Gay Marriage Brain Lock

Some combination of deceitful advocacy, blind obtuseness and political correctness has afflicted both sides of the gay marriage debate with brain lock. Jill from Brilliant at Breakfast provides some lunchtime fare with an extended excerpt from the Supreme Court transcript illustrating two easy questions no one seemed able to answer.

First, who could possibly be harmed by gay marriage and what possible state interest could there be in not allowing it? The attorney meant to argue against gay marriage had no clear answer here. I doubt that is becasue he is stupid, and he shopuldn't be advocating in favor of gay marriage, so that leaves me thinking he was burdened by political correctness.

A reason to oppose gay marriage was offered by black ministers in Massachusetts when that state's Supreme Court opened the discussion in 2003. This is from a Feb 10 2004 article now archived, but excerpted here:

Bishop Gilbert A. Thompson Sr., who as pastor of New Covenant Christian Church in Mattapan heads the largest Protestant congregation in Massachusetts, said black ministers have many reasons for speaking out against gay marriage.

"We're weighing in on this because we're concerned with the epidemic rate of fatherlessness in America and in our community, and we don't think gay marriage helps that cause," he said.

I am reading between the lines a bit but I took that to mean that these inner-city ministers are trying very hard to persuade twenty year old gangsta wanna-bes that marriage is a great idea. Although they subsequently got help from Beyonce, who dressed like a hooker and told them to put a ring on it, these ministers seem to be concerned that if marriage is re-branded as a "gay thing" that it won't help them break through with their hyper-macho target audience.

Well; I'm not a black minister. Maybe inner city youth aren't so homophobic now (or ever), or maybe we shouldn't let the homophobia of inner city youth drive our social policy. But I don't see proud progressives saying "I understand gay marriage might further reduce marriage in the inner city, but it's a small price to pay". Instead, they are pretending there are no foreseeable consequences whatsoever. If another progressive experiment wreaks even more havoc in the inner city, well, who could have seen it coming, right?

Various judges extended the brain lock to the subject of marriage as an instrument of procreation:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

Mr. Cooper eventually makes one of two good points. He reminds the court that the man is likely to be fertile whether the womon is or not, and the woman has an interest in assuring his monogamy.

The obvious point to which he barely alludes is simple leadership by example - it is entirely possible that both of these adults have children/nieces/nephews of marriageable age, and both would want to set a positive example of the importance of marriage.

MR. COOPER: It's designed, Your Honor, to make it less likely that either party to that — to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. Outside of that marriage. That's the marital — that's the marital norm. Society has an interest in seeing a 55-year-old couple that is — just as it has an interest of seeing any heterosexual couple that intends to engage in a prolonged period of cohabitation to reserve that until they have made a marital commitment, a marital commitment. So that, should that union produce any offspring, it would be more likely that that child or children will be raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world.

I understand the progressives who want to pretend the possible problems don't exist. I am baffled by the hired mouthpiece's reticence on these points.

CREEPING TOWARDS HONESTY:

Brilliant quotes Amanda Marcotte at Slate:

We've given the homophobes plenty of time to think this over. It's time to move on without them.

I'll feel a certain comfort - cold, perhaps - when prominent progressives write that yes, gay marriage may prompt homophobes including inner city black males and working class whites to be even less interested in marriage than they are now, but that is OK. Move on without them.

But to conduct a broad social experiment while insisting that there is no experiment underway at all is... well, pretty typical, but still scary.

SINCE YOU ASK: As part of the war on working class marriage, let's not forget the Unaffordable Care Act subsidies, which apply to the employee but not the spouse or kids.

Comments

[GUS]

Of course the government can tinker with anything it wishes. Just ask our Chief Justice. As long as it's a TAX it's ok. Now as for inalienable rights!!! GUNS NO!! ABORTION YES!!! FREE ABORTIONS TAX AMMO.

[Threadkiller]

"What's the list of things which are inalienable rights?"

Being President was added to the illegal alienable rights, it seems.

[Porchlight]

Just for the record, when the "legalization of gay marriage will lead to legalization of multiple marriage partners, bigamy, polygamy, etc." argument comes up, there are people in the gay rights movement who explicitly desire such things to happen and have been vocal about it for years.

To wit:

http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

· Senior citizens living together, serving as each other’s caregivers, partners, and/or constructed families

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Grandparents and other family members raising their children’s (and/or a relative’s) children

· Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Blended families

· Single parent households

· Extended families (especially in particular immigrant populations) living under one roof, whose members care for one another

· Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

· Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Care-giving and partnership relationships that have been developed to provide support systems to those living with HIV/AIDS

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal ­– for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.

This is what's coming. It's already starting.

[Tom Maguire]

Any by the way, Justice Kagan's question did NOT miss the point.

It is worth keeping in mind that it is the attorneys that are meant to argue a position. Judges are free to ask all sorts of seemingly inane questions in order to poke at the arguments on offer.

One may be left wondering whether Kagan is too empty-headed to come up answers to these questions herself, but it is probably not fair to assume that she cannot.

That said, Ms. Kattenburg followed up with this:

It was Cooper who missed Kagan's point, or didn't understand it, apparently not knowing that the vast majority of women over 55 have gone through menopause and cannot have children no matter how fertile their husband is...

Since both Cooper and I made the point that the woman, fertile or not, has an interest in assuring the male's monogamy, I infer that Ms. K finds all this reading of other people's ideas a bit tedious.

[Stephanie]

How do you reconcile that with your insistence that because the Constitution doesn't mention marriage it can't be a right?

Do I have a right to kiss? Seriously.

Any action that by its very nature requires a second person to complete it cannot be a right as the second person could defer my completion of the action and thus intrude on my so called right to do said action. The other person can consent to accede to my action, thus making it a privilege for the both of us.

Inalienable rights are, to me, kinda like those immutable laws of physics except applied to humanity. They are there for me regardless of whether I, or the state, want to abide by them or not.

[Rob Crawford]

One may be left wondering whether Kagan is too empty-headed...

...then one remembers who nominated her, and the wondering ends with certainty.

[Tom Maguire]

Oops, I missed this insight from Ms. K:

Ummm, why is it a good point that the man is likely to be fertile after the age of 55 even though the woman is not? Why is that a good point, Tom?

I may need help here, since I am not always up to speed on the latest in progressive thought. Does "monogamy" still mean sexual exclusivity and no kids out of wedlock on the side, or has the meaning moved on?

Because if it means what I think it means, an infertile woman still has an interest in assuring the exclusivity of her fertile male spouse.

[NK]

TomM-- please don't feed the trolls. Even with a big helping of crow. PS: Lululemon called, they wanted to know how your yoga starter kit (mat&carrying case, blanket, blocks, strap and premium men's pants) was holding up. Any problems?... well CEO Christine Day has told you what you need to do.

[Jack is Back!]

A very interesting fact not mentioned in any of the discussions: 6 of the Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Sotomayor. And we all know where the church stands regarding same-sex marriage. Not saying that will be a factor but I am also wondering how much it may be a factor in their decision. 5 of the 6 are on the conservative side of the court (counting Kennedy).

[boris]

"Because if it means what I think it means, an infertile woman still has an interest in assuring the exclusivity of her fertile male spouse"

Well maybe ... surely the obvious KK solution would be infertile couples become "de-married" and any fertile partner is free to marry any other fertile person.

[Stephanie]

This is what's coming. It's already starting.

Didja see this little blurb at drudge?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/26/seen-at-11-groups-of-adults-turn-to-cooperative-households-to-save-money/

Marry em all now, dammit!

[NK]

I'll take Ms. Justice Kagan's side for argument's sake-- do the States and Fed gov't have any interest in the fidelity and monogomy of 55+yo childless husband-wife? And if so, is there any rational basis to distinguish between the fidelity of childless hetero husband-wife and homo Husband-husband/wife-wife? To me there isn't an obvious answer to that. so if KK or some other Prog wants to invalidate marriage between 55yo+, they should have a go at that.

[Chubby]

((Inalienable rights are, to me, kinda like those immutable laws of physics except applied to humanity. They are there for me regardless of whether I, or the state, want to abide by them or not.))

I just saw something that I'd never seen before about the creator-bestowed unalienable right of life. Humans appear to alienate or remove life from other humans in many circumstances -- crime, war, execution, and so on. That the founders saw life as an unalienable right, which I understand as a right that man cannot be separated from, does that imply that they believed that life is eternal?

[Stephanie]

and I'm off to dinner. BBL to see how bgates punctures my worldview. ')

[Threadkiller]

Wasn't Monogamy the opening song for The Muppet Show?

[Rob Crawford]

Not saying that will be a factor but I am also wondering how much it may be a factor in their decision.

You really think a leftist will adhere to church teachings on just this one issue?

[Tom Maguire]

If there is no right to marriage, would no rights be violated if Congress voided all marriages in the country?

That is a semi-fascinating question which would come back to the states rights argument that the Feds never had a proper role to play in defining marriage in the first place.

Now, if Congress went through the tax code to make it marriage-neutral, dropped Social Security survivor benefits, estate law and made a thousand other adjustments to laws on the books (surviving spouses in a military family with a KIA - no benefits???), they could take themselves out of the marriage adjudication business altogether. That wouldn't "void" marriages, just make them meaningless for purposes of Federal law.

But historically Congress simply recognized marriages approved by the various states. (Hawaii created the DOMA agita in the mid 90's.) So a Federal law voiding marriages for purposes of state law would be challenged successfully, IMHO.

[GUS]

Dear Abby,
Each day as I jog or run at the gym, I see 3 really really cute and hot girls running together. I recently found out that they are triplets!!! I have long argued that GAY MARRIAGE should be allowed, and to remain intellectually honest, I believe that government should not restrict whom I choose to marry. Here is my dilemma, I find all 3 of the girls attractive. As a PROGRESSIVE MALE, I have a question for you.
Is it OK and SHOULDN'T IT BE LEGAL, for me to MARRY all 3 of them? Or should I need to ask permission from my 2 husbands first.

[GUS]

NK, the FEDERAL GOVT requires the 55 year old woman's insurance policy to cover abortion and birth control.

[Chubby]

((Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal ­– for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.))

Porchlight, I was impressed by Dr. Ben Carson's answer to the question as to why there has been such a breakdown of the black family. He said it is the fault of the political correctness that calls all forms of relationships equal.

[boris]

Marriage probably did not come about via imposition of some ancient state or religion. More likely it is an instinctive property right necessary to the formation of societies in general. If true ... hardly surprising societies that form states and religions make marriage one of the functions included.

[GUS]

More questions from GUS.

If I married the TRIPLETS. Would the sisters be married to each other AND me, or would it just be me who had 3 spouses?

[henry]

Perhaps what the troll was getting at is it is unfair -- no unconstitutional-- that she and other womyn are infertile at 55 while men retain fertility. The SC should rule that all men must get snipped at 55 under equal protection rules (paid for by Obamacare and performed by the illegal immigrant of the bureaucrat's choice).

[NK]

Marriage and federalism? fascinating issue for someone like me who is a major supporter of federalism. As TomM points out DOMA was necessitated by the hawaii S Ct imposing a 'compelling state interest' standard on the legislature to bar homo-marriage. The legitimate federalist concern was that homo marriage activists would sue in federal courts in each state to give FFC to homo marriages in Hawaii or a handful of other states and thereby nationalize homo marriage through the courts. so in concept, DOMA was defensive to protect the public policies of hetero-marriage only states. Of course the Repubs expanded DOMA to state that the fed gov't would not recognize homo-marriage for federal benefits and priviliges. As to TomM's last question @6:18--federal law invalidating State marriages should be void under the 10th Amendment. But what if the federal gov't TAXED marriages under federal law-- does that violate State's rights? Wait a tick-- my wife and I have been paying the IRC marriage penalty tax for 28 years! Hey-- anybody know a good ConLaw lawyer?

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

Here's an idea for a contest;
If Kathy's and the left's idea of what amounts to equal protection is true how many other social institutions will have to be redefined to conform with the 14th amendment?
Bathrooms are the obvious area since 'separate but equal' could only be supported by some reactionary who believes in similar doctrines like the power of the urinary executive.
Any others?

[DrJ]

Iggy,

Here's one (from NRO):

At today’s colorful pro-gay-marriage protest outside of the Supreme Court, two people were the undoubted standouts: Brother K and Franny Max, anti-circumcision activists — or “intactivists,” as they call themselves — sporting white jumpsuits with bight red circles around their crotches.

They told me that it’s National Genital Integrity Week, so intactivists from around the country are holding their 20th annual protest in Washington. The intactivists argue that, because the U.S. has laws against female genital mutilation, baby boys don’t receive the same equal protection under the law as baby girls, and they hope people who support gay marriage on equal-protection grounds will also end up supporting an infant circumcision ban.

[GUS]

Oh just wait Ignatz. The California high speed rail boondoggle shall certainly include a 10% set aside for GAY MARRIED COUPLES jobs.
OH DEAR!!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/27/california-controversial-6b-rail-project-must-employ-disadvantaged-workers/
I'm sure our libtard friends will find this EQUAL PROTECTION!!!

[NK]

Ig-- I'll play-- 1. Equal right to go topless in public-- obvious one; 2. Public Lewdness laws-- women are able to self...uh... pleasure in public, it's a violation of 14th amendment equal protection to prevent men from doing so.
And don't give me 'unsanitary' rational basis for the gender distinction-- that can be handled with sound practices, or a user fee.

[GUS]

With all the support GAY MARRIAGE is getting, I have an idea.
If those who support it would just pay a teeeeeeeeeny bit more in taxes, we could have both debt reduction and happily married gays!!

I've evolved.

[GUS]

At the gym, gay men use the same locker room as straight men.
If that's ok, then why can't men use the same locker room as women??

[henry]

Well, there is always the "i was drunk so it was rape" argument. This should be available for both men and women, not exclusive for women.

[NK]

Gus@7:02-- that logic is irrefutable.

[GUS]

henry!! STAY THIRSTY MY FRIEND.

[NK]

henry@7:02-- speaking for myself, that argument would have come in handy back in the day.

[NK]

GUS@7:05- ha... HAH

[GUS]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/27/8-year-old-shot-with-arrow-during-uc-berkeley-field-trip/?intcmp=trending

Correct me if I am wrong, but, Berkeley, is a GUN FREE ZONE???

[henry]

NK, latex is your friend. ;)

[NK]

henry... I know it's been a long winter in Wisc, but.....please. Good heavens sir -- YOU'RE A YALE MAN!

PS: just got my 2013 USSF referee badge in the mail; USSF reminder about referee 'guidance' for 2013-- any abusive language directed to match officials or OTHER PLAYERs is a straight Red Card. Yeah... OK-- I guess I won't hear a lot of things this year.

[Dave (in MA)]

Gus, you're a genius. Not only do you get 3 hot wives, but you still only have 1 set of in-laws.

[GUS]

NK, henry and I made a run for the border last week. We saw the hotel and the bar where the WISCONSIN DEM STATE SENATORS hid out in Rockford. We went to see a museum there.
Btw, I used to be a USSF ref. I'm glad to hear that abusive language red card come to be. In my college playing days, you wouldn't dare mouth off to a ref. And the game was physical, but not like today. Mexico must be pissed at their outcome last night. We dodged a bullet.

[GUS]

henry, never send your soldier into battle without a helmet.

[NK]

Gus-- you're a soccer (world football) guy? fantastic. The USA did indeed dodge a bullet-- but I'm back on the KLINSMANN band wagon! The USMNT was gutsy and disciplined last night-- they earned the point. BTW-- in the Over-30 mens games I do-- the straight red is unenforceable.

[GUS]

NK, my Dad played in the Scottish premier league. I played in H.S. and University. I went to the YALE of WISCONSIN....U.W.Whitewater. Well, we weren't technically the YALE of Wisconsin, but I did once drive a YALE forklift.
Btw. I never received a red card at any level.

[narciso]

Gus, I'm curious, do you speak with a Scottish, British or MidWestern accent.

[rse]

This is definitely a male discussion tonight.

Keep us amused.

[Jack is Back!]

Gus,

What team in the SPL did your Dad play for? Celtic, Rangers, Motherwell, Aberdeen ? My great-grand dad was the first profesissional at the Aberdeen Cricket Club in 1860.

[NK]

rse-- we aim to please! sometimes we don't aim well;

Gus-- is your dad SAF age? or more King Kenny Dalglish and Bobby McMahon?

[RichatUF nee GMU]

I've got nothing.

Fifteen years from now what will the media be pushing that is unthinkable today.

This is an interesting thought. Gun confiscation would be my first thought. Confiscation of 401ks would be my next thought.

DOOM.

[daddy]

Frau,

Thanks for the link to that obituary about the US Army Rabbi who entered Buchenwald. Amazing tale.

My pop's outfit liberated one of the Concentration Camps in the last days. He would never talk about it, but I recall that on the night before I went to bootcamp we sat on the back porch and he opened up just a little bit about his wartime experiences. He mentioned that you could smell something awful from miles away as you approached the camp, and that his commanding general, a first generation German American from Kansas who could speak perfect Deutsch, ordered the residents of the nearby town to all have to walk through the camp to see it for themselves. He said that many of the town residents were crying and saying "We just didn't know, we just didn't know", but Pop didn't buy it because he said the smell was so overpowering that you had to know.

What an episode of human history. Sounds like this Rabbi Schacter was a great man.

[Rick Ballard]

Daddy,

Don't forget to continue research work on the Guiness Index. The Dublin benchmark is currently €4.50-5.00.

[daddy]

you cannot deny an entire group of people the right to marry

Tell it to the Mormons

On January 6, 1879, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision. The Court based its decision on historic American cultural values, namely that from the earliest times polygamy was considered an offense against society. Most civilized countries considered marriage a "sacred obligation," and a civil contract usually regulated by law. Therefore, the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect polygamy. Reynolds's sentence of two years in prison and a $500 fine remained.

[Clarice]

Am I getting dementia or is this gibberish?

"Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

“Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to – that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?” she asked.

“Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said. “And if you -- if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.

“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said."

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

The latter.

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

--women are able to self...uh... pleasure in public--

Guess Connecticut isn't quite as staid and prim as I thought.

[daddy]

how many other social institutions will have to be redefined to conform with the 14th amendment?

Lets get rid of all sports teams in public schools that are gender specific. No girls Basketball Teams, no boys Basketball teams, just a single Basketball team for the School for anyone who can make it. Savings to the taxpayer by cutting out basically half the Public School sports teams in America would be absolutely hugh...and fair.

[Clarice]

Whew!

[Captain Hate]

Ted's mind is circling the bowl.

[daddy]

Am I getting dementia or is this gibberish?

Sounds like gibberish to me, Clarice.

[narciso]

That one qualifies for Billy Nadison treatment;

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

How about going the other way?

March 27,2028
Amarillo, Republic of Texas

Free State Union Border Patrol agents turned back 500 refugees from the Northeastern Peoples Republic today due to this year's immigration quota having been filled by March 15. Free State Union government officials notified the Northeastern Poliburo on March 1 that the quota would not be raised and requested the Politburo to make a public announcement to that effect. The Politburo did not respond.

Although economic conditions in the NPR continue to deteriorate, with unemployment over 30% and reports of food shortages becoming commonplace, the Congress of the Free State Union remains adamant that the refugee quota of 10,000 will not be lifted and will continue to be limited to only those able to document continuous employment over the previous five years.

[GUS]

Jack, My Dad played for the Pars of Dunfermline, hometown of Andrew Carnegie. They get relegated from time to time, but he has some great SPL stories. I saw Motherwell play St Johnstone last year.

[bgates]

Any action that by its very nature requires a second person to complete it cannot be a right

The First Amendment says otherwise.

That is a semi-fascinating question

I somewhat appreciate that characterization.

[jimmyk]

It's very disturbing, how ignorant of basic biology so many supposedly educated people are.

Trying to get caught up, missed out on the fun. It's always especially amusing when a dimwit like kaka tries to act superior and imagines she caught TM in a mistake, when the reality is simply that she is too dense to understand the point he is making.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"You normally behave as a troll. ..."

Uh no, Mark, I don't. You need to look up the definition of an Internet troll. I'm not it. If you look at the definition, it fits you far more than it does me.

"And personally, I prefer raspberry tea."

Sounds good. Maybe I'll try it.

[narciso]

That's just a day ending in y, jimmy. Mark may have been a little too frank, but then I remembered that tidbit of Frum she forwarded, or how she went along with Sy Hersh's slander of JSOC.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"As stated previously gays can have the same legal rights as heterosexuals. I am fine with that. Come up with a different noun to describe your union. The word marriage in its truest sense is already taken."

And as I said before, it doesn't work that way. Marriage is a legal contract that unites two consenting adults in a contractual lifetime relationship. There's no such thing as "another kind" of legal contract that unites two consenting adults in a contractual lifetime relationship. Civil unions are not marriage. They do not provide any of the contractually binding legal benefits and protections of marriage. If they DID provide the same contractually binding legal benefits and protections of marriage, then they would be marriage. What you're suggesting doesn't even make any sense.

[daddy]

It's very disturbing, how ignorant of basic biology so many supposedly educated people are.

Perhaps this is why, JimmyK

A high school science teacher in Idaho is under investigation by the state’s professional standards commission because he reportedly used the word “vagina” during a biology lesson.

Wonder if he was monologuing?

[Mark Folkestad]

KaKa has spoken, so I must be a troll. What say the members of the JOMO Tribe?

[narciso]

Maybe we are all, as sylvia intuited, Mark,

[narciso]

Seriously, though, Kagan let loose a giant 'Squirrel' in that argument,

[Mark Folkestad]

Narciso, somehow that reminds me of the two old spinsters from Mandrake Falls who testify that Longfellow Deeds is "pixilated". And then, on Deeds' own cross, they admit they everyone besides them is pixilated.

[Danube of Thought on iPad]

"Being President was added to the illegal alienable rights, it seems."

When, how and by whom?

[Stephanie]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How so? I speechify all day and I'll be damned if my husband hears any of it. :D

The rest can also be done singly - including assemble. I can call a protest and be an army of one. Isn't the premise of an "Army of Davids" individuals coincidentally moving in the same direction for a cause - no coordination required?

[Danube of Thought on iPad]

"And as I said before, it doesn't work that way. Marriage is a legal contract that unites two consenting adults in a contractual lifetime relationship."

Actually, it does work that way, and what you have described is what you would like to see, not what actually is ubder the laws of a majority of states.

Of interest to me is that, if the Court does what I think it should (and might) do in the Prop 8 case--that is, dismiss the appeal, and vacate the 9th Circuit ruling, all on the basis of lack of standing--then Prop 8 would be the law in California everywhere but in Jusge Vaughn Walker's courtroom. And he's retired.

[Threadkiller]

"300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary"

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310

[Stephanie]

BTW, almost all 'civil union' laws allow for the joining of male/male, female/female, and male/female relationships. It is a secular alternative for a growing number of heteros, too, particularly for those that want to keep the religious connotations out of their lives.

I would wager that if the law was left as is regarding CUs that in 30 years CUs will far outstrip marriages as the preferred method of life pacts.

From WIKI:

The French law providing benefits to same-sex couples also applies to opposite-sex couples who choose this form of partnership over marriage. Known as the "Pacte civil de solidarité" (PACS), it is more easily dissolved than the divorce process applying to marriage.

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of marriages decreased while the number of PACS strongly increased. In 2010, there were 3 PACS for every 4 marriages celebrated in France.

Seems KK is against evolution when it suits her.

[Danube of Thought on iPad]

We need to find out what Tom Friedman's views are, since China does not allow same-sex marriage or civil unions. How can this be, in the enlightened Society of the Future? Are they secretly controlled by wild-eyed snake-handling Christian fundamentalists?

[Kat]

Poor Mormons must be so aggrieved now. They were legally prohibited from polygamous marriage, weren't they?
If gay marriage becomes law of the land I hope they will be next in line to get their right take marry as many women as they please. Don't see why that would be any different from gay marriage, if being consenting adults in love is considered an overriding legal principle.
Besides, polygamy may have a stronger standing than gay marriage, being practiced all around the world since the antiquity.

In the real world, precedent was set for asset seizure, inflation looms, people will be priced out of medical care and there is no sight of any economic growth. I think it is time to listen to "Ragtime" and drink first class brandy. The icy water is still 10 yards away.

[bgates]

The rest can also be done singly - including assemble.

Mirriam-Webster gives the definition of "assemble" as
to bring together

lists as its origin
Middle English, from Anglo-French assembler, from Vulgar Latin *assimulare, from Latin ad- + simul together; First Known Use: 13th century

and synonyms
cluster, collect, concenter, concentrate, conglomerate, congregate, convene, converge, forgather (or foregather), gather, meet, rendezvous, get together

I won't say you're dissembling about assembling, but I don't see any evidence of your commitment to the preservation of the meaning of very old words here, either.

[daddy]

We need to find out what Tom Friedman's views are, since China does not allow same-sex marriage or civil unions. How can this be, in the enlightened Society of the Future?

Dot,

This story in yesterday's China Daily on Divorces in China is interesting. Apparently the breakdown of the nuclear family isn't limited just to the free world: Love Stories Can End In Divorce

"According to our research, more than 60 percent of marriages in China are in seriously 'poor health'...

Rising divorce rate
China's divorce rate has risen sharply in recent years, sounding alarm bells across a nation that attaches great importance to family harmony. Experts have warned that more measures are needed to save increasingly fragile families. If they fail, the consequences could be disastrous.

Thirteen million couples were married in 2011, an increase of 4.9 percent from 2010, according to the Ministry of Civil Affairs. However, the year also saw 2.87 million marriages end in divorce, a rise of 7.3 percent from 2010 and equal to more than 5,000 couples divorcing every day.

...our research during recent years indicates that the high divorce rate is actually proportionate to a rise in criminal cases..."The rate of juvenile crime committed by children from single-parent families is three times higher than that of children from integrated families.

Realizing the social hazards inherent in high rates of divorce, while seeking to improve the quality of marriage and help people solve their marital crises, the Ministry of Civil Affairs is promoting the Family Harmony Project.

Friedman might like that last bit; Legions of Government Marriage Counselors.

[Stephanie]

True, it is a very narrow definition, but conferring inalienable rights to groups, would, ISTM to be impossible on its face. The government can confer privileges to groups (discriminating all it wants in the process), but not inalienable rights. And I don't think my way of looking at this contradicts with the dictionary definition.

I can cluster, assemble, get together any number of objects. Those objects being grouped, clustered assembled etc. don't lose their individuality. That is what I am driving at. Inalienable rights are inherently individualistic. And the grouping of those inalienable individuals, much to the chagrin of liberals, don't confer their inalienableness to the group by congregating, assembling, or protesting.

Individuals can choose to group into sets or assemblies, but the first amendment (your example of an exception to my comment) would still be prosecuted (if someone deemed them to be acting against the 'law') against the assembly in pieces or individually. You wouldn't prosecute the assembly as a whole as each individual in the assembly has different potential culpability for any possible infraction.

And yes, we have corporations, but corporations are deemed persons for the purposes of the law, so the act of incorporation theoretically insulates the persons in the corporation from individual prosecution or fines. Corporate veil and all that. Criminal prosecution, though is one instance that pierces that corporate veil. Regardless, I don't think anyone is arguing that corporations have inalienable rights.

[Captain Hate]

We need to find out what Tom Friedman's views are, since China does not allow same-sex marriage or civil unions. How can this be, in the enlightened Society of the Future? Are they secretly controlled by wild-eyed snake-handling Christian fundamentalists?

Hard to believe that Flathead has shown such restraint from ruminating at great length on this topic. Pinch must be horrified since his dwindling cult usually needs Tommy's witless pontifications to validate what their feelings are so they can subsequently call them "thoughts".

[Danube of Thought on iPad]

From Chris Stirewalt, the gloat-o-rama continues:

"Whether you are a staunch supporter of the National Rifle Association or an enthusiastic backer of the effort by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein for stronger gun control laws, it now should be clear who is winning — indeed, who has won — the latest skirmish in the gun control wars. As my friend Chris Cillizza noted recently in an excellent piece, supporters of new gun control measures are poised to fail, yet again, in their efforts to pass significant new legislation."

[Chubby]

((Sounds like gibberish to me, Clarice.))

the question is, did it sound like gibberish to Sotmeyer? although I hope that she who called herself "wise" actually is wise, I'm not betting on it.

[Captain Hate]

Usually people who refer to themselves as "wise" are like fat people who are called "Slim".

[US Employment Law]

The bigger question should be why not against CCN? If all that has been printed and stated is false/untrue, the lawsuit should really be against Karen and CalCoastNews. Obviously, Torres cannot defend herself against all the statements, facts, allegations, etc. The truth apparently cannot be disputed by her, so let's see what she does best distract everyone from the big picture.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Since both Cooper and I made the point that the woman, fertile or not, has an interest in assuring the male's monogamy, I infer that Ms. K finds all this reading of other people's ideas a bit tedious."

What does fertility have to do with monogamy?

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"...I infer that Ms. K finds all this reading of other people's ideas a bit tedious."

And adding to the above: I infer that you are unwilling to tell me why you think Charles Cooper made a good point when he suggested that heterosexual couples can still have children even if both are past the age of 55 because men are still fertile after 55. I infer your unwillingness to answer that question from your failure to do so.

[For medical science, extended fertility is possible, if not probable.]

Ho, ho, Kat, we thought that was funny, too. Now that you've finished guffawing, how about the point he was trying to make?
==============

[Porchlight]

I infer that you are unwilling to tell me why you think Charles Cooper made a good point when he suggested that heterosexual couples can still have children even if both are past the age of 55 because men are still fertile after 55.

But that is not what Cooper suggested.

Here is what TM wrote:

Mr. Cooper eventually makes one of two good points. He reminds the court that the man is likely to be fertile whether the womon is or not, and the woman has an interest in assuring his monogamy.

This is entirely true. The wife can no longer have children but the husband can still have children with another woman, so the wife has an interest in keeping him monogamous and not looking for another younger fertile woman with whom he could have children.

Thus you have a relationship between fertility and monogamy even when both the wife and the husband are 55 or older.

KK are you really not getting this?

[boris]

"KK are you really not getting this?"

KK is just trying to point out that Mr. Cooper and Tom Maguire are clearly unaware that both the husband and the wife have to be fertile in order to produce offspring.

Both Mr Cooper and Tom owe KK heartfelt apologies and copious gratitude for educating them on the basics of human biology.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"I may need help here, since I am not always up to speed on the latest in progressive thought. Does "monogamy" still mean sexual exclusivity and no kids out of wedlock on the side, or has the meaning moved on?

Because if it means what I think it means, an infertile woman still has an interest in assuring the exclusivity of her fertile male spouse."

And if her spouse is infertile, that means she has no worries about exclusivity?

Having asked that, the fact remains that the question Elena Kagan asked Cooper, which Charles Cooper answered with the statment that men over the age of 55 are still fertile, had nothing to do with exclusivity. Cooper was not referring to exclusivity when he told Kagan that men over 55 are still fertile. He was talking about the importance of procreation in marriage. He was arguing that in a marriage where both the man and the woman are over 55, the man's continued fertility is relevant because it means the couple can still have children. Which demonstrates ignorance of very very basic reproductive biological facts on Cooper's part, which ignorance you apparently share since you said it was a "good point," and have yet to explain why you think it's a good point.

[Porchlight]

Cooper was not referring to exclusivity when he told Kagan that men over 55 are still fertile.

Yes, he was. See quote below.

He was arguing that in a marriage where both the man and the woman are over 55, the man's continued fertility is relevant because it means the couple can still have children.

No, he never argued that. He argued that the man's continued fertility is relevant because the man can have children outside the marriage.

There is one short bit where he stumbles a bit and everyone laughed. Then he goes on to explain what I explained above.

Here are the relevant passages:

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's -­ society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that -

****

MR. COOPER: It's designed, Your Honor, to make it less likely that either party to that — to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. Outside of that marriage. That's the marital — that's the marital norm. Society has an interest in seeing a 55-year-old couple that is — just as it has an interest of seeing any heterosexual couple that intends to engage in a prolonged period of cohabitation to reserve that until they have made a marital commitment, a marital commitment. So that, should that union produce any offspring, it would be more likely that that child or children will be raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world.

I snipped out the humorous back and forth between the other justices.

If you disagree, please share the quote that confirms your statement that Cooper was talking about the two married 55 year olds having children, and not the man potentially having children with another woman outside the marriage. Because I have looked through the transcript and cannot find it anywhere.

[Porchlight]

Here is a helpful link to the transcript, Kathy. Don't worry, it's NPR, so you can trust it.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175351429/audio-supreme-court-arguments-on-california-gay-marriage-ban

Again, looking for the quote where Cooper "was arguing that in a marriage where both the man and the woman are over 55, the man's continued fertility is relevant because it means the couple can still have children."

[Clarice]

porch--althouse linked o that yesterday at Instapundit where she's guest blogging, IIRC.

[Kat, y'all project like crazy.]

Cool, Porch, Kagan's the source of the meme. What idiots.
=======

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Actually, it does work that way, and what you have described is what you would like to see, not what actually is ubder the laws of a majority of states."

Which is why the issue of marriage equality is now in the Supreme Court.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

porchlight, your 5:08 pm:

Cooper was backpedaling, trying to fix his response to Kagan's question so it made sense. The clear non-sense of Cooper's reply to Kagan's question is why the audience was laughing.

He didn't do a very good job of it, though, because his backpedaled argument made no sense, either -- as I've already indicated in a couple of my replies to Tom.

[GUS]

Hi Kathy!!!!
You are still a guy, and still a TROLL.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

And you are still GUS -- which, believe me, is not a compliment.