Powered by TypePad

« I Remain Stuck At Ground Zero | Main | Krugman Will Believe Anything That Makes Health Care Reform Look Good »

August 05, 2010



when are 2 things the same in the court not the same thing in the real world ?

the courts tell there i9s no difference between a man and a woman ...

now the courts tell us that there is no difference between a man/woman pair and a man/man or woman/woman pair ...

so why can't there be a man/woman/woman or woman/woman/man combination ?

and what about the outdated social frown on minors getting married to non-minors ... come on ... why should 18 be the abritrary reference point ... the founder of Islam wasn't so picky why should we be ...

Charlie (Colorado)

I continue to agree with Kinky Friedman that gays should be able to marry, because I see no reason they should get off easier than straight people.

Foo Bar

TM, you have an error in your previous post. On her Facebook page, Palin said it would be a mistake to allow the mosque. So she's not just calling for people to protest it. She wanted it to be disallowed, just as Jacobs claimed.

Charlie (Colorado)

"see no reason they should get off"

I suppose I could have chosen that phrase better.


"we will all find out whether gay marriage really does weaken traditional marriage"

This is the (very effective)rhetorical framing of the issue by liberals. It is objectively impossible to prove, either way, ever, so it is a perfect "frame".

The real issue is whether there is a public interest in exalting any form of marriage. One struggles to imagine even gays arguing that children raised within a conventional, committed, marriage begin with the healthiest psychological environment. To imagine that the inevitable confusion of children to two mothers or fathers isn't at least problematic is ludicrous. Can children overcome this natural confusion? Certainly some can, possibly.

However, legitimate goals of society should be to encourage the healthiest of child rearing settings. Personally, I wouldn't object to all benefits of marriage to be strictly limited to couples with children as that is the essential point of societal interest.

The outcome of the erosion if not the total destruction of marriage will not as much be realized by gay unions as the inevitable polygamy. Supporters of gay marriage NEVER address how polygamy and other "marriages" will be prohibited when the legal ability of defining marriage is a matter of individual, constitutional, right and of no public interest whatsoever.

Two people have rights to marry and three don't? All are free individuals, with individual rights. I want to marry my daughter/son (to evade estate taxes), as long as we are consenting adults exactly how will society prohibit our union (will they even be able to ask about the nature of anyone's sexual or completely non-sexual relationship)?

It will be the downstream effects of this decision that destroys marriage, not so much the handful of gays who bother to marry (very few gay couples are bothering, particularly men). When marriage can mean anything, it will mean nothing.


As someone who spends time around teenagers, I rather expect that "gay" will remain an insult for the foreseeable future.

And that there will be "marriage" and "gay marriage". Just like when you go to the sports pages to the high school results and there is "basketball" and "girls basketball." And people show up in the ER with "symptoms of a heart attack" and "symptoms of a heart attack in women". (A lot of women have died because they weren't having "symptoms of a heart attack".)

That's the funny thing about language -- words mean what the people who use them to communicate think that they mean, and judges are pretty much irrelevant.


I'd be interested to know whether you think this decision helps or hurts Obama and the Dems.


It is objectively impossible to prove

Not so! Per the CDC*, the marriage rate is 7.1 per 1,000. Let's assume that in the absence of Walker's decision to dissolve the California constitution and appoint himself Supreme Plenipotentiary that the marriage rate would have fallen to 5 per 1,000 over the next ten years. Then we can conclude that if the rate actually falls to 6, that gay marriage has saved or created one marriage in 6 in the state of California.

*Who decided the Centers for Disease Control were the right venue for tracking marriage statistics?


Scalia Was Right
Why the same-sex marriage ruling will stand.

At Best of the Web. Seems cogent to me: it's all about Kennedy.


With abortion, experience is not much of a teacher - thirty-seven years after Roe we are no closer to resolving questions about when life begins or whether abortion is murder, and performing more abortions will bring us no closer to an answer.



Consider the claim: "People will come to accept gay marriage as society’s consciousness is raised about the equality of homosexuals"

This appears to be based on the idea that given the choice between traditional marriage and domestic partnership opposite sex couples overwhelmingly choose traditional because domestic partnership is gay. If only they were enlightened enough to realize that choosing traditional is about the same as joining a whites only country club then domestic partnership would be the civilized choice of fully human couples gay or straight.


There is an element of bullying in that claim.

Young heterosexual men overwhelmingly choose to date young women. Would it not therefore be fair to claim that's only because dating other men or transvestites is gay? If only they were enlightened enough to realize that exclusively dating women is about the same as joining a whites only country club then fair dating a diversity of partners would be the civilized choice of fully human lads.

Okay most of the gay marriage advocates are probably going "Hey wait a minute that's not a fair analogy !!!"

It's not an analogy at all. It simply illustrates that a certain type of argument contains a flaw or non sequitur.

Where the bullying comes in is this. Suppose some University promotes the policy of fair dating and most of the young women at the University have signed a pledge to only date campus men who practice fair dating. In order to continue to data the women they're attracted to most lads are willing to take a transvestite or openly gay fella out to a restaurant on occasion as long as no spit needs to be exchanged.

Does it harm them in any way? No.
Does it possibly entertain the gay men and help them feel better about themselves? Dunno, but that argument shows up wrt gay marriage.

So why should anybody object? Because it's bullying based on a bogus premise.

Tom DeGisi

Technology is really going to confuse this issue.

Someday a lab tech will take a bunch of adult stem cells from a woman and turn them into sperm cells. Another tech will use them to fertilize a second woman's egg.

The baby will be cute.

This will be expensive, due to relative lack of demand.

As an Evangelical Christian opposed to SSM I suspect we will have it nevertheless soon thereafter.

Soon thereafter something similar will happen with two men and a surrogate mother.

Artificial wombs may prevent custody issues much further in the future.

Sometime later there will be very good tests for whatever combinations of genetic and environmental factors produce homosexuality. And there will be some form of therapy which will prevent homosexuality from developing (like abortion if the tests are pre-natal) and probably even reverse it.

This will be in very high demand in China and India and many other relatively poor, relatively traditional places where grandchildren are in demand.

It may be secretly in high demand here, because we also like grandchildren, depending on how fast homosexuals adopt the first technology.

This will be cheap, due to the relatively high demand.

Numbers of homosexuals will begin to drop worldwide.

Some form of therapy which will cause homosexuality to develop will follow.

This will be expensive, due to relative lack of demand.

Soon the rule will be that it's unnatural for heterosexual parents to raise homesexual children and vice versa.

Interesting times.


narciso the harpoon

This is the Judge that decided this stupid ruling, clase closed in the LUN


What our Fashion Icon Shelley wore for day 2 in Spain.

narciso the harpoon

Wrong LUN, again, have to clear the caches


If one abandons traditional definitions, as the courts have in the gay marriage decision, doesn't this force society to re-define all laws, particularly laws regarding polygamy and similarly taboo subjects based on our new morality (or lack thereof)? And what is the new morality anyway?


Well, I, for one, cannot imagine a more acrimonious divorce proceeding than one between two gay men.

"If you think you're getting the Liza collection and all The Advocate back issues, you must not value your balls too much, because I'll cut them off--verry slowly with a rusty spoon--and wear them as earrings. "


--What our Fashion Icon Shelley wore for day 2 in Spain.--

It's ugly but at least one of the chi-chi's isn't in danger of falling out.


Interesting addendum to our recent conversation on "moderate" moslems courtesy of Robert Spencer at Front Page Mag.
He takes a little closer look at a group of 'moderates' touted by the NYT. The results are not surprising.


Here is a long post from GK Chesterton -
"...as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.""

I copied it from a Villainous Company post on DADT. LUN


Ohmigod, lyle, I well remember one such spat/tiff that occurred in the locker room of a gym I belonged to.


Chesterton liked to say that conservatism was more democratic than liberalism because, in effect, it gave a vote to the dead. Yeah, I know that sounds like the Chicago way, but you get the idea.

Hmmm, this seems like the right place to link this classic video.


((morality and tradition are not a valid basis for supporting the legal status of marriage,))

If morality and tradition are not a valid basis for supporting the legal status of marriage, how can they be a valid basis for supporting the legal basis of anything?


((This is the (very effective)rhetorical framing of the issue by liberals. It is objectively impossible to prove, either way, ever, so it is a perfect "frame". ))

Even if ssm doesn't affect traditional marriage, that still doesn't make it right. Someone robs a bank where I don't bank, doesn't affect me personally, that doesn't mean I need to approve of bank robberies.


talk to the new legal theorists about that.

Al Franken Was Making Faces While Mitch McConnell Was Talking About Kagan Today?
August 05, 2010 6:20 PM
By Kathryn Jean Lopez

Evidently. Via the Hill:

McConnell grew increasingly angry as Franken made fun of him before a crowded public gallery and Senate aides lining the chamber walls. Senate aides said they were shocked that Franken would flout the decorum of the chamber during such a solemn occasion.

After McConnell finished his remarks, he walked up to the dais and rebuked him.

“This is not ‘Saturday Night Live,’ Al,” McConnell said, making reference to Franken’s career as a writer and actor on NBC’s long-running comedy show, according to a witness who overheard the exchange.

A spokeswoman for Franken did not immediately return requests for comment.

Danube of Thought

I voted against Proposition 8, and would gladly have voted for a subsequent proposition legalizing gay marriage. And I don't think this decision, if it stands, will actually harm the social fabric much, if at all.

But at the moment I am seething with rage at the manner in which this is being brought about. It is very much on all fours with Dorothy Rabinowitz's op-ed yesterday: these elites are telling us that we don't know shit, and to the extent we disagree with them we are morally impaired.

I saw Pat Caddell earlier today saying that what he is sensing is closer to revolution than anything he can recall. I hope he's right.

It would be fun to see some discussion of what would be an appropriate constitutional amendment to address this ruling, and whether it would stand a chance of passage. I would prefer something along the lines of "the decision as to what constitutes lawful marriage shall be the sole province of the several states, and this constitution is otherwise silent on the matter." I know, I know; we could theoretically see anti-miscegenation laws again, but can anyone name a state where that might occur?


America Is at Risk of Boiling Over
And out-of-touch leaders don't see the need to cool things off

All things considered, I think I hope so.


as we squat in the ruins of Western Civilization it is interesting to listen to the chattering of the chimps in the trees (aka the media).

The other day, Drudge linked to a story on the fact that 20% of Californians say they need mental health services. In 1966, Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a report entitled "The Negro Family" which was fixated on by the media because of it's outline of the destruction of the African American communities and disintegration of the nuclear family within that community as root cause.

In the 1960's turn on, tune in, drop out, accompanied by the sexual revolution led to a sybaritic culture last seen in Regency England or late 18th Century France, but on a massive scale. the culture of "me" was streaking towards its apogee.

In the mid-1970's, the American College of Psychiatry simply deleted any references to psychiatric/psychological issues related to homosexuality from its treatment guides without discussion or explanation. Poof, it no longer existed.

America, like its legal system, simply redefined itself with no standing in logic or the law, just like Alice's adventures in Wonderland.

Today the word "vice" has no meaning except when considering obesity, smoking or the illegal use of lead based paints.

Statistically our per capita prison population is at an all time high. Our schools are in disarray and we are approaching an idiocracy. We have usurped 3,000 years of values that transcend cultures simply because we can.

Naw... nothing to worry about here....

One of the vital lessons of all that we have learned through wars and civilizational breakdowns and family crises and personal meltdowns is that in the end you can only depend on family in the most severe crises, and this has been stripped away. We have created generations now spinning off like asteroids into their own private hells because they have no safety net. Instead we have travesties of old customs and mores that are about as useful as a paper umbrella in a hailstorm.


Robert Spencer is a great American, assuming he's even American. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth About Muhammad were eye-opening books for me. They offer facts, and aren't preachy about any associated conclusions, while reasonably sounding some alarms. I think they were written shortly after 9/11/2001.

Here's a list of all of his books, as well as others helpful toward understanding Jihad and dhimmitude.


The most maddening part of the whole Franken stunt was that C-Span cameras were on McConnell and didn't capture the jerk making his faces and hand gestures.

Gawd, I would have loved to seen that replayed in an endless loop on FNC.


I voted against Proposition 8, and would gladly have voted for a subsequent proposition legalizing gay marriage. And I don't think this decision, if it stands, will actually harm the social fabric much, if at all.

As I understand that, it means something like: I voted gladly for a measure that MIGHT actually harm the social fabric.

Is there any keyboard convention to indicate raised eyebrows?


the Moynihan report was issued in '65. My mistake.



I voted for Prop 8 simply because I did not approve of the judiciary getting involved with the issue. That's what brought on Prop 8 to start with.

I've no problems with gay unions, civil or otherwise. Heck, the best man at my wedding is gay. What I do object to is that they form one more special interest group that uses the judiciary to force their agenda on the "dumb" population.

It is pretty easy to modify the CA constitution, and it would be better that this is done by the public than having the issue decided by the Supreme Court.

In my opinion, at least.


these elites are telling us that we don't know shit, and to the extent we disagree with them we are morally impaired.

Get used to it. Who will stop them now? All Obama needs is one more Supreme Court seat and that's all, folks.

I worry about the health and safety of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Seriously.


Great, great post Matt.
"...old wisdom is still wise and true even if we have lost faith in it," Wolf Pangloss

and from the other thread I wrote - Those prudish 10 Commandments are a real drag until you live in a society where a majority don't honor them.
We destroy our foundations at our own peril.

Rob Crawford

Today the word "vice" has no meaning except when considering obesity, smoking or the illegal use of lead based paints.

No shit. My employer announced an "unofficial goal" of having the "healthiest workforce in the country".

(This said at a meeting that had a table filled with sugary drinks, a table filled with cookies, a table filled with mixed nuts, and a freezer full of ice cream.)


I just spoke to a friend who works on Capitol Hill who confirmed the Dems there haven't a clue about the boiling over and the tsunami to follow They are completely insulated (along with their aides who they count on to tell them what's up) in a prog bubble.

Rob Crawford

They are completely insulated (along with their aides who they count on to tell them what's up) in a prog bubble.

They watch CNN and the evening news, read the NYT, and count themselves well-informed.


That's pretty interesting, Clarice, although scary. It'd be better for the country if they were at least a little nervous.

Captain Hate

The Foreign Relations Committee of the world's greatest deliberative body of gasbags and idiots is about to look into the release of the Lockerbie bomber because he had three months to live even though there was no consensus among experts on the dire prognosis. Maybe they should get Elizabeth Edward's doctor to testify on the use of misleading diagnoses for political purposes, assuming he's not currently an expert witness in one of Silky's ambulance chasing scams.


I hope the 8-28 Restoring Honor rally & the 9-12 Tea Party are scary big.


I just opened the Bible at random .. something I do often when I am seeking spiritual direction...

opened to : Proverbs 11: 5,6

"The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness

The righteousness of the upright shall deliver them: but transgressors shall be taken in their own naughtiness"

Which I interpret to mean, there is no need to overly worry about this issue whether one is pro or con ssm. If ssm is a moral transgression, its own actions will make it fall apart. If opposition to ssm is a moral transgression that is what will fall apart.

Of course, I have my own biases about what is righteous and what is not, but only time will separate the wheat from the chaff.


" Senate aides said they were shocked that Franken would flout the decorum"

I had no idea one could use Franken and decorum in the same sentence. Wonder if the Boys and Girls club knew that?


I had no idea one could use Franken and decorum in the same sentence.

I had no idea one could use Senate aides and shocked in the same sentence.


Prediction: If the Dems suffer an electoral trouncing in November, the MSM will again claim that "angry white voters threw a temper tantrum".

They may even add the word "unexpectedly".


Prediction: If the Dems suffer an electoral trouncing in 2012, the MSM will be targeted by the new president. One can only hope that he or she will be as inhibited by tradition and decorum as this one has been.

Danube of Thought

Beautifully stated, Matt-bravo.

Lower your eyebrows, Anduril (or not; I really don't care). Think in terms of risk analysis: small risk of uncertain but undoubtedly slight harm to social fabric, readily undertaken for the added individual liberty among the whole population, and all done by popular will.

And if there were a keyboard convention of the kind you describe, I'm sure you would avoid it in favor of 10,000 well-chosen words.


Romer To Leave White House
August 5, 2010

By Kirk Victor

Christina Romer, chairwoman of Pres. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, has decided to resign, according to a source familiar with her plans.

Romer, an economics professor at the University of California (Berkeley) before taking the key admin post, did not respond to repeated calls to her office.

"She has been frustrated," a source with insight into the WH economics team said. "She doesn't feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president."

"She is ostensibly the chief economic adviser, but she doesn't seem to be playing that role," the source said. The WH has been pounded for its faulty forecast that unemployment would not top 8% after its economic stimulus proposal passed.

Instead, the jobless rate is 9.5%, after exceeding 10% last year. It was "a horribly inaccurate forecast," said Bert Ely, a banking consultant. "You have to wonder why Summers isn't the one that should be taking the fall. But Larry is a pretty good bureaucratic infighter."


I think everyone should see the photo essays by zombietime taken at the Folsom St. Festival and the Up Your Alley Fair in San Francisco. The photos are shocking & terrible, and I bet most Americans would be speechless that this stuff is going on in America on the streets while policemen stand around.
This is not sexual freedom...it is a slavery to a sick sexual addiction. I feel a great sadness for the people shown.
We are fools if we can not say out loud that this behavior is wrong.
This is not about tolerance.
The homosexual agenda is about accepting & mainstreaming this behavior.
If not, why is Kevin Jennings working in our Education Dept.?


Christina Romer resigned effective tomorrow (thought I'd posted this). First Orzsag, now Romer. Ratline must still be attached to the rusting ship of state.


small risk of uncertain but undoubtedly slight harm to social fabric, readily undertaken for the added individual liberty among the whole population, and all done by popular will.

Spoken like a true liberal: as for those troglodytes who talk about "squat[ing] in the ruins of Western Civilization," or "destroy[ing] our foundations at our own peril," hey, they'll get over it--they'll have to. Just like Roe v. Wade.

Ignatz Squaredance(even though squaredance is quite often a putz his passion could be a little more widespread at times)

I voted for Prop 8 because marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of forming a family and to raise children and it seems close to insane to believe that it can also be between two men, two women or some other collection of consenting numbers and/or species without further weakening traditional marriage and the family and cultural values that are inseperable from it. But of course that is the whole point of the exercise from the left's perspective, just as every step they have previously taken to weaken it has been.
Why there are so many on the right willing to accept this out of some nebulous sense of fairness or to just make the issue go away or because they have homosexual acquaintances is beyond me. It is precisely that kind of compromise that puts the left forever on offense and the right forever defending a shrinking area of our civilizational inheritance.
People are willing to fight tooth and nail, quite properly, over a tax rate going up 3% to a rate it was at in 1999 but will breezily redefine an institution which has been the basis of civilization for as long as there has been civilization in the hope it won't cause too much harm. Amazing.
Google anything by Stanley Kurtz or Maggie Gallagher (among many others) and then see if there is an argument on the other side which effectively counters their contentions. I haven't found any. If this occurs we'll all find out there aren't any.

Doesn't the Congress have the power to define areas of the law off limits to the jurisdiction of the courts? If so seems like a good time to invoke it.


I voted against Proposition 8, and would gladly have voted for a subsequent proposition legalizing gay marriage. And I don't think this decision, if it stands, will actually harm the social fabric much, if at all.

But at the moment I am seething with rage at the manner in which this is being brought about. It is very much on all fours with Dorothy Rabinowitz's op-ed yesterday: these elites are telling us that we don't know shit, and to the extent we disagree with them we are morally impaired.

exactly this


They'll probably float Krugman's name as a replacement.


I just spoke to a friend who works on Capitol Hill who confirmed the Dems there haven't a clue about the boiling over and the tsunami to follow

I interviewed my state senator today, Between he and Dick there was no signal that today was any different from any other day. Neither senses what is going on. My rep kept citing Perot and Anderson and other movements that died once the election was over.

Later in the day I went to a local spot for cocktails and sat among a bunch of my neighbors, my age and older (none of who I have ever met before) and every last one of them is ready to take to the streets.

There is an amazing disconnect out there.


Matt, that was so good.


I'll second that: Kurtz has done excellent research on this.

Thomas Collins

TM, if the courts continue on the path of judicial imperialism in this matter, the social debate won't matter. This is the Codevilla Ruling Class imposing its vision on everyone else.

It should be noted that in earlier periods of our history, SCOTUS has served as the vehicle for imposing the views of the "senior class of Harvard and Yale" (one of my Con Law professor's (Henry Monaghan) favorite phrases) on the rest of the country. See LUN for Lochner v. New York, in which SCOTUS imposed Herbert Spencer's social statics (then in vogue at Harvard and Yale) on the populace.

By the way, I recognize that as a policy matter, many of my JOM friends may approve the result in Lochner. Whatever the appropriate resolution in the legislature of the extent to which economic regulations should be imposed in the name of safety, my point is that Lochner, along with Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas and the case that is the subject of TM's current post, are in effect naked exercises of judicial imperialism. They may be born of the supposedly educated elite, but they are decisions reflecting rank ignorance of the appropriate role of the judiciary in a constitutional republic.


" ... but they are decisions reflecting rank ignorance of the appropriate role of the judiciary in a constitutional republic."

I'd say it's rank indifference, not ignorance. Precisely because they don't believe in, or want to preserve, a constitutional republic.

They want an authoritarian and despotic oligarchy.

Publius from Idaho

"We have created generations now spinning off like asteroids into their own private hells because they have no safety net."

The new safety net is the State. Isn't that the point of this whole exercise?

Thomas Collins

For a treatment of this issue by a serious judge who understands the proper role of the judiciary, see the late Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Martha Sosman's dissent in the Goodridge case (at LUN)


Publius - yes.


Defining Marriage Down . . .
is no way to save it.

BY David Blankenhorn


Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each other and with certain trends in behavior. A rise in unwed childbearing goes hand in hand with a weakening of the belief that people who want to have children should get married. High divorce rates are encountered where the belief in marital permanence is low. More one-parent homes are found where the belief that children need both a father and a mother is weaker. A rise in nonmarital cohabitation is linked at least partly to the belief that marriage as an institution is outmoded. The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal relationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.

Eskridge and Spedale are right. We cannot demonstrate statistically what exactly causes what, or what is likely to have what consequences in the future. But we do see in country after country that these phenomena form a pattern that recurs. They are mutually reinforcing. Socially, an advance for any of them is likely to be an advance for all of them. An individual who tends to accept any one or two of them probably accepts the others as well. And as a political and strategic matter, anyone who is fighting for any one of them should--almost certainly already does--support all of them, since a victory for any of them clearly coincides with the advance of the others. Which is why, for example, people who have devoted much of their professional lives to attacking marriage as an institution almost always favor gay marriage. These things do go together.

Inevitably, the pattern discernible in the statistics is borne out in the statements of the activists. Many of those who most vigorously champion same-sex marriage say that they do so precisely in the hope of dethroning once and for all the traditional "conjugal institution."

That phrase comes from Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a major expert witness testifying in courts and elsewhere for gay marriage. She views the fight for same-sex marriage as the "vanguard site" for rebuilding family forms. The author of journal articles like "Good Riddance to 'The Family,'" she argues forthrightly that "if we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise."

Similarly, David L. Chambers, a law professor at the University of Michigan widely published on family issues, favors gay marriage for itself but also because it would likely "make society receptive to the further evolution of the law." What kind of evolution? He writes, "If the deeply entrenched paradigm we are challenging is the romantically linked man-woman couple, we should respect the similar claims made against the hegemony of the two-person unit and against the romantic foundations of marriage."

Examples could be multiplied--the recently deceased Ellen Willis, professor of journalism at NYU and head of its Center for Cultural Reporting and Criticism, expressed the hope that gay marriage would "introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart, further promoting the democratization and secularization of personal and sexual life"--but they can only illustrate the point already established by the large-scale international comparisons: Empirically speaking, gay marriage goes along with the erosion, not the shoring up, of the institution of marriage.

These facts have two implications. First, to the degree that it makes any sense to oppose gay marriage, it makes sense only if one also opposes with equal clarity and intensity the other main trends pushing our society toward postinstitutional marriage. After all, the big idea is not to stop gay marriage. The big idea is to stop the erosion of society's most pro-child institution. Gay marriage is only one facet of the larger threat to the institution.

Similarly, it's time to recognize that the beliefs about marriage that correlate with the push for gay marriage do not exist in splendid isolation, unrelated to marriage's overall institutional prospects. Nor do those values have anything to do with strengthening the institution, notwithstanding the much-publicized but undocumented claims to the contrary from those making the "conservative case" for gay marriage.

Instead, the deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization--the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization.

By itself, the "conservative case" for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society's best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both.


Do any of you that voted against Prop 8 or that support SSM have children? Young or teenage children?


Bammers is just having a plain old crummy week, isn't he? His old lady ditched him on his birthday....his national Economic Advisor quits.... Social security is in the red several years earlier than expected.... those pesky Fannie Mae and Freddy Macs need another few billion, and Nancy is dragging everyone back to DC in the middle of frickin August when he should be working on his tan and golf game on the Vineyard.

as to the safety net, it is going to fail like a cheap prophylactic at a aluminum siding convention. There are more economic IED's (improvised economic disasters) going off in Washington than there are in Kandahar.


I thought the 10th Amendment reserved marriage status to the states. Well, that's how old I am. No, there were more than 10 at the time, but anyway.

Danube of Thought

Spoken like a true liberal

Very persuasive.

As I've said recently and at some length, I think that a true conservative jurist in one who defers to the expressed will of the people unless that will transgresses against a clearly enunciated constitutional right. That is why I find Walker's opinion so abhorrent.

As to the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry, I think they should be on libertarian principals. (A proper fool would describe that as "liberal.") But I think the question of what constitutes marriage is one properly left to the democratic process, and I accepted my having been outvoted on this occasion. Walker did not, and he has improperly intervened to thwart the popular will.


What you should notice in the lengthy excerpt I just posted is this: the aim of these radicals is essentially to break down ALL inter-personal bonds that are not founded on ideology. They currently seek to expand the meaning of "marriage" only to destroy not only marriage but the entire concept of human nature on which marriage is based. Remember Scalia's biting sarcasm directed toward Casey's "sweet mystery of life" passage?

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

America is founded on the belief that there is an objective meaning to life, even if it cannot be fully comprehended by mortals. These radicals wish to tear all that down and replace it with a type of existentialism in which man defines himself. What this actually will accomplish is what C. S. Lewis called "The Abolition of Man." And that's precisely what they want. Homosexual "marriage" is one more step on the long march through all human institutions. The goal is destruction.


There is an amazing disconnect out there.

Posted by: Jane | August 05, 2010 at 09:09 PM

Living in a university town, I can second that observation. The faculty and grad students think Obama is doing well. Sure he's had his rough patches, but overall, things are going in the right direction. They have no clue how angry average people are. November will be more of a shock than W's win in 2004 (and that was a terrible shock to the academic crowd).


I am encouraged by both Clarice's and Jane's personal anecdotes. I hope they (the Dimmis) are in an insulated bubble. I hope they are in full denial mode. If this were a "battle" they recognized as such, they might have a call to battle stations.

I am hoping for a complete rout - as they fiddle - and as Shelley and Zero party away.

Danube of Thought

Do any of you that voted against Prop 8 or that support SSM have children? Young or teenage children?

Yes. (No teenagers, but six grandchildren younger than that.) Why do you ask?


That's exactly right--I regard libertarians, as understood in America, as liberals, not conservatives. Hayek, I believe, knew better.

Danube of Thought

What you should notice in the lengthy excerpt I just posted is this:

Here's a hint for you: your lengthy excerpts go substantially unread. So for my part, I'll have to say that I didn't notice anything at all.


your lengthy excerpts go substantially unread.

You wish.

Texas declares war on the EPA

AJ Strata at the Stratasphere has a nice analysis of Texas' letter to the EPA. The letter is at LUN.


Guys--I'm talking to you hit and bgates and ignatz etc. There's a contest on--talk like a journOlist and win a big fur hat..


narciso the harpoon

That really does get to the heart of it, wasn't it Bendel's "traison de clerc" that describes this phenomenon

Captain Hate

LOL. Ace is having one of his periodic (in at least 2 senses of the word) meltdowns/offendathons where he's lashing out at everybody. I'm sensing a severe nicotine craving.


A society that is so idiotic and perverted as to think that marriage is merely a social construction to be redefined as one pleases or so morally depraved as to think that homosexuality is a normative condition is a civilization on its last legs.

Yes, the Left push all of this because they are innately perverse and perverted. Beyond that, they do this for real reasons that have nothing to do with "defending homosexuality"; they wish to destroy our civilization. They are out to annihilate the Judeo-Christian foundations of our great Civilization and nation--the very foundations that raised it so high. They wish to engages us all in their sinfulness and render all of us culpable in the moral degradation of our nation, culture and civilization. This wish all off us to share the descent into the sinfulness of their nihilistic neo-paganism and spiritual violence. This is why they push forward their culture of death and debasement with their "sacraments" of abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia. They are agents of great evil.

When that foundation finally crumbles it will not just be our end, it will profoundly darken the prospects for all mankind for centuries to come. If they are allowed to get away with something as absurd as this there is literally noting to stand in their way. We will have surrendered our innermost rationality, goodness and decency. We will be morally supine before them. This they well know.

Those here that think this is a trivial matter and those here who would even join in with the Left in these moral debasement are trivializing a gravely important matter and engage in an irresponsible and stupefying superficiality, moral turpitude and a willful obtuseness.

You could not be more misguided. How ridiculous that you sit around and "muse" on the matter as if you where reflecting on your neighbors' tastes in lawn furniture. Few things could be more serious. Why cannot you see this?

There is no good that can come of it and much dark evil that most certainly will come of it.. We are not moving towards "enlightenment" or "tolerance": We are moving towards decadence, degeneration and destruction. It leads straight to perdition; it creates a Hell on Earth. It is an outrage before decent men and women and a grave sin against God.

It is amazing that you cannot see what this signifies. What foolishness passes for morality and mindfulness here. Truly, there is not bottom here.

When will you wake up and understand what is happening?

At the very least, to regenerate our nation people like Kagan will have to be removed form power, denounced and somehow punished. With that act comes a deep rupture in all that we have know, but to leave her there sunders us form all that is decent, good and true in our heritage and legacy.

Be it sooner or later, push must come to shove.


Do any of you that voted against Prop 8 or that support SSM have children? Young or teenage children?

Fourteen year old granddaughter. Does that count?

But then I voted for Prop 8, in spite of my position on gay unions.

IMHO, gay unions of whatever sort will never be more than a few percent of the married population. The "gay lifestyle" stuff will go on no matter what happens to gay unions.

Please.  You won't be sorry.

You really ought to read it. They get pretty snotty. One of AJ's points ties into a theme here today; that states and other power centers are starting to take aim at the Feds.


Uh, Julien Benda, La Trahison des Clercs?


And to add to the total disconnect thing,Susan Estrich, in an item entitled http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/05/does_he_get_it_106610.html>Does He Get It? (which is actually not bad) closes with this to drive home the argument that Dems may not be in bad shape because so many of the R challengers are so inexperienced in government:

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but in tough times, even more so than in good times, it makes sense to have someone who knows what they're doing, whether you're hiring someone to fix the pipes or fix the country.

Funny, but that argument didn't work out so well for McCain in 2008, but she thinks it may save the Dems in congress in 2010.


A teaser: "The State of Texas does not believe that EPA's 'suggested' approach comports with the rule of law"

Thomas Collins

Thanks for the tip, clarice. I just posted my entry.

Captain Hate

to drive home the argument that Dems may not be in bad shape because so many of the R challengers are so inexperienced in government

She's whistling past the graveyard; people are tired of the experienced assholes who've milked the system for their own benefit. She's been in the echo chamber too long.

Rick Ballard


All that letter from Texas to the EPA needed was "and the horse you rode in on". I don't believe I've ever seen an intergovernmental communication such as that before.

Go Texas!

Rick Ballard


All that letter from Texas to the EPA needed was "and the horse you rode in on". I don't believe I've ever seen an intergovernmental communication such as that before.

Go Texas!

Publius from Idaho

I nominate Squaredance to be our present day "John Brown".

 Ann  Mongrel

Beautifully written, Matt, as always.

I am a little surprised at the bad press Marie Antoinette is getting: Michelle Obama's Trip to Spain Draws Fire But you know me, it should of happen a year ago. :)

I have a hunch someone tried to but the kibosh on Queen Michelle's extravagant trips and she would have none of it. Can't you see her tell Obama to spend his birthday my himself cause she was going to do what she wanted, deserved and was owed!


The good news on Kagan's appointment is this email just received:

"Keyes files complaint against Kagan for 'conspiracy to defraud Supreme Court"

"Dear Friend of RenewAmerica,

Recently, we received the following message from Alan Keyes' national pro-life organization — Declaration Alliance — appealing for support of a criminal complaint filed by DA and Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch alleging that Elena Kagan defrauded the Supreme Court by altering a scientific report on partial-birth abortion when she was an attorney for President Bill Clinton.

The complaint, which Declaration Alliance and Freedom Watch filed July 28 before the Supreme Court, demonstrates from court records that Kagan altered a scientific analysis — inserting her own words — and passed off the analysis before the Supreme Court as official scientific opinion, fraudulently influencing the court to overturn Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000.

The complaint seeks to have Kagan disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court, as well as investigated for obstruction of justice."


And I say, if she forged one document, what else did she forge?


Maybe everyone ought to make citizen arrests of their Congresscritters while they are briefly home so they cannot respond to Nancy's siren call and return here early..In fact keep them tied up at home as long as possible. Save the Nation!

Danube of Thought

I regard libertarians, as understood in America, as liberals, not conservatives

Again, very persuasive. We are all on tenterhooks wondering how you regard things.


Well, stay on your tenterhook. :-)



I always get a kick out of that.

Danube of Thought

Peggy Noonan, quoting herself from 1994:

I can imagine, for instance, in the year 2020 or so, a movement in some states to break away from the union. Which would bring about, of course, a drama of Lincolnian darkness. . . . You will know that things have reached a bad pass when Newsweek and Time, if they still exist 15 years from now, do cover stories on a surprising, and disturbing trend: aging baby boomers leaving America, taking what savings they have to live the rest of their lives in places like Africa and Ireland."

I have a teenage son & daughter, and the acceptance & promotion of homosexual behavior is having and will have even more implications. Read some of the pre-teen books in your public library. They are filled with homosexual sex experimentation stories. The pornography on the internet is not just T&A anymore...it is every type of depravity that you cannot even imagine.
We have all the safety controls...but do their friends computers?
I am a realist about the power of human sexuality...sometimes I think only Christians really are. The secular world tells us it is all no big deal, but the ruined lives of our young people tell a different story. Who are those young people in the zombietime photos?..someones children. How did they wind up there? and no one will say it is wrong?...are we all just silent because we know some friends that are gay & we like them & don't want to hurt their feelings?


Janet, my father (recently deceased at age 87) was a practicing clinical psychologist as well as a professor of psychology. Over the years (but before the internet caught on) he had a lot of experience with these issues. The fears being expressed here are very realistic.


Janet, I doubt your children are born homosexuals--very few actually are. If they are no amount of religious teaching seems able to reverse that orientation and some deal with that by adopting celibacy; some lie about it to themselves and others and enter traditional but unfulfilled marriages and others live more open lives.

I do not like what the judge has done in Ca because I think he exceeded his authority, but I do not think the world will collapse because of it.


P.S.I do not think that many of the kids who show up in Zombietime photos had parents as loving and concerned as you, Janet.

The comments to this entry are closed.