Taranto On Gay Marriage And The Supreme Court

I find James Taranto utterly persuasive:

Scalia Was Right

...we are prepared to offer up a prediction: When the Supreme Court takes up Perry v. Schwarzenegger--perhaps under the name Brown v. Perry or Whitman v. Perry--the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

This accepts the conventional assumption that the court's "liberal" and "conservative" wings will split predictably, 4-4. Yet while Kennedy cannot be pigeonholed in terms of "ideology," on this specific topic, he has been consistent in taking a very broad view of the rights of homosexuals. He not only voted with the majority but wrote the majority opinions in two crucial cases: Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

This is the Scalia angle:

In his Perry ruling, Judge Walker cited both Romer and Lawrence, arguing that their logic leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. One jurist who agrees is Justice Antonin Scalia, who sharply dissented in Lawrence (citations omitted):

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

Those who see Justice Kennedy's position in Perry as difficult to predict in effect entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do" with his decisions on the court. Is this belief justified?

If anyone wants to try to persuade me that we are not on track for a judicial cramdown of gay marriage, go ahead.

Comments

[Clarice]

You calling Kagan a liar? She testified under oath at her confirmation hearing that she saw no right to SSM in the constitution.

HEH
'Of course I think Taranto and Scalia both are right. She just missed the penumbra that Judge Taylor, alone in hundreds of years of constitutional scholarship found.

[bgates]

This won't persuade anyone, but a commenter on Althouse brought up this quote from O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence:

Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

Yes, kids, way back in aught-three, preservation of the traditional institution of marriage was described as a legitimate state interest by a Justice of the Supreme Court. Of course, things were different back then - hundred billion dollar deficits were considered problematic, 5% unemployment disastrous, half a term in one statewide office the ideal preparation for the Vice Presidency....

[Rick Ballard]

Taylor probably visited Douglas' grave and got a whiff of a rather rank emanation.

[narciso the harpoon]

What a bunch of bullhocky, who was the clerk who came yup with such a ridiculous notion

[Danube of Thought]

Had dinner tonight with a former partner, newly retired after a career as a brilliant litigator and courtroom lawyer. He predicts both the Ninth and the Supremes uphold Walker's decision. He also gave me 5 to 1 (his $50 to my $20) that the Supremes uphold Obamacare.

This is no country for old men...or, on second thought, maybe we old men have had the best of it all. What it really is may be no country for young men.

[Jane]

I predict that 40 years from now gay marriage will still be an issue if the Supremes decide to constitutionalize it. The onnly question is whether the battle will replace the one over Roe or accompany it.

An affirmative decision does not help gays IMO.

[Lloyd]

I'm fine with this standing if this leads to the equal protection of property.

My traditional marriage is under a much greater threat by being taxed out of my ability to pay my ARM than it is by gays marrying. If marriage is a fundamental right that can not be regulated by the state, certainly property must be too. Lets hear the court defend a graduated income tax structure that allows GE to pay a statistical nothing and subsidizes sloth by the sweat of the dwindling middle that work.

I want my equal protection too. I want it more than any bailout. I'm sick of "Legitimate Interest" being an excuse to meddle in people's lives. I wanna be able to deduct my investment into my house as a capital investment. I want to deduct my healthcare. [crickets]

Nope the "liberals" (laugh) dont want to go that far. They want this to mean that we have to start paying for gay illegal immigrant families' adoption and housing services. And it does. But it also means that if our federal and state legislatures our gonna keep giving out gum, they'd better have enough for the whole class.

[peter]

DOT, isn't his $50 to your $20 two and a half to one?

[daddy the wanna' be heretic]

Jane,

Check your in-box please. Hope it came thru.

[Clarice]

I really hope he's wrong on Obamacare and that if he's right the act will nevertheless be repealed or gutted.

[Janet]

The WaPo has a review in their "The TV Column" of a new show on polygamy. I think that is 2 now.
The mainstreaming of polygamy is next.
This should be good for Muslims...you know religious freedom and all, and how they are allowed to have multiple wives.

[JamesH]

For what it's worth, Kennedy rejected the equal protection argument in Lawrence and overturned the Texas sodomy law on privacy grounds. Thus I'd say there's hope that SSM isn't judicially imposed on the whole country.

[daddy the wanna' be heretic]

From Mark Twain's absolutely wonderful and humorous biography, "Roughing It", Chapter 14, concerning his arrival in Salt Lake City in 1863 (I think) and his take on Polygamy.

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.

I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I
was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here--until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely"
creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No--the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure--and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

[Clarice]

I heart Mark Twain but I must say at this time most of the Mormon women I've met are very beautiful.

[boris]

"Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry"

Scalia is just noting a conventional argument here. A better statement of society's interest is promoting the likelihood that children are raised by both biological parents. One doesn't need social science research or philosophical consensus for evidence that's what the culture believes children want and what's best for them. The theme is evident in movies and literature. In earlier times when childbirth was risky the most common form of alternate parenting was probably the stepmother. The general tone of that recurring character is a resaonable indication how our culture views that realtionship through the eyes of a child.

[narciso the harpoon]

It seems that neither law nor sociology (at the forefront of Brown) is enough, when they
jut want to challenge a law, sentiment among
the progs is the only criteria. Just like the
demands of revenue determined Kelo, and the Levick slander campaign, overrode a century
of precedent from Merryman to Eisentrager

[Clarice]

"The Levick slander campaign"? You're getting too esoteric for me again, narciso.

James Carville eats--um- crow, probably to preclude anyone from continuing to use his hot headed diatribe against Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/carville.obama.bp/index.html

[narciso the harpoon]

This effort that Deborah Burlingame, Liz Cheney's associate, uncovered, Clarice, in the
LUN

[Jane]

Got it daddy, and probably won't get to it until tomorrow. Thank you!

[narciso the harpoon]

This was the original piece on the subject, in the LUN

[narciso the harpoon]

I so detest that simpering facehugger, Clarice, so I 'guess they're not dying down
here,' anymore. He may be a nice person, TM,
but the way he vouched for Obama, and rubber
stamped all of his decisions, putting someone who has if charitable, a limited understanding of the petroleum industry, in the cat bird's seat, how he demeaned a real expert on the subject, it's all of a piece. We still have this slow motion moratorium, the fishthat were killed off, because of the administration's languid response

[OldTimer]

As a nation, we have so unclasped ourselves from the tether of morality, we barely bother any longer to notice the commandments of our Creator. In matters of marital fidelity or the well-being of the innocents we bring into this world, nothing is too bizarre not to satisfy ourselves first leaving our progeny to the wolves of neglect. We see no farther than the ends of our noses with little regard to the consequences of our behavior or the anguish our decisions eventually bring to a larger society. Precious little of the spiritual is revered or sacred in our 'enlightened' age. We're too pretty for our shirts.

It appears that whatever the esteemed high court decides in the matter of homosexual marriages, it will almost certainly rely on superior human intellect rather than divine guidance.

[jeff]

whats with bgates hardon over Palin and the half a term ...
2/3 of a term at Senator is so much more qualified ...

[hit and run]

Re-read what bgates wrote.

He's referring to 2003 when half a term in statewide office was considered sufficient experience to be a VP candidate. Think John Edwards.

[Danube of Thought]

You're spot on, Peter--that was a typo. It's his $50 to my $10. I had had two martinis and some excellent Pinot Noir.

[memomachine]

Hmmmmm.

So. When SCOTUS confirms that SSM is constitutional won't that pretty much declare open season on Cathoic Churches for gay activists?

Well that's going to piss off Catholics.

[bgates]

whats with bgates hardon over Palin

Hey!

and the half a term

Oh, right. Yeah, read what hit said about reading what I said.

[MarkO]

Polygamy, the new gay.

[centralcal]

memomachine: I am Catholic and I know what you are saying. However, in my office we have a lot of other Christian faiths and their churches are also quite worried/angry.

[Pagar]

"2/3 of a term at Senator is so much more qualified"

Remember how many times the subcommittee he headed met?

[boris]

Movies and literature, from "The Parent Trap" to "Cinderella" indicate that people in this culture consider being raised by both biological parents to be what children want and what's best for them. It seems reasonable to say that society places some value on that situation, which can be used to refudiate Judge Walker's argument (paraphrased here by Dan McLaughlin):

the fact that the same-sex alternative (domestic partnerships) lacks the social and cultural status that marriage has...and which it derives from its grounding in longstanding moral, cultural and religious tradition

Refudiation: Any relationship containing at least one female can produce and raise children:

• Single Mom;
  
• Traditional Marriage;
  
• Domestic Partnership;
  
• Polygamy;
  
• Sewing Circle;
  
• Book Club;
  
• Bowling Team.

All may be equally allowed by law, but only traditional marriage promotes being raised by two biological parents. So regardless of what other reasons society might grant greater status to traditional marriage, that one stands unaddressed by Judge Walker or Judge Scalia. Is that a valid consideration for society to grant status? IMO it would have to be proven unwarranted, often claimed but never plausibly.

[Janet]

Polygamy, the new gay.

Give it a few years to become accepted & then the next up will be bestiality. We've already got a mainstream book on that too. LUN

"I would say it's sort of like Romeo and Juliet. Instead in this book, Juliet is a 400 pound marine mammal," he said."

[Pagar]

In penance for having wasted my time reading the testimony of the guy from La worshiping his leftist gods, I offer the story of a person who apparently got a job under the Obama Admin while apparently not Existing. It must have been a super resume.

[Ignatz]

--For what it's worth, Kennedy rejected the equal protection argument in Lawrence and overturned the Texas sodomy law on privacy grounds. Thus I'd say there's hope that SSM isn't judicially imposed on the whole country.--

Well there's a simple work around for gays then. They go back into the closet for the ceremony and voila, they've got the privacy argument all sewn up.

--I predict that 40 years from now gay marriage will still be an issue if the Supremes decide to constitutionalize it. The onnly question is whether the battle will replace the one over Roe or accompany it.--

I suspect your prediction is spot on Jane.

--When SCOTUS confirms that SSM is constitutional won't that pretty much declare open season on Cathoic Churches for gay activists?--

memo,
As cc says, it isn't only the Catholics. I'm on the board of our church and after the CA supremes jump-started gay marriage in CA prior to Prop 8 we had already had to meet with attorneys in an effort to shield ourselves legally from the expected challenges headed our way. For small and medium sized churches such a suit could easily present the choices of bankruptcy, disbanding or marrying gays, against their own beliefs.
If Walker is upheld it will be impossible to escape lawsuits, unless SCOTUS eventually provides a religious exemption, which is no sure thing, and if Barry is reelected it will be nearly impossible IMO, due to some conservative(s) eventually leaving the bench.

[hit and run]

memomachine:
When SCOTUS confirms that SSM is constitutional won't that pretty much declare open season on Cathoic Churches for gay activists?

But but but SCOTUS is 67% Catholic.

Wait. What?

CINOs?

[boris]

PINOs (noir)

[Danube of Thought]

Interesting column by one David Harsanyi, questioning why government is involved in marriage at all.

[boris]

Like the 2nd amendment argument, the seperation of marriage and state argument seems to suffer from static analysis.

Just because the US does not require an irregular (but well regulated) militia at the moment, it was at one time considered necessary for the security of a free State and may become valuable some time in the future.

I seriously doubt simple contract law could enforce the priviliges and obligations marriage has traditionally provided for the entire history of western civ. Perhaps in its currently watered down status yes, but who is to say that is permanent from now on?

[Ignatz]

I've read other sentiments similar to that DoT and I'm not sure they'll solve much. Gay activists, and leftists in general, are not shy about forcing anti discrimination suits into completely private organizations and associations and have met with some success.
E-harmony had to settle a case and provide a gay dating site despite being founded by Christians. In some areas Christians are compelled to rent to unmarried couples and homosexuals even if it is an entirely private contract.

[bgates]

I offer the story of a person who apparently got a job under the Obama Admin while apparently not Existing.

The administration of Barack Obama, super-genius post-racial author, hard-charging warfighter and sophisticated diplomat, Christian, and fiscal conservative? Seems only fair - your Ms Ackland is working for somebody who doesn't exist, either.

[Janet]

Leftists will sue us into submission. They do it with environmental law...illegal immigration laws...& now they'll do it to churches under the guise of discrimination and "hate laws".

They are on offense, and all we do is play defense. No team can EVER win only playing defense.

[Frau Edith Steingehrin]

When I married in Germany, there was a marriage at the city hall for the state. There was also a marriage in a church for religious belief and the family. It would be best to do that here. The state marriage will be legal for secular matters. The church bless marriage or not as regulated by the church.

After viewing some of the Folsom St. fair pictures, I realized that only a small percentage of the small G/L population even wants to marry. SSM is the tyranny of the tiny minority.

Marriage was always the goal. After tolerance came the demand for rights.
In 2006, Thomas Sowell addressed this:
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined-- and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

Despite heavy television advertising in California for "gay marriage," showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing-- riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.

None of us has a right to other people's approval.

Thus Americans will have two kinds of marriage, the regular kind and gay marriage. None of us has a right to other people's approval --or respect. LUN

[Danube of Thought]

Please don't conclude that I'm endorsing Harsanyi's views. Even if it might have been desirable to leave marriage the private affair that it once was, governments at every level have now insinuated themselves into the institution so deeply that the omelette can never be unscrambles.

[MarkO]

It's not so much the creation of the marriage that is the interest of the state, it is the dissolution in which the state has taken an interest in distributing property and protecting itself against welfare claims from abandoned children.

Alimony and child support.

[glasater]

Fourteen years ago some friends of ours--a gay couple--were killed in a plane crash off the coast of Alaska. They were on a small plane trip sponsored by a gay cruise boat tour. Their deaths broke my heart.
We traveled with this couple and had wonderful times with them.
Their relationship was a kind of "May-December" type with the older fellow very circumspect in the relationship. The younger one not so much.
He was into recruiting any young man he came across into what he considered a superior lifestyle.
I'm more of a live and let live sort but the proselytizing by our younger gay friend bothered me a lot.

[centralcal]

Well, Elena Kagan was just officially sworn in. whoopie-doo doo.

[DrJ]

After viewing some of the Folsom St. fair pictures, I realized that only a small percentage of the small G/L population even wants to marry.

I hate to sound blase, but the Folsom St. Fair is just San Francisco. It is the same city that hosts the Exotic Erotic Ball each Halloween, among others. And it has always been a magnet for the farther-out queers from around the country and the world.

You never hear of this sort of thing from the East Bay lesbians.

Now don't take this as supporting the "lifestyle." I don't. But I don't think this is representative of the larger gay community, either. Most simply want to lead their lives. Some portion want long-term commitments. I too don't think that this number is that large on an absolute basis, a few percent probably of traditional married couples.

[LouP]

I'm just waiting for the day that an activist gay couple walks into the new mega mosque at Ground Zero and demands the Imam perform the marriage ceremony for them.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

The Mormon community at the time of Twain's visit faced a serious problem in that there were far more women than men. So many men were lost during the migration to Utah and due to the times they lived in. The Church sanctioned polygamy for one very important reason, women needed male protection under the law, and in order to take care of their children. The community, in this case the almost 100% LDS church community, reserved the right to deny the right of a man to marry more than one woman if he could not satisfy the elders that he could support the additional wife(wives) and any existing or future children and they were there to exact discipline on the man should he fail to live up to what was expected of him, including being ostracized and disowned from the community. Although the basic rationale was a practical one, of course, it also had religious overtones as the LDS church is all about family and the equal, but clearly differently defined, roles of mother and father within that family. Fathers are expected to be the providers, protectors, and spiritual leaders of their families, whereas women are given what the Church considers THE most important role: preparing the next generation to be good fathers and mothers as teachers and nurturers. It was and still is a highly matriarchal society in the sense that the woman's role is considered of equal importance to any role the man has. In the 1800s this was radical. Remember that Mormon women of Utah were the very first to get the vote.

In today's world, men (thanks to the women's movement) no longer see their role as provider, protector and spiritual adviser. We've watched over the years how the laws have changed in order to protect men from any responsibility in the guise of giving women more rights, so we are reduced to coupling for regular sex with no other requirements necessary. Young men expect their partners to work and be self-sufficient, divorce law no longer protects the woman who has done her duty and stayed home to raise the children.

I would say that the interest is not the state's but the immediate community. Neighborhoods of latch key kids are higher in crime, people live together for years but have no common financial interests and no real stability, illegitimate children abound and since they know no difference, tend to perpetuate the problem as they reach majority. Multiple generational families, where the younger members learn from the older members, is a thing of the past.

And I don't know if any of you have noticed, but the new TV shows are all about Type A kids who make no effort to hide their disdain for their mothers. In the new offerings, mothers are dunderheads who get nothing but sarcastic put downs, the famous rolled eyes, etc. and it is clear that the offspring don't think these mothers could possibly have anything of value to offer. Mothers are treated as stupid and not worth respect of any kind. If the Dad is mentioned at all, it is always in the sense that Dad has bailed out, refuses to do anything but add to the put down of the mother with some retort like, "you know how your mother can be." I see this behavior all the time among the many young people I'm surrounded by. The guys call their partners dumb, fat, stupid, useless, all the while expecting them to wait on them hand and foot, work a full time job, and be totally submissive to their whims and will.

And who was under attack the most from the gay activists and anti-Prop 8 crowd? The Mormons. Why? Because they believe the traditional family is sacrosanct and the most important entity to a healthy society. That has to be destroyed, just as militant women went out of their way to destroy men's traditional roles. Is it any wonder Judge Walker believes gender is not important?

[Ignatz]

--Please don't conclude that I'm endorsing Harsanyi's views.--

I didn't DoT and I hope my response didn't indicate I did. I just wanted to note how often I've seen that idea advanced lately.
I took your "interesting column' to mean what I do when I use similar language; this made me think and may be worth taking a look at, do with it what you will.

[Frau Edith Steingehrin]

I hope you've read "Paradise Regained" by Icelandic writer Halldor Laxness, Sara. He portrayed beautifully the Mormon tenet to support and protect all women -young, old, hail or not.

I love Twain, too,but know the ladies of Angels Camp were not all that lovely. I'm thinking of the harem ladies in Terry Gilliam's Munchausen film and not Venus(Uma Thurman.)

[Frau Edith Steingehrin]

TpePad may have eaten my post about "Paradise Regained" by Icelandic author Halldor Laxness, Sara. It illustrates your points beautifully. LUN

I don't think Twain's ladies of Angels Camp were all that lovely, either.

[Ranger]

I'm more of a live and let live sort but the proselytizing by our younger gay friend bothered me a lot.

Posted by: glasater | August 07, 2010 at 01:51 PM

But remember, that was back in the day when being gay was a "lifestyle choice." It took decades of making that argument to get the medical community to drop homosexuality as a "medical condition" that could be diagnosed and possibly treated. Of course, if its a choice, and not something you are born with, then you have to accept the conditions of that choice (such as not being able to marry).

So now, the argument has come full circle. It is no longer a choice, and therefore, those socially established boundaries of the lifestyle are violations of rights.

The danger for the gay community in pushing this "condition" argument is that some day science will propose a real explanation for how homosexuality comes about. It is either:

a) genetic, in which case there may be the ability to "correct" it.

or

b) the product of upbringing, which raises another entire set of issues to be addressed.

I think the gay community will eventually rue the day they turned their back on "choice" and re-embraced "condition."

[Frau Edith Steingehrin]

SorryIt sure took a long time for TypePad to regurgitate my post - and I certainly waited.

DrJ, I don't think you are blase. It's all too easy to forget that putrid excesses exist, secular and religious. I feel the same amount of repulsion thinking of the gated and guarded communities of polygamists and some armed black muslim "families" where children and women submit.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

We're talking about a state license to marry. We have all kinds of laws regarding licensing in all kinds of areas. Can't have a driver's license if you are subject to convulsions, such as from epilepsy or severe head injury. We are told not to drive or operate machinery when on certain types of medications. We make doctors pass all kinds of hurdles to be licensed to practice medicine. You can name almost any occupation and find restrictions. Do we let just anyone get in a plane and fly it? The small lake where my family has had a cottage since the 1920s requires a boat safety course before you can put your boat on the lake and additional training before you can tow a water skier. A store owner can be criminally penalized if he sells cigarettes or booze to someone under age.

Here in California, gays and, in fact, any unmarried couple who claims common law, already have all the rights of a married couple, so to my mind, this whole gay marriage thing has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with promoting a non-traditional lifestyle while simultaneously trying to destroy the traditional.

You never hear of this sort of thing from the East Bay lesbians.

You are lucky. Out here it is everywhere. The Gay Pride parades are offensive and with some truly disgusting behavior carried out in public. People are forced to attend, whether they want to or not. Even if everyone was straight, you would not want your young children to witness the debauchery going on on the public streets. Same at Halloween and in the many many gay bars and hangouts that are everywhere. We tolerate this because of free speech and the right to free assembly, but that isn't enough for the gay community. They want to come into our sanctuaries and deface them, they want to get straights fired or denied services because they aren't gay or do not support the gay lifestyle. Offend a straight and be totally insensitive to them and it is well and good. They wear their gayness on their sleeve and challenge straights at every turn. There is no tenet of live and let live in the gay activist mind. It is their way or else. I supported legal civil unions, but I will not be browbeaten and told that the values I hold dear are evil, bigoted, or any other name they constantly want to charge. And I will not agree that bonking someone of the same sex takes precedence over the sincerely held beliefs of my pastor, priest, or rabbi or anyone else. Gays don't want tolerance, they want protected status and they want their lifestyle choices to have precedence over my lifestyle choices. And since my lifestyle choice is based on internal desire for the opposite sex and the idea of submitting to same sex sex is repugnant to me means I'm a bigot. Many have religious reasons, mine are entirely based on internal desire and I resent that my desires are discounted as unimportant and classified as intolerant.

[Lloyd]

Ignatz, if this court gave the Boy Scouts an exemption their sure as heck going to give churches one but be prepared for that to mean the mormons get their polygamy back.

To everyone else. I would like to argue that everyone one of you is correct about the superiority of hetero-sexual marriage. In almost every one of your arguments I agree. The thing that I would like you to consider is that none of those arguments should make a darn bit of difference to your government and the basic rights that it is going to protect. Are you arguing that you have a government right to your marriage? If not, you sound like another welfare recipient arguing why only you should get the 'marriage handout'. I don't want to think that of you but it's better than thinking that you're all just bullies trying to tell people how they can and can't run their lives which would make you no better than the eco, transfat, vegan or sharia nazis.

So you see my predicament. I want to stand with you on the principal of limited government and I'm just not sure I can trust you any more than I can trust them.

[glasater]

After all--isn't sneaking around and defying societal values much more fun and "naughty"?
Now that homosexuality is practically mainstream I wonder what the counter-class will come up with next.

[boris]

"arguing that you have a government right to your marriage?"

Government of the people, by the people, for the people. At one time traditional marriage was clearly a necessary government provided/enforced institution.

Just because you are convinced that should no longer apply does not give you the right to take it away from everyone else.

[DrJ]

There is no tenet of live and let live in the gay activist mind. It is their way or else.

That's my issue with the gay-rights movement. It is jammed down our throats, and onto TV, and into the classrooms and churches.

I'm fine with gay rights (property, inheritance, visitation, taxes and all the rest), and so is CA, but that is not good enough. It has to be total "equality" even in a first-grade school book. I'm not OK with that.

There certainly are federal issues that this does not address, but given time it would come to pass. I'm afraid that this will instead come from judicial fiat, which brings us back to the jousting over Roe v. Wade.

Can we not learn from that? It seems not.

[Janet]

Here is more on the decline of civilization.
Seattle Gives out Crack Pipes

We wouldn't want our valuable crack addict citizens to become sick...um, err,...sicker.

[jimmyk]

Sara, your 3:09 post was terrific.

And I was happy to see that Sowell piece quoted above supporting what I'd said in a previous thread: The demand for SSM is not about liberty or equal rights, but about forcing society to "accept" and put its imprimatur on something against its will.

The analogy to Roe v Wade is spot on: Forcing a one size fits all approach on every state and ocmmunity with regard to a sensitive issue is a recipe for tearing a society apart. I would say the same thing goes for Obamacare, also foisted on us against our will and also already tearing us apart.

Re TV shows and kids' disrespect for Moms: I think that kids knowing better than their parents has been a staple of TV entertainment since "Leave it to Beaver." But it also gives me an excuse for one of my favorite Twain quotes:

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.

[Ignatz]

--I want to stand with you on the principal of limited government and I'm just not sure I can trust you any more than I can trust them.--

Lloyd,
Well, the USA managed to define marriage as one man and one woman and retain a rather limited government from 1789 until government began the era of no limits around the early 20th century. It is only when government threw off its limits and the courts decided they would interfere in the social contract and remake society in its image that gay marriage was shoved down our throats. Gay marriage being forced on a society that doesn't want it is one of the bellwethers of Leviathin government, not a desire to conserve and preserve marriage as it has always been.

[LouP]

If I use the judge's logic to support SSM under "Equal Protection," then I fail to see why the same logic cannot, and will not, be used to:

1) Do away with laws having to do with minimum age for a driver's license.

2) Do away with laws having to do with legal drinking age.

3) Allow criminals to shoot and kill people - after all, the police and military do it.

Etc., etc., etc.

And BTW, why not think about striking all Affirmative Action laws, since, by definition, they violate equal protection?

What happened to judicial sanity?

[sookie]

I am really tired of the social con issues. We've spent far too much capital on them, while ignoring fiscal issues, for far too long.

Gay marriage is here to stay. Let's drop it and get on with the very hard road ahead of getting our fiscal house in order.

We may be at the last yield sign before we get on the toll road to socialism. Once on it we won't be able to get off. Social con issues are a distraction.

[Lloyd]

Boris and Ignatz. We agree that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. But that isnt any kind of answer to this question. History proves that procreation has been good for America and only a fool would say the family is less important than government. Furthermore we can agree that two men can't marry in the biblical sense. The idea of such a thing is both ridiculous and gross.

What I'm asking you to consider is that to the State, "marriage" should only be viewed as a contract and if the 1st and 14th ammendments ensure a 'right to contract', the government might not be able to exclude people from joining in "like" contracts.

Do you follow me on that? Now to be truthful, I'm largely playing devils advocate in my more provocative arguments. (No pun intended.) I simply want you to acknowledge that your marriage as a traditional institution is not dependent and cannot be maintained by the state. What I'm hoping happens is that the supremes figure out a away to say that the states have the right to regulate these marriage contracts in any way they see fit but the federal government does not. This would throw the grenade up into DC's lap and leave the states be. That way even if California passed gay marriage some day, no other state would have to recognize it.

I agree with sookie 100%. I really wish we could apply this intellectual fervor to arguing a fairer flatter tax code.

Whatever happens keep in mind, that this is the court that gave us our guns and our political speach back. This is the court we want to hear this case and we need to be able to live with the decision.

[boris]

"might not be able to exclude people from joining in "like" contracts"

You are clearly reading more into my comments than what I put there. I have no objection to a contract like marriage for anyone. On a different thread I wrote:

If an opposite sex couple chooses domestic partnership over marriage (assuming they have that choice) they are just as married.

If that does not square with what you think my point of view is then what you think is incorrect.

[Rick Ballard]

"What I'm hoping happens is that the supremes figure out a away to say that the states have the right to regulate these marriage contracts in any way they see fit but the federal government does not."

That's doubtful. The court has a decent set of precedents to play with derived from their decisions regarding the LDS. The outcome depends upon the feelings (not thought) of Justice Kennedy. He may well play "if you call a tail a leg" and declare for a five legged dog.

[boris]

A fair question for me would be ...

Okay boris, you say an opposite sex couple entering into Domestic Partnership is just as marriad as an cpposite sex couple entering into [traditional] marriage. Granting that then ... what is the point of having two seperate but identical institutions?

If you can answer that correctly then you probably get most of what I have been trying to convey.

[boris]

{stupid laptop keypad) *** opposite sex couple entering into Domestic Partnership is just as married as an opposite sex couple entering into [traditional] marriage

[boris]

"five legged dog"

I'd have more respect for Judas Walker if he had ruled: Marriage is unconstitutional, therefore California only provides Domestic Partnerships open to couples of all and any sexual orientations. Furthermore any couples previously "married" are hereby legally converted to domestic partners.

[Rocco]

Although his words sometimes offended and alienatated Jews, Twain defended Jews. After a visit to Palestine in 1867, Twain wrote...

“ ...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

[Ignatz]

I have a hard time squaring this:

--We agree that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. But that isnt any kind of answer to this question. History proves that procreation has been good for America and only a fool would say the family is less important than government.--

with this:

--I agree with sookie 100%. I really wish we could apply this intellectual fervor to arguing a fairer flatter tax code.--

That's what the left relies on; that we'll get tired and give up. If the basic building block of the society that gave us these freedoms isn't defended (or other boring social issues like who is allowed to live and die, who we are forced to associate with, what we are allowed to say in public or private, whether we live in a color blind society) then I'm hard pressed to see how a flat tax is going to save it.

--Whatever happens keep in mind, that this is the court that gave us our guns and our political speach back.--

The court didn't just "give" them back. People concerned about "distracting" social issues fought hard, sometimes for decades, to retain those boring old rights. I have no desire to live in a society whose social fabric has been shredded but tax rates are low and if the state, against the will of the people, can shred our social fabric it won't be long before courts are deciding what the fairest tax rate is as well.

--What I'm asking you to consider is that to the State, "marriage" should only be viewed as a contract and if the 1st and 14th ammendments ensure a 'right to contract', the government might not be able to exclude people from joining in "like" contracts.--

I'm pretty sure neither ensures a right to contract but gays are already able to join in "like" contracts, it simply has a different name. What they lack is society's approval and recognition thay what they do is the same as marriage and the court has decided society will give that approval whether it wants to or not. If they or heterosexual domestic partners wish society to recognize the relationships they form to be equally valuable to that society then let them demonstrate it to society and it will. The state has no business intervening in that societal role. The state doesn't license marriage because it elevated marriage to a place of importance.
Marriage predated government and the marriage license is a recognition of the preeminent role of procreation and traditional family life to a stable and sound society, despite the left's best efforts to destroy it, with gay marriage being only one of the prongs of destruction.

[Lloyd]

Ok. Please back up your assertion that a "gay marriage" is a threat to the culturaly superior traditional mrriage then. As I said, I hope the court finds in favor of California's ability to regulate this but I don't feel that gay marriage is a threat to my family. I'm willing to learn however so please explain. Also please explain your right to marriage, where you believe your right to marriage emanates and how you'd reconcile that right with your spouses ability to leave you. Is your marriage a voluntary contract (commitment) or is it something you have a right to? Yes it's traditional, yes it has value, yes states should have the ability to regulate it but no it is absolutely not "under threat" by gay marriage if you actually believe in traditional marriage which has no dependence on this or any government.

[boris]

"the court has decided society will give that approval whether it wants to or not"

Ditto. What business is it of the court that society holds Marriage in higher esteem than the legally equivalent but non traditional Domestic Partnership?

[Ignatz]

--Also please explain your right to marriage--

If that's directed at me I don't believe I ever stated it's a right.

--Please back up your assertion that a "gay marriage" is a threat to the culturaly superior traditional mrriage then.--

Try here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

[boris]

I may not be a Lion of Semantics but this may clarify the argument for some ...

Before California courts interfered the state had the following two institutions:

• Marriage for opposite sex couples;
  
• Domestic Partnership for any sex couples;

After California courts interfered the state has only one:

• An institution for any sex couples called "Marriage";

What has been eliminated?

• The name "Domestic Partnership" ;
• The institution for opposite sex couples;

Would it be accurate to say that the institution "Domestic Partnership" for opposite sex couples has been eliminated? No ???

Then the situation is a semantic superposition that can be described as:

• The two institutions have been combined into one for any sex couples called "Marriage";
• The institution for opposite sex couples has been eliminated and the one for any sex couples has stolen the name "Marriage";

My POV is the first may be semantically acceptable, but the second is linguistically accurate.

[Chubby]

((•The institution for opposite sex couples has been eliminated and the one for any sex couples has stolen the name "Marriage";))

The way you've arranged your thoughts is making me think that I'd have far less angst about the situation if the elimination the institution for opposite sex couples and the new institution for any sex couples were called "Domestic Partnerships" instead of "marriage"; at least the relic would remain pure in name, the word marriage would still be a special word designated only to opposite sex marriages.

[boris]

less angst about the situation if the elimination the institution for opposite sex couples and the new institution for any sex couples were called "Domestic Partnerships"

It does seem like sleight of law to apparently disguise the elimination of what people prefer behind a semantic gimmick.

Of course if they did what we both have suggested it would have zero chance of standing.

[Chubby]

The good news is that when semantic games are pitted against reality, reality usually wins. There were good reasons why marriage between men and women developed, and why, even in gay friendly societies, the institution never included homosexual unions. I believe those reasons will one day reassert themselves; it may take some time, but humanity seems bound to repeat its mistakes until corrected by bitter experience.

[boris]

But too often the right finds itself standing on quickstand because the ground we take for granted was watered down.

[boris]

* quicksand * of the Gramsican brand.

[Chubby]

((But too often the right finds itself standing on quickstand because the ground we take for granted was watered down))

the morality upon which the race depends to survive, prosper and thrive cannot be watered down; it if is, socieity will not survive, prosper, nor thrive

[Chubby]

the reality of what is necessary for society to prosper and survive will stop the gramscians in their tracks, maybe not tomorrow, but it will happen .. .they've been beavering away for so long and just can't get there; their program is suicidal, the more it is crammed down, the more exposed, the more resistance it encounters .. economies flounder, families breakdown it is all one

even if only a minority is not suceptible to the gramscians, reality will kick in to aid and abet that minority

[boris]

faster please

[Pagar]

Might be considered off topic, but I submit that if "reality will kick in"

It will only be after the current DOJ is completely cleaned out and disinfected.

This report qualifies for the Most Insane Claim of the Week award.

"York reports that the DOJ ridiculously made the claim that electronic book readers like Amazon’s Kindle violated the “civil rights” of the blind and so, e-books violate the Americans with Disabilities Act."

[Chubby]

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are of the gift of God ? That they are to be violated but with His wrath ? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson

[boris]

I am agnostic but if He exists I am quite sure He sees creation with our eyes, loves it with our hearts and manifests its destiny with our minds. If so, then let me be the fist of his wrath.

[Chubby]

Pagar ((It will only be after the current DOJ is completely cleaned out and disinfected.))

Agreed, but even if that can't be achieved immediately, errant policy will cause social breakdown on a scale eventually so overwhelming that the enablers of said policy will be forever stigmatized and run out town.

[Chubby]

Pagar (("York reports that the DOJ ridiculously made the claim that electronic book readers like Amazon’s Kindle violated the “civil rights” of the blind and so, e-books violate the Americans with Disabilities Act."))

is their reason for being to create material for Iowahawk? :)

[Pagar]

Chubby, I thought it was to create material for Clarice, and if every there was one tailor made for her, this should be it.

"Because of this the DOJ insisted that several pilot programs in colleges and universities across the country be discontinued until e-books can be “accessible” to blind people. "

[jimmyk]

the DOJ ridiculously made the claim that electronic book readers like Amazon’s Kindle violated the “civil rights” of the blind

It seems ridiculous (and it is), but this stuff goes on all the time. In my apartment building, we cannot upgrade the second elevator to an automatic passanger elevator (from a hand-operated service elevator) because the door isn't wide enough for a wheelchair. The existing passenger elevator does accommodate a wheelchair, so the upgrade harms no one, makes everyone better off (including any disabled person, because it reduces usage of the one overburdened elevator). But it's not allowed.

We cannot enlarge the bathrooms in our apartment unless they are made wheelchair accessible. Again, no one would be harmed, there would be no reduction in handicapped accessibility, but that is the law.

So viewed in that light, the DOJ is being completely consistent. The Kindle is an improvement that can only be enjoyed by the non-blind. Therefore it must be a violation of civil rights.

[Lloyd]

Ignatz, you may have a point. Let's hope the court keeps this a matter for the states then.

[susan]

"When SCOTUS confirms that SSM is constitutional won't that pretty much declare open season on Catholic Churches for gay activists?"

Actually, out of piously showing their tolerance for intolerant The Catholic Judges will exempt African-American Black churches of all denomination and Islamic Mosques from having to perform Gay Marriage inside those specific religious.

If Catholics believe God's love is empowering doctors to kill babies in hospitals named after Christ why then it is very easy to butcher everything else.

[cathyf]

You missed the true insanity of the kindle suit. This was a beta test of using the kindle for textbooks, at four colleges, with one or two classes per college, grand total about 300 students. The kindle was already engineered with a book reader, and is an invaluable resource that many blind people already used. What was missing is a reader with the user interface -- if a sighted person set up the book, then a blind person can use it.

But the best part? The settlement was announced the day after the new kindle was announced with the upgraded software. The new software which is completely accessible to the blind, and is already being pre-ordered like crazy by people who are blind.

Imagine Emily Litella: "Never mind."

[Ignatz]

--If so, then let me be the fist of his wrath.--

Sorry boris. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."

[boris]

Heh ... agnostic remember?

Anyway the sentiment was less request than willingness.

You probably heard the story ... man stranded on his roof in a flood ... along comes a boat ... "no thanks, God will provide" ... along comes a helicopter ... "no thanks etc" ... then the house collapses and he drowns.

At the pearly gates he says "Gee I thought God would ..." St Pete interrupts "who do you think sent the boat and the chopper"

Well the boat and chopper guys didn't get a message from God, they were just doing what they do. It's like that.

[Clarice]

Interesting, cathy. The law (and DOJ) work in mysterious ways their wonders to perform.

[Clarice]

jimmyk, I recall that the City of santa Monica provided that no one could do any renovation on their homes without making those homes wheelchair accessible on the theory that it might otherwise keep a handicapped person someday from being able to visit the home or live in it.

Of course this crap immiserates people, drives up housing costs and diminishes the value of existing stock, but in cuckoobird land who cares?

[Ann Mongrel]

Interesting:

Nonprofit Tries One Kindle Per Child In Ghana

I got a security warning when trying to look up worldreader.org.

I wonder if the DOJ is just trying to figure out how to take over the company. "One Kindle Per Child" would make a great propaganda arm for feeding our children their agenda in every school.

Oh, looky, Fenton loves the idea. The Fenton Feed: Social Media Resources, One-Kindle-Per-Child & A Real-Time Mobile Revolution

[squaredance]

Let us understand this
1) Gays make up at most 4 % of the population (5% to 2% is more likely).
2. They are hardly a group lacking privileges.
3) Overwhelmingly, the nation opposes this. Even ultra-liberal CA voted against it.

Why are they doing this?
1. To clearly demonstrate to the rest of us that we are serfs. Nothing that we may do will stop their power. Not at the state level; not at the national level. The State, as controlled by the Leftist oligarchs must displace society at the deepest level. We will have no defense or peace even in our own hearts and minds.

2) To destroy all institutions of our civlization. To completely upend and uproot the foundations of Western Civilization and thereby enslave us. All the is good, true and sacred will be uprooted and cast out.

2) A innate obsession with perversity and perversion. It is not that they do not know the differences between right and wrong; they always do the exact opposite of what is right and good. This requirement acute sensitivity to right and wrong and not indifference to it.

How is this resolved?

1) We all go along like sheep. We profoundly demoralized (in every sense of the word). We are thus enslaved (and damned).
2) We somehow reverse this through the political system.
3) Civil War.

#2 is doubtful; #1 is most likely; but #3 is becoming increasingly more possible.

It will all become quite real. People's children will be indoctrinated in to homosexual lifestyles and behaviors in the classroom. They will attack religious institutions that stand in their way (This is, BTW, one of the chief reasons behind this, to attack faith and the institutions of faith.) It will become illegal to even speak out against it.

Please tell me how you can explain all of this to your children and at the same time hold up this nation as a free and decent society to them? Tell me how you can teach them to up hold her laws and institutions, to go to war for them? No one who values truth and the good (and their children's souls) can do this with an honest and open heart. This too is one of the reasons the Left pursues this.

You can give all the philosophical, legal and moral arguments you want, but they will push this through!. They are not listening to you. They hold you in the deepest contempt. They mean our complete annihilation as a free and decent people and nation.

Why do they not fear the American people? Why this now? They do not fear us because they feel they have won. They may well be right.

You must get clear on this. They are as power mad as they are evil. As I said before, once they do this nothing, absolutely nothing, will stand in there way.

They have said to American citizens that you all must except a vile perversion as a natural behavior. It does not matter what you think, say or, most importantly do, and if you try to stop us we will persecute you.

What then? How are we a free people? Who are we a sane people? How are we a decent people? Well, we we will be none of these things. We are the slaves to some highly irresponsible and evil people--people who are spiritually vile and rotten. People who would have been cast out of the community even 40 years ago. 100 years ago, they would have been so shamed out of society that they would dare not show their faces on the street lest they be horsewhipped in public.

IF we accept this it is only a matter of time until we collapse as a nation, society and civilization.