legislation or initiatives. Legal legerdemain to "find" such a right would tear another ligament in the rule of law.

[boris]

"If you are a Burkean conservative ..."

Well I'm not.

[nathan hale]

Wasn't it the contractor network, run by Claridge that secured the release of Rohde

[Clarice]

Yes, narciso..shows who the NYT goes to when they really need undercover work done.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7907432&page=2>Dewey Claridge, not the US

[matt]

I really doubt Burke favored gay marriage.

[coe]

Super legislate(r) hidden in starved contractors taking the US gov RFPs and filling the requirements' to make legislation and getting paid finally after the NGOs had to take the gov money or go broke.

Real Men know clowns are CIA agents and they're there cause you weren't funny enough.

[Janet hasn't made enough money]

Clarice,
No, I'm not really a Native American in the traditional definition sense...but I was hoping the courts could redefine it and then I would be one...well, I wouldn't really BE a Native American but....

and I don't have a girl :( I haven't reached that point where I've made "enough money"!

[Clarice]

Lie,Janet.
I have my heart set on this casino, honey.

[nathan hale]

are there Casinos in Virginia, I did not know that

[Captain Hate]

No, I'm not really a Native American in the traditional definition sense

ie. born in North or South America?

[mockmook]

srp,

Yes, the number of kids from gay marriages is staggering.

[Janet hasn't made enough money]

ie. born in North or South America?

Ha! yeah, I didn't know if I could use the word Indian anymore...where'd I put my Leftist PC Rule book?

[RJ]

By the way, I am a Native American too, and would like the rights and perks therein....maybe open a casino.

Full-blooded Fugawi here. From the Tanglefoot clan. I dare any racist to prove I'm not.

When I get my reservation, since tribal law supersedes state law on reservations, I plan on opening Chief Running Soylent's Heap Big House of Gaming, Old West Brothel, Gas Station, Package Liquor, Cigarettes, Fireworks and Toupee Outlet.

Why toupees you ask?

My tribe is known for their beautiful rugs.

[Clarice]

Hi, Soylent. Smooches!

[RJ]

How!

[Janet]

RJ, I'll be in for some cigarettes.

When it looked like the world was gonna end in 2000 (I think the deal was maybe the clocks would go berserk)...anyway, all I stocked up on was cigarettes. My dear family would have starved to death...no food or water, but I got my cigs. What an addict!

So, Chief Running Soylent's Heap Big House... here I come.

[Clarice]

I KNOW you know how.
Are you around here? Are you getting your trip to the elephant gear?
Whassup?

[Pofarmer]

Oh, I feel better now.

First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

[Ignatz]

--My tribe is known for their beautiful rugs.--

And General Kagan will gladly solicit some from your tribe RJ; reportedly she loves beautiful rugs.

[Pofarmer]

Damn Ignatz, that was ridiculously funny.

[Pofarmer]

Damn Ignatz, that was ridiculously funny.

[Dave (in MA)]

I think this is the longest gap between comments I've ever seen.

[bunkerbuster]

Clarice says: ``The argument that children are best raised by a set of heterosexual parents will be ignored.''

No one anywhere near the mainstream has argued against two heterosexual parents being ideal.
Babies are not born out of wedlock because the parents thought single-parenthood is a superior idea, but because the choice was single-parenthood or abortion, or in some cases, single parenthood, period.
And when the choice is between a drunk, abusive, parasitic father and single parenthood, I think even Clarice would agree that marriage, even when it's hetero, may well be worse for the child.
Most gay parents adopt. All things being equal, their children should be better off with them than in foster care with a hetero couple. Again, I suspect Clarice would agree that outcomes would depend far more on individual parenting capacity than on sexual preference or marital status.

[Jordan 17]

I just ran across your wonderful post today. It was very helpful for me and it's filled with information. keep smiling and take care!

[Neo]

Early reaction to President Obama's nomination of Kagan to the Court has centered in large part on what's called her limited paper trail, meaning that Senators will have fewer possibly controversial writings to quiz her about at hearings later this summer. But on one subject, Kagan has taken a very firm stand: Senators should press nominees to discuss what they will do on the Court, and should not be willing to accept excuses about "judicial independence" when the nominees seek to evade the questions.

[daddy]

If we're lucky, this time next will we'll be witnessing Arlen Specter delivering his concession speech in the Dem Primary. Couldn't happen to a nicer slimeball.

[Neo]

The commericals of both Specter and Sestak are so lame, poking at each other on the more obtuse subjects that I don't see how they will emerge from the primaries with their feet on the ground.
Worse, it seems they saved the primary cash for the last two weeks, so we are given back-to-back commercials with a slight variation .. a prescription for making potential voters block them out.

The Democrats for Governor are about as bad. You'd think from the ads that the only problems out there are that the legislature is too large .. it may be, that's about the last place to start fixing the problems of PA.

[susan]

Roe vs Wade will always remain insane because far too many believers in the "sanctity of life" are highly dependent upon Big Government's Silver Entitlement Coins.

These Sanctity of Lifers are so addicted to their Government slavery that they voted for a man who advocated a human being who survived the initial abortion must be forced to die because this serves the original intend ie exterminating the human being.

If the choice is between suffering for Jesus or giving up the Government goodies, these Sanctity of Lifers will abandon their faith in God in order to protect their measly pieces of government silver.

As for Yin-Yin Union between Yin and Yang,this is as much BS as is forcing a human being to die in a closet located in a hospital named after Christ.

[Dorothy Jane]

If my daughter and her MANY friends are any indication, gay marriage is a forgone conclusion. As is the out of wedlock birth rate. There is little to no consternation in the majority of our youth over either of these issues. As much as I hate to say it, it feels as if trying to forestall these changes in the social fabric (both which ultimately make a statement about "marriage") is like screaming into a howling wind. It may be time to consider creative ways to embrace the proponents of gay marriage and convince them the importance of avoiding Euro Style socialism. Saving our founding principles seems more urgent somehow.

[Janet]

Dorothy Jane - See Laura's post @ 3:24.

It seems increasingly clear to me the constant undermining of traditional morality by a whole raft of groups from hollywood to the education gurus, has had its desired effect.

So we should embrace gay marriage because our children have been convinced by hollywood, education gurus, the MSM? There is a show now called Big Love about polygamy. Is that where we are going next? How about global warming? The propaganda is overwhelming pushing that nonsense, even to our youngest via cartoons.

Someone has to face the howling wind.

[Captain Hate]

It may be time to consider creative ways to embrace the proponents of gay marriage and convince them the importance of avoiding Euro Style socialism. Saving our founding principles seems more urgent somehow.

Orwellian garbage like gay marriage are part and parcel of Euro Style socialism and can't be separated with the world's largest crowbar.

[susan]

"Orwellian garbage like gay marriage are part and parcel of Euro Style socialism"

Interesting; America's abortion policy is also a reflection of the former USSR, of China and Nazi Germany.

Also interesting to note; the Nazi Party were the first 'anti-smokers' and the original environmental Al Gore Greenies.

So familiar to all us yet we refuse to admit the similarities.

I have a copy of a propaganda poster which The Nazi Party used to implement their 'anti-smoking ban'; it is a jack-boot about to smash a pipe, a cigarette and a cigar. On the tip of the cigar is a picture of an Afrikaner-meant to depict smoking as dirty as black people.

There is a reason American abortionists are targeting blacks and the unwanted-they are fracking Nazi.

BUT don't ever equate Progressive Democrats and Republicans with Nazism because ALL highly educated coming out of Inbred Ivy-League Towers know that Nazism is about skin color rather than ideology.

[Like Pod People.]

It's just awful what's happened to all the old gentle hippies.
================

[susan]

"Marriage is a specific defined word. Some people want to redefine it...well, how bout we redefine some other words."

Excellent point; if we redefine 'homosexual' to mean 'sex between people' (technically correct) then Gay will no longer exist as a meaningful entity. IRONICALLY, much like what would happen if the word 'marriage' were redefined to make a 'union between people who love each other'.

That said; did not Gov GAY McGreevy marry twice?

How is it possible to say in a meaningful way that homosexuals are banned from marriage given the fact that even if a person is homosexual they can marry?