May 31, 2012

It Begins: First Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down DOMA as "Unconstitutional"
— Ace

In the beginning of this debate, conservatives argued the laws of marriage must be uniform across states on fundamental issues.

Nonsense, the left said. Each state (or, more accurately, each state's courts, in the main) should be free to experiment. So what if we have a crazy-quilt of differing laws? That's what federalism is all about.

Conservatives argued back that if gay marriage were permitted, courts would quickly force it upon unwilling states, with the argument that marriage benefits must travel state lines.

Nonsense, the left said. A phantasmal worry, bordering on a lie. DOMA insures that this will not happen.

Well, now the First Circuit says DOMA is unconstitutional.

Turns out that crazy-quilt patchwork the left said would work isn't going to be permitted to work. They now join the former conservative position that marriage laws must be uniform on this issue... except they insist the law must be uniformly pro-gay-marriage.

I've been arguing this for a while: If you really want a constitutional amendment, do not outlaw gay marriage. It won't pass. We've already seen the polls.

If you want an amendment, amend the constitution to say that as marriage has existed as between a man and a woman since the beginning of the Republic, no court can claim that the federal constitution or any state constitution mandates it.

Which is obvious.

This will stop the madness of courts continually writing their own law on this issue.

If it passes in a state, it passes in a state. Such is democracy, and such is federalism.

But courts have no right to claim that the authors of the Constitution, and the states which passed it into law, considered same-sex marriage a right. Obviously they did not, and it's high time the courts stopped claiming otherwise.

The Constitution is authorized to be changed by one process-- the amendment process.

There is no provision in the Constitution to add to the Bill of Rights based on the current political whims of five judges.

Posted by: Ace at 09:24 AM | Comments (126)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

1 VERDICT REACHED IN EDWARDS CASE!

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2012 09:26 AM (UOM48)

2
Killjoy.

Posted by: Penumbras and Eminations at May 31, 2012 09:27 AM (xDqit)

3 Flaming skull with Silky Pony hair, please?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2012 09:27 AM (UOM48)

4 3 Flaming skull with Silky Pony hair, please? Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 31, 2012 02:27 PM (UOM4 You are actually going to make me search for it? Sheesh.

Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 31, 2012 09:28 AM (oipCQ)

5 >>So what if we have a crazy-quilt of differing laws?

I do enjoy the hilarity of couples who take a trip to get married in MA or IA, and then six months later they're trapped because their state of residence won't process a divorce filing for a marriage that doesn't exist.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at May 31, 2012 09:28 AM (/kI1Q)

6 Racist! Oh, wait. What? Nevermind.

Posted by: Walter Freeman at May 31, 2012 09:28 AM (kqGWM)

7 Sorry for the O/T but the Silky Pony verdict is coming in about 5 mins

Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2012 09:29 AM (pLTLS)

8 Nothing yet: https://plus.google.com/102922738525778464049/posts/fABdGdCBumg

Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 31, 2012 09:30 AM (oipCQ)

9 I'm still stuck at the part where we try to imagine what the Founders would have thought if someone had proposed to them,"Should we define marriage in the Constitution just to make it clear?"

I'm pretty sure they would have taken 2 steps back and summoned help to restrain the lunatic before them.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at May 31, 2012 09:30 AM (akXk+)

10 Meh. Maybe it'll eliminate our archaic and woefully sexist alimony and custody laws.

Woman: "GRRRL POWER! I want a divorce!"

Man: "Ouch. Well, Ok. You'll need to get a job, you know."

Woman: "A JOB? How am I to survive with a JOB?"

Judge: "You're right. No job needed. Here, take half his stuff."

Woman: "GRRRRL POWER!"

Posted by: Not.That.Im.Bitter at May 31, 2012 09:30 AM (gQLr2)

11 How about an Edwards thread? I'm guessing that not matter the verdict, it will be the sole topic of conversation for a while.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 31, 2012 09:30 AM (piMMO)

12 Will they outlaw the Tennessee Logjammer? or the Mississippi Mud Masher? What's next, the Louisiana Lily Lapper?

Posted by: Captain FAPtastical at May 31, 2012 09:31 AM (/pd0C)

13 Or we could just get government out of the marriage business and make it a contract like any other. Then churches would be free to marry or not marry according to their conscience. The libertarians are wrong about some important things but they're right about this.

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at May 31, 2012 09:31 AM (RD7QR)

14

"I've been arguing this for a while: If you really want a constitutional amendment, do not outlaw gay marriage. It won't pass. We've already seen the polls.

If you want an amendment, amend the constitution to say that as marriage has existed as between a man and a woman since the beginning of the Republic, no court can claim that the federal constitution or any state constitution mandates it."


Yeah, I'm pretty confused here. This is exactly what the Federal Marriage Amendment does and it will pass. Every poll in every state which has allowed the people to vote on it says so.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 09:31 AM (Q1lie)

15 Will Alice Cooper be sued? http://tinyurl.com/7bls2ne

Posted by: LobarPendulum at May 31, 2012 09:31 AM (SAwwn)

16 You say polls indicate a constitutional amendment would not be supported but that flies in the face of the 31-0 record when the issue has been voted on by these States.

Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2012 09:32 AM (DdHu+)

17 Holding my breath on the Pennsylvania Piledriver....

Posted by: Captain FAPtastical at May 31, 2012 09:32 AM (/pd0C)

18

There is no provision in the Constitution to add to the Bill of Rights based on the current political whims of five judges.

 

 Sure there is. It's called the Commerce Clause. Duh.

 

Also, I haven't read the opinion yet but I believe the holding is more limited than is being reported. 

Posted by: alexthechick at May 31, 2012 09:33 AM (VtjlW)

19 Who cares, what the real ball in play is the Hispanic immigration issue , that Foxy News and others are trying to engineer a Rubio VP slot with Mittens, see Rubio in Gitmo, see Rubio commenting on Nightmare Act, see how cute Rubio is? Rubio will make all well and good. The reality is that our government will need to send all 13 million plus Hispanics South to ensure a free and balanced democracy, as long as we have a bloated anchor on the USA boat we will eventually sink.Oh and the Hispanics are against Gay marriage,  but do not wrap their pingas, so we have the burden of their machismo populating our Amber Waves of Grain.

Posted by: clemenza at May 31, 2012 09:33 AM (fCSfn)

20 AND the Nebraskan Noggin Nibbler....

Posted by: Captain FAPtastical at May 31, 2012 09:33 AM (/pd0C)

21

I do enjoy the hilarity of couples who take a trip to get married in MA or IA, and then six months later they're trapped because their state of residence won't process a divorce filing for a marriage that doesn't exist.

 

 

Well, seems to me that their problem is already fixed. If their home state doesn't recognize the marriage to begin with, then they're not married and hence don't need to get divorced. The only losers in this situation are the divorce attorneys who don't get hired, which means we need gay marriage to stimulate the economy.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 31, 2012 09:34 AM (JxMoP)

22 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:34 AM (8y9MW)

23 More proof that Leftists can't leave anyone alone.  If they can't have the ghey marriage in some barren corner of deepest of deep red South Dakota, they won't be satisfied.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 09:34 AM (mg08E)

24
Not exactly a feather in Obama's cap. More like a feather boa around Obama's neck.

Are you better off now than you were before Obama decided to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military?

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 09:34 AM (9Q7Nu)

25 I'm so freaking tempted to say "F*ck it.  Let it burn."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:35 AM (8y9MW)

26 Huh. It's almost like all the stars that aligned for the JEF last time are aligning for Romney.

With this ruling, suddenly the whisper campaign that MA or CA are going to force gay marriage on your state becomes very real. Because that is the only outcome here.

Ham Sammich just called and said, "fuck you for thinking I wouldn't have won."

Posted by: jimmuy at May 31, 2012 09:35 AM (kSaUf)

27
First Gay President, indeed.

And this is what women see when they look at Obama -- a champion for special rights for homosexuals.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2012 09:35 AM (9Q7Nu)

28

@13

 

Couldn't agree more. Sorry, Ace, but your suggestion for an amendment is scarcely even coherent this time. If anything, the 10th Amendment would prohibit the federal govt from getting involved in marriage, which is certainly not any kind of "enumerated power".

 

But, yes, if you asked the Founding Fathers whether a marriage was between a man and a woman they would have undoubtedly not answered the question - and would have waited instead for what sort of punch line was to follow in what must be an odd joke.

 

Posted by: Optimizer at May 31, 2012 09:36 AM (As94z)

29 I have yet to see one gay marriage last longer than it takes the ink to dry on the paper. Monogamy is just not a feature of the gay lifestyle. Why we would want to allow marriages between people who cannot procreate and instead choose to experiment by raising other people's kids is beyond me. Common sense is, apparently, not all that common. Indulge your basest perversions on your own time and your own dime--it's a free country. But wouldn't it be nice if we didn't force our perversions into the public eye at all times and at great cost, both personal and public?

Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2012 09:36 AM (ZOUmX)

30 Oops, forgot to denounce myself.

Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2012 09:37 AM (ZOUmX)

31 Sadly these days all that matters in the end is what Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks the constitution says.

Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2012 09:37 AM (pAlYe)

32 Sadly these days all that matters in the end is what Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks the constitution says.

If you're trying to convince me not just to give up all hope and say, "F*ck it.  Let it burn," you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 09:39 AM (8y9MW)

33 Oh and BTW, this ruling is a joke. The federal government is bound by what a state determines concerning federal benefits? If SCOTUS ever rules in favor of redefining marriage you can rest assured it won't ever include this stupid reasoning.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 09:39 AM (Q1lie)

34 I recently read "Ameritopia" by Mark Levin.  It all makes sense now.  And yes, we are fooked.

For over 100 years, men and women has sworn by a God that they do not believe in to faithfully interpret and defend and enforce the Constitution knowing full and well that they had no intention of doing any such thing.


Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2012 09:39 AM (O3R/2)

35 Sadly these days all that matters in the end is what Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks the constitution says. Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2012 02:37 PM (pAlYe) ------------------------------------------------------- Man.... way to go. You just made me very sad.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at May 31, 2012 09:40 AM (jucos)

36

If John Edwards falls in love with the guy who will be pounding him in the ass over next few years in prison, who are we to deny him the right to marry?

Posted by: jwest at May 31, 2012 09:40 AM (ZDsRL)

37 Hell if we want to get into changing the definition of words, I would like to say that I'm a black cherokee hispanic and because I've simply changed the definition of those races to meet my needs, I would like to proceed with the 1048 lawsuits of discrimination I will bring forth.

Posted by: realityman at May 31, 2012 09:41 AM (obXkJ)

38 So, all the faggots in Mass. will get Medicare and Social Security Survivors benefits.

Didn't I tell you it's all about the money and soaking the taxpayer.


Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2012 09:42 AM (O3R/2)

39

Ace, I love you, but your post about the Founders' view on gay marriage is nonsense.  The Constitution sets forth a standard, not a rule.  The standard is that states must give individuals equal protection under the law.  We've agreed for decades that the government may discriminate on the basis of sex only if it is able to show that there is some compelling need that can only be reasonably achieved through sex-based discrimination.  That is the standard the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) sets forth. 

So, is there some compelling need for the government to discriminate against men and women because they want to marry other men and women?  No.  Pure and simple.  The Founders would have been appalled, sure, but they also would have been appalled at hard core pornography.  Will you argue that that may be banned? 

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 09:42 AM (xamKk)

40

The comity clause jurisprudence should still allow states that have a specific public policy against gay marriage  to ignore the worthless scraps of paper.

Posted by: imp at May 31, 2012 09:42 AM (UaxA0)

41 Gay marriage is going to be the new front-and-center-main-liberal-cause.

If it is not there already.

It seems to be gaining enough traction to push it ahead of feminism-choice-equality.  Watch for someone like Sandra Fluke to appear.

Jarrett got Zero to use federally-paid-for-contraception to axe the Catholic Church and probably creamed her jeans watching it play out.  Imagine how she will conspire to attempt a death blow with this one.

Refuse to marry these two dudes?  Come on down to our HQ at ten tomorrow and don't be late.  We need to discuss something with you.

Posted by: TheLittlShiningMan at May 31, 2012 09:44 AM (PH+2B)

42 The day they outlaw the Topeka Tackle Tumble is the day I move to Belize.

Posted by: reason at May 31, 2012 09:44 AM (l2max)

43 I was in this drug-addled argument 25 years ago.  One of my acqaintances (sp) was arguing about something.  I argued "The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says."

Still true. 

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2012 09:45 AM (O3R/2)

44 Yeah, those polls have been really accurate on same-sex pseudo-marriage, eh, Ace?

Bueller?

Posted by: datsnotamore at May 31, 2012 09:45 AM (FeyKn)

45

"More proof that Leftists can't leave anyone alone. If they can't have the ghey marriage in some barren corner of deepest of deep red South Dakota, they won't be satisfied. "

 

TOLERANCE, YOU UNEDUCATED BUGEATER!

Posted by: An All-Loving Leftist at May 31, 2012 09:45 AM (l2max)

46 The comity clause jurisprudence should still allow states that have a specific public policy against gay marriage to ignore the worthless scraps of paper. Posted by: imp at May 31, 2012 02:42 PM (UaxA0) ------------------------------------------------------ Are you sure it is not the good and plenty clause?

Posted by: John Conyers at May 31, 2012 09:45 AM (jucos)

47 If you're trying to convince me not just to give up all hope and say, "F*ck it. Let it burn," you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at May 31, 2012 02:39 PM (8y9MW)


Sorry man - I'm actually an optimist albeit a realistic somewhat fatalistic one.

And one good thing we have going for us is that no one can reliably predict the future beyond a few years. So don't be a Pollyanna but also don't accept inevitable DOOM either.


Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2012 09:46 AM (pAlYe)

48

I agree.  Social Conservative up twinkles for Ace.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at May 31, 2012 09:46 AM (epBek)

49 WARNING: If Edwards is convicted, expect a riot of handsome, southern horndog ambulance chasers to erupt in America's cities.

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2012 09:47 AM (O3R/2)

50 "If anything, the 10th Amendment would prohibit the federal govt from getting involved in marriage, which is certainly not any kind of "enumerated power".
Posted by: Optimizer at May 31, 2012 02:36 PM (As94z)"

I'm always kind of confused by this reasoning. First of all how can an amendment violate the 10th. The Constitution limits the federal governments power to that which is enumerated and adds a process by which more things can be enumerated. That is by amendment. The process was put in there exactly to deal with such situations. While the power to license marriage  is reserved to the states the power of the federal government to recognize them solely for federal purposes isn't. There is nothing in the Constitution which demands the federal government recognize all marriages any state recognizes. Surely things like  federal benefits and who does or does not get them are among the federal governments powers no?

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 09:47 AM (Q1lie)

51

 So...which part of The Constitution gives the feds the power to regulate and license marriage?

 What part of your state constitution gives your state government the same power?

 (Hint: Marriage is a cultural tradition and/or a societal and religious institution. It is not a government institution.)

 Make the argument constitutionally and rationally. Sophistry doesn't count.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at May 31, 2012 09:48 AM (WwR1j)

52 Edward thread up

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 31, 2012 09:48 AM (piMMO)

53

IÂ’m already locking up the Breck and the hairbrushes.

Posted by: jwest at May 31, 2012 09:48 AM (ZDsRL)

54 Can we at last dispense with the notion that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, at least with regard to lawyers and the legal system?

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living.... at May 31, 2012 09:48 AM (7Zzhm)

55 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at May 31, 2012 09:49 AM (Xb3hu)

56 Maet, did you see the "The West and the Rest" thing or read the book.

Good news!  In a hundred years, the Chinese will be predominately Christian.  A federal republic is not far behind.


Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2012 09:49 AM (O3R/2)

57

WARNING: If Edwards is convicted, expect a riot of handsome, southern horndog ambulance chasers to erupt in America's cities.

 

The flash-mobs ransacking the Cosmetics aisle of local Kroger stores will be UNPARALLELED!

Posted by: reason at May 31, 2012 09:50 AM (l2max)

58 Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 02:42 PM (xamKk)

You're jumping a bit. When do we do the part where it's determined a same sex union even is a marriage before ruling reserving marriage to a man and a woman is discriminatory?

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 09:50 AM (Q1lie)

59 I've always said, if you don't want gays to marry, don't outlaw gay marriage - outlaw gay divorce.

Posted by: Roy at May 31, 2012 09:51 AM (VndSC)

60 Rocks,
Yep, it's about the federal money.




Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2012 09:52 AM (O3R/2)

61 Thread winner: Roy!


Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2012 09:52 AM (O3R/2)

62 @39 Marriage and family is the preferred means of creating new citizens to people the state. There is your compelling need for what some perceive as sex based discrimination.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living.... at May 31, 2012 09:53 AM (7Zzhm)

63

"So...which part of The Constitution gives the feds thepower to regulate and license marriage?
What part of your state constitution gives your state government the same power?
(Hint: Marriage is a cultural tradition and/or a societal and religious institution. It is not a government institution.)
Make the argument constitutionally and rationally. Sophistry doesn't count."

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at May 31, 2012 02:48 PM (WwR1j)

I've been saying this for years.  Why do you need the government's permission to get married?  If it's for tax purposes, why not just allow every person to make a yearly commitment to someone else that achieves the same tax benefit as marriage?  Why should a husband and wife living together get tax benefits by having a piece of paper, whereas a father and son who live together because the son takes care of the father not get the same benefits?  The whole thing just makes no sense.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 09:55 AM (xamKk)

64 "Ace, I love you, but your post about the Founders' view on gay marriage is nonsense. The Constitution sets forth a standard, not a rule. The standard is that states must give individuals equal protection under the law."

The standard as you say is that the states must treat similarly situated persons similarly.  You're slipping a ghey rabbit into the hat there.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 09:57 AM (mg08E)

65 Monogamy is just not a feature of the gay lifestyle.

Every once in a while the left media will slyly admit this and that once gays are allowed to marry the concept of monogamy will be put on the chopping block.

They don't want to be a part of mainstream society, they want to attack mainstream society.

Posted by: Alex at May 31, 2012 09:57 AM (tGh6R)

66

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 02:50 PM (Q1lie)

A marriage is whatever the government defines a marriage is.  The government can define it as a civil union between one man and one woman (which it did), which then immediately raises the question of why we discriminate on the basis of sex.  That gets us back to my original point.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 09:59 AM (xamKk)

67 Don't these kind of rulings lead inevitable to uniform marriage requirements? States won't be able to say our age for legal marriage is xx, when others say yy. Or some states not allowing marriage between relatives closer than the second degree while others allow Pharaohic couplings.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 09:59 AM (NG097)

68 Have they done anything on the New Mexican Nugget Knocker yet?

Posted by: Captain FAPtastical at May 31, 2012 09:59 AM (/pd0C)

69 Where's my truce? I was promised a truce!!!

Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2012 10:01 AM (5H6zj)

70 Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 02:55 PM (xamKk)

The tax benfits are to produce more children in a situation, a stable home with a father and mother, which is most liely to raise them into good citizens with the least involvement and expense on anyone else's part possible.

As to permission to get married you don't need it. If the zombie apocalypse came and the only 2 people left decided they were married they would be, to each other. The argument here is who the state will recognize and through their power force other people to acknowledge as married legally. People can do whatever they please. Having access to the courts to enforce and adjudicate it is another matter. Also, finally, by what words the government will use when doing so.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 10:01 AM (Q1lie)

71 "The standard as you say is that the states must treat similarly situated persons similarly. You're slipping a ghey rabbit into the hat there."

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 02:57 PM (mg08E)

 

Yes, for this purpose similarly situated persons are ordinary men and women.  How would you define them?

 

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 10:02 AM (xamKk)

72 Well, seems to me that their problem is already fixed. If their home state doesn't recognize the marriage to begin with, then they're not married and hence don't need to get divorced. The only losers in this situation are the divorce attorneys who don't get hired, which means we need gay marriage to stimulate the economy.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 31, 2012 02:34 PM (JxMoP)



I work with somebody that's going through this situation and her credit has been completely screwed because of the ex's irresponsibility regarding jointly owned things; so dissolving this hasn't been pleasant for her.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 31, 2012 10:02 AM (ROTAA)

73 As an aside the federal government already recognizes polygamy marriages for visitors and immigrants from countries where it's legal. So legally all of Farouk's wives are considered married to him while he's visiting the US even if he could never actually marry all of them in the US.

Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2012 10:03 AM (pAlYe)

74 As an aside, when Massachusetts began to allow gay marriage, I wrote my State Rep and ask that Alabama not react with a refusal to recognize Mass GM but rather to state that Mass had abolished traditional marriage all together and that none of their marriages would be recognized in the state. He politely declined to author such a bill but I still think it is the only way to avoid the Full Faith clause. All Mass not-marriages would be treated equally.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 10:04 AM (NG097)

75 jinx on "as an aside", Mæt.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 10:05 AM (NG097)

76

Poor, poor, deluded Ace.  You really think that a passed constitutional amendment would stop the attempts to steamroll this in nationwide via the courts?  You obviously haven't been paying enough attention.  Here in California the voters voted to outlaw same sex marriage, but allowed for civil unions.  The courts told us that violated the state constitution.  Then the voters voted to change the state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.  And now we've been told by the local federal courts that amending our constitution to prohibit same sex marriage is, in and of itself, unconstitutional under the state constitution.

Or in other words, overturning a court appointed right by amending the constitution (as provided for within the constitution) is unconstitutional.

You'd see the exact same shenanigans if your proposed amendment to the US Constitution passed.

 

Posted by: junior at May 31, 2012 10:06 AM (UWFpX)

77 Gay marriage: who gives a shit.

Surely I can't be the only one who couldn't possibly care less if gay people get married?

Posted by: The Sego Sago Kid at May 31, 2012 10:07 AM (plOQz)

78 >>>Yes, for this purpose similarly situated persons are ordinary men and women.<<<<

If men and women are regarded as "similarly situated persons" how come women don't have to register for the draft?

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living.... at May 31, 2012 10:07 AM (7Zzhm)

79

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 03:01 PM (Q1lie)

That's a good argument for why government should encourage marriage between a man and a woman, not legislate any other types of unions out of existence.  Besides, if the purpose is only to benefit children, why give benefits to people who choose not to have them?  Or who are physically unable?  Or who get married past their child-bearing years? 

 

Agreed, but your second point undercuts your argument.  Why should the government force others to recognize a marriage only as between a man and a woman?  What rational purpose does that serve?  If more and better children are produced by a stable husband and wife, then limit tax benefits to married couples who have children.  But then be ready to show that a husband and wife are better for a child than a husband/husband and wife/wife tandem.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 10:08 AM (xamKk)

80 "Yes, for this purpose similarly situated persons are ordinary men and women.How would you define them?"

The marriage laws of all states which do not have homosexual marriage treat all men equally - they may marry one woman who is not then married, of the prescribed age, and not related to one another within a certain specified degree of consanguinity. You propose that equal (and indeed the same) treatment of all men is itself unequal. You may not intend of understand it, but that is sophistry of the kind that has gotten us all manner of radical cultural change that we don't really want.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 10:10 AM (mg08E)

81 "If men and women are regarded as "similarly situated persons" how come women don't have to register for the draft?"

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living.... at May 31, 2012 03:07 PM (7Zzhm)

 

I meant that gay and hetero men and women are similarly situated.  Men and women are not.  Women are not required to register for the draft because the government believes and can show through empirical research that men are better suited to fight wars.  The nation at war is a compelling circumstance.  There is no other reasonable basis to achieve the sought-after result.  Voila.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 10:11 AM (xamKk)

82 Junior beat me by about 3 minutes.

Posted by: Bob Saget at May 31, 2012 10:11 AM (SDkq3)

83 Why is it that, in our day and age, it is the traditionalist that is called upon to prove the efficacy of tradition, rather than the challenger? The actual reasons and proof of ancient traditions can be lost until they are overturned, and the effects felt. At that point tradition is hard to get back.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 10:12 AM (NG097)

84 Or we could just get government out of the marriage business and make it a contract like any other. Then churches would be free to marry or not marry according to their conscience. The libertarians are wrong about some important things but they're right about this.


Uh, who do you think enforces contracts?   

"This is my stuff"
"But it was our stuff, and the contract says I get half of all of our stuff if we get a divorce"
"Nuh - uh"
"Did too!  The contract says so right here!"
"Make me."

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 10:14 AM (sGtp+)

85 "The marriage laws of all states which do not have homosexual marriage treat all men equally - they may marry one woman who is not then married, of the prescribed age, and not related to one another within a certain specified degree of consanguinity. You propose that equal (and indeed the same) treatment of all men is itself unequal. You may not intend of understand it, but that is sophistry of the kind that has gotten us all manner of radical cultural change that we don't really want."

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 03:10 PM (mg08E)

 

No, you misunderstand.  The government does not treat all men equally.  Men who want to marry women are free to go for it.  Men who want to marry men are shut out.  Why is government limiting the man's choice to a woman?  I can understand the age requirement, and the limitation on consanguinity, but why the discrimination on sex?  If it's for child-rearing purposes, see my response to Rocks at 3:08 p.m.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 10:14 AM (xamKk)

86 Anyway, I think that GM is just a stalking horse for polygamy. A practice with a much older basis and a wider adoption.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 10:14 AM (NG097)

87 Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 02:59 PM (xamKk)

The government didn't define it. Any more then they defined the word water. They used it in the same manner as everyone has defined it since time immemorial as that of a union of a man and a woman. The government grants licenses for this regardless of the sexual orientation of those applying.  Limits based on it being a man and a woman are set by it's very definition. Can the government change it? Sure and the people, like California did with Prop 8, have the right to tell them to change it back.

If there is a need here that needs to be met for same sex couples there is one thing which has come out of this argument which is abundantly clear. The government will not be referring to it as marriage.


Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 10:17 AM (Q1lie)

88

Monogamy just doesn't seem to be the natural inclination of gay men.

In a traditional male-female marriage, fifty per cent of men cheat. Here, you've got two men. Fifty per cent, plus fifty per cent, is one hundred and ten per cent.

That's got to be one of the major perks of being gay though. As men, all we think about is sex. So if your partner was also a man, you could say, "Hey, you know what I was thinking would be great?" "And your partner would be like "I know! Me too!"

 

Posted by: -Shawn- at May 31, 2012 10:17 AM (Kyu6y)

89 So the gov can recognize that there are differences between men and women, and can even express a preference for one sex or another for certain purposes (war) but it is not allowed to prefer heterosexual relationships for marriage and procreation?

Isn't peopling the nation a compelling state interest?


Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living.... at May 31, 2012 10:19 AM (7Zzhm)

90 "Monogamy justdoesn't seem to be the natural inclination of gay men. "
By an enormous avalanche its rather the opposite.
But this was inevitable, the next push is say all states now have to recognize homosexual "marriage" because a few of them do. All to make a small portion of a tiny minority feel better about themselves... and undermine tradition and culture even more.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 31, 2012 10:19 AM (r4wIV)

91 I'm shocked, SHOCKED that these people will stamp their feet and cry till they get their way. What's funny is that this, like Roe will become a federal issue and party platform for years to come because leftists feel the need to force their view on people instead of just letting States decide according to their own populace. They reap what they sow. Ace, as word gets out of this decision, support for homosexual marriage will plummet. No one likes being called a bigot or being told what to believe.

Posted by: NJRob at May 31, 2012 10:19 AM (FVp26)

92

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 03:17 PM (Q1lie)

 

The government didn't define it per se, but it's banned it under circumstances it doesn't approve of, so it's de facto defined.  For time immemorial, government wasn't involved in marriage at all.  It's a purely religious ceremony.  For time immemorial in certain cultures, polygamy was and still is accepted.  The claim that marriage has "always" been between one man and one woman is a sham that's easily disproven.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 10:20 AM (xamKk)

93 >>>Men who want to marry men are shut out. Why is government limiting the man's choice to a woman?

Because to do otherwise is to change the definition of the word "marry".

Posted by: kdny at May 31, 2012 10:21 AM (MJ76f)

94 Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 03:08 PM (xamKk)

No one is seeking to legislate unions other than marriages out of existence. I don't even see how you could. Nor could the government force people to only recognize the union of a many and a woman as marriages. Individuals can do as they please. If 2 men want to call themselves married and some people agree with them and treat them as such the government isn't going to tell them to stop.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 10:21 AM (Q1lie)

95 "No, you misunderstand. The government does not treat all men equally. Men who want to marry women are free to go for it. Men who want to marry men are shut out. Why is government limiting the man's choice to a woman? I can understand the age requirement, and the limitation on consanguinity, but why the discrimination on sex? If it's for child-rearing purposes, see my response to Rocks at 3:08 p.m."

No.  You're dissembling.  The law treats all men equally.  It treats all women equally. You propose that this cannot withstand an equal protection challenge, because the act of treating all men equally means that a ghey guy doesn't get to do just what he wants and that's "no fair" to guys who want to marry guys and women who want to marry women. 

It might be "no fair," but it is perfectly equal treatment under the law.  The outcome just doesn't get you where you want to go, so you're re-defining "equal" to mean something it doesn't mean.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 10:22 AM (mg08E)

96 >>>Because to do otherwise is to change the definition of the word "marry".


And that is why Ace's solution is invalid. The necessity to have an amendment at all  proves the uselessness of said amendment except as a holding action. If words can be so radically redefined then they have no meaning.

Posted by: kdny at May 31, 2012 10:23 AM (MJ76f)

97
No, you misunderstand. The government does not treat all men equally. Men who want to marry women are free to go for it. Men who want to marry men are shut out. Why is government limiting the man's choice to a woman? I can understand the age requirement, and the limitation on consanguinity, but why the discrimination on sex? If it's for child-rearing purposes, see my response to Rocks at 3:08 p.m.



They are treated equally.   A hetero man who wants to marry another man is no more recognized than a gay man who wants to marry another man.   (Though chances are the state they are in will be willing to recognize it as a civil union; and the companies they work for will provide life partner benefits)


It's not fair, in that the hetero man is not interested in marrying another man, but statistically, the gay man doesn't either.   But again, we recognize that men and women are different and NOT interchangeable.    Marriage has been explicitly recognized as man + woman for ages.  A man marries a woman;  redefining marriage to make the target of marriage arbitrary is to change the meaning of the word. 


As the agents of change, the onus is on gay marriage proponents to justify why the word marriage should be redefined as person + person instead of man + woman, and it's they're job to prove that it will not cause harm.  

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 10:24 AM (sGtp+)

98 Legal polygamy is outlawed but it defacto exists. Witness that guy that was in the news a couple of weeks ago with 30something kids by 11 women. I think those Fundamentalist Moron guys that got locked up over their multiple "wives" had a very colourable argument that they only had one wife, and a lot of girl friends.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 10:24 AM (NG097)

99 Legislation from the bench is the back door route to dictatorship.

Posted by: Cato at May 31, 2012 10:25 AM (SKhFD)

100 First, some sloppy logic in the OP.  ALL rights exist except as they are affected by the explicit powers granted to the government by The People.  The People grant power to impact / deny rights.  Rights mainly being 'what I want to do' weighed by the direct impact it has on others. (Yes, it's hard to define rights in one sentence.)


Posted by: Tonic Dog at May 31, 2012 10:26 AM (X/+QT)

101 No, you misunderstand. The government does not treat all men equally. Men who want to marry women are free to go for it. Men who want to marry men are shut out. Why is government limiting the man's choice to a woman? I can understand the age requirement, and the limitation on consanguinity, but why the discrimination on sex? If it's for child-rearing purposes, see my response to Rocks at 3:08 p.m.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 03:14 PM (xamKk)


When do we get to the part where you show a same sex union is marriage? Marriage is a union of a man and a woman to shut anybody else out. It's marriage because that is the word society has always used for that. The same way we have a word like siblings for brothers and sisters. This is like suggesting why is soda locked out of  winning contracts when the government buys water.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 10:27 AM (Q1lie)

102 The claim that marriage has "always" been between one man and one woman is a sham that's easily disproven.


Polygamy is Man + Woman multiple times.   You'll note that polygamy does not have the wives marrying each other; they're all married to the same husband.  

There's more justification for polygamy than gay marriage; are we going to legalize that as well because people might want it?  

Since when is the gov't in the self-esteem boosting business?   Do we need to legally and officially recognize "Going Steady", "Friends with Benefits" and "BFF" too?  

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 10:28 AM (v3pYe)

103 >>>>For time immemorial, government wasn't involved in marriage at all. It's a purely religious ceremony.<<<<<

This is a crock. For most of human history the state and the church have been one. In ancient Rome it was the city magistrates that presided over religious ceremonies and the same with Greece. Priests were functionaries of and paid for by the state. The medieval world had the same attitude; the Bishops were appointed by the pope and approved by the king and the king was crowned by the Bishop. When the very modern idea of separation between church and state took hold the secular authority inherited the definition of marriage from this older system.

Posted by: the guy that moves pianos for a living.... at May 31, 2012 10:33 AM (7Zzhm)

104 The government didn't define it per se, but it's banned it under circumstances it doesn't approve of, so it's de facto defined. For time immemorial, government wasn't involved in marriage at all. It's a purely religious ceremony. For time immemorial in certain cultures, polygamy was and still is accepted. The claim that marriage has "always" been between one man and one woman is a sham that's easily disproven.

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 03:20 PM (xamKk)


What has been banned here? Are we to understand now that something which has never even crossed most people's minds has suddenly been purposely banned for 200 years? This is crazy.

The only consistent definition of marriage is that of a man and a woman. Polygamy is not marriage. If it were we wouldn't need the word polygamy would we? Polygamy is serial marriage. 1 person marrying multiple times. Not a bunch of people being married. If a man marries 2 women the women are not joined. he has simple married twice. A practice which, unlike same sex unions, is specifically banned by law.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 10:33 AM (Q1lie)

105

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 03:22 PM (mg08E)

 

You're looking at the Equal Protection Clause at a very superficial level and essentially stating that (generally) any man can marry any woman so all men and all women are equal.  But the EPC is not that shallow.  What if a state were to pass a law saying that all people must marry within their race?  Using your logic, a proponent of the law would claim that there is no EPC violation because the law applies to everyone similarly.  Every black man is limited only to black women, and white men are limited to white women, so they're functioning under the same disadvantage and therefore equal in the eyes of the law.  Do you think that is true?  No.  The government would be discriminating on the basis of race.  Now replace white and black with gay and hetero.  Why isn't that the same type of discrimination?

Posted by: JoeShmoe99 at May 31, 2012 10:35 AM (xamKk)

106 Polygamy is serial marriage. 1 person marrying multiple times.

I submit that it's more of a parallel marriage, as both are in effect at the same time.   Serial marriage sounds more like a series of marriage & divorce.   

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 10:38 AM (v3pYe)

107 "You're looking at the Equal Protection Clause at a very superficial level and essentially stating that (generally) any man can marry any woman so all men and all women are equal. But the EPC is not that shallow. What if a state were to pass a law saying that all people must marry within their race? Using your logic, a proponent of the law would claim that there is no EPC violation because the law applies to everyone similarly. Every black man is limited only to black women, and white men are limited to white women, so they're functioning under the same disadvantage and therefore equal in the eyes of the law. Do you think that is true? No. The government would be discriminating on the basis of race. Now replace white and black with gay and hetero. Why isn't that the same type of discrimination?"

Because white and black is not an analog of male and female.  You pretend that the differences between a white man and a black man are indistinguishable from the differences between a man and a woman.  I do not feel compelled to pretend along with you.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 31, 2012 10:38 AM (mg08E)

108 Because white and black is not an analog of male and female. Indeed, a blind man could tell the difference in one case, the other not so much.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 10:41 AM (NG097)

109 I wanted to justice-is-blind in there but couldn't.

Posted by: toby928© at May 31, 2012 10:42 AM (NG097)

110 Because white and black is not an analog of male and female.

Indeed, a blind man could tell the difference in one case, the other not so much.

-------------------------------------

Well, that depends on the white man, doesn't it?

Posted by: Zombie Johnny Wadd at May 31, 2012 10:43 AM (x2CNJ)

111 IMO, marriage is a societal construct.  This construct is impacted by government when it provides services to society (record keeping) or people (tax impacts, preformed contracts).  When we let government define things, we are falling into the trap of letting the government weigh in on everything (marriage, building a deck, opening a business, owning a gun, walking down the street, etc, etc, etc, etfuckingc).

I like to apply what I call "The New Neighbor Test" (tm).  And this will be different for everyone (and different from those born 200 years in the future/past) but hopefully the variations will all fall within an acceptable range which will be a cultural more in my culture.

So two people move in next to me.  The first person introduces me to their 'spouse', what is my immediate, unspoken, visceral, gut, cultural reaction?

1) Man/woman - Immediate mind's-eye thought: "Ok, whatever.  Nice couple. Stay off my yard."
2) 19yo man / 18yo woman - "A little young, nice couple.  Good luck with that."
3) 40yo man / 9yo girl - "No, you are not fucking married! I don't care what country/culture you just immigrated from!" 
4) Man/Man - "Nope, sorry.  You are not 'married'.  That word has [cultural] meaning." 
5) Woman/Woman - See #4
6) Woman/Horse - "LOL, this chick needs help.  Thinks she's married to a horse."
7) MMW - "These three people are confused and are trying to meet some emotional/physical needs and want to call it marriage.  They're not married."
Man with dark skin / Woman with light skin - See #1

What is your first, immediate reaction to your new neighbor?  That, to me, is the definition of 'marriage'.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at May 31, 2012 10:43 AM (X/+QT)

112
You're looking at the Equal Protection Clause at a very superficial level and essentially stating that (generally) any man can marry any woman so all men and all women are equal. But the EPC is not that shallow. What if a state were to pass a law saying that all people must marry within their race? Using your logic, a proponent of the law would claim that there is no EPC violation because the law applies to everyone similarly. Every black man is limited only to black women, and white men are limited to white women, so they're functioning under the same disadvantage and therefore equal in the eyes of the law. Do you think that is true? No. The government would be discriminating on the basis of race. Now replace white and black with gay and hetero. Why isn't that the same type of discrimination?



First off - discrimination in of itself is not wrong.   We jail criminals - we have discriminated against people based on their actions and criminal records.   This is in fact justice and a good thing.    

However, there are types of discrimination which are unjustified, and we have passed laws to make them illegal due to the harm they inflict on individuals and society.  


So why isn't discrimination on the basis of skin color the same type of discrimination on the basis of gender?  

The plumbing.   A gay couple has no way of procreating without involving 3rd parties.   A heterosexual couple can.   Even if they have different skin colors.  

What is the harm in officially recognizing that the gay couple is not in fact the same type of relationship as the heterosexual couple?  This is reality.  

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 10:45 AM (v3pYe)

113 I submit that it's more of a parallel marriage, as both are in effect at the same time. Serial marriage sounds more like a series of marriage divorce.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 03:38 PM (v3pYe)


I agree really. But parallel to mean means never touching so which kind of stinks when it comes to marriage. I was thinking of serial the way it is used for serial killer, one after another, as opposed to just killing a bunch of people at the same time.

Posted by: Rocks at May 31, 2012 10:49 AM (Q1lie)

114 Re: 112, I don't ask to see papers before accepting that the couple is married.  I take their word....as long as it falls within my mind's definition. 

Posted by: Tonic Dog at May 31, 2012 10:50 AM (X/+QT)

115

Whatever...

Marriage is between a man and woman.  It's natural law written by God on each man and woman's heart. 

 

 

Posted by: newguy40 at May 31, 2012 10:51 AM (kduZC)

116
I agree really. But parallel to mean means never touching so which kind of stinks when it comes to marriage. I was thinking of serial the way it is used for serial killer, one after another, as opposed to just killing a bunch of people at the same time.


Sure, but I'm sure you get parallel all the time while touching. = P


And yeah, I think of serial marriage as the guy/girl who divorces and remarries repeatedly.  

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 31, 2012 11:00 AM (v3pYe)

117 There was a kicker for me in that the court seems to have ruled specifically that the federal government doesn't have the authority to interfere in states deciding the issue themselves.  This works both ways, obviously.  If upheld, this ruling seems like it would also protect states that pass laws specifically prohibiting homosexual marriage.  Given prior court rulings on such attempts at the state level, though, I wonder...

Posted by: Cortillaen at May 31, 2012 11:26 AM (3muKk)

118 If anyone had asked me about gay marriage, I would have punched him right in the dick.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at May 31, 2012 11:34 AM (HzhBE)

119 Hahaha. Well, Ace, you see, this isn't 1933. That's when this thing you may have heard of happened - The New Deal. Lefties have already admitted (check Bruce Ackerman for example) that The New Deal was an effective series of amendments without any actual amendment! So, yeah, the problem with conservatives like you is that you do not realize how you have already lost! One must realize what the current dispensation is, in order to effectively oppose it....for which, no credit goes to the mainstream conservative movement.

Posted by: Contemplationist at May 31, 2012 12:36 PM (tx7Wx)

120 Woot! It is finally law that I can marry my daughter, and a cow, and a car.....don't discriminate against me!

Posted by: Mekan at May 31, 2012 01:17 PM (T/L2Z)

121 Butt-fucking has no legal standing or legal protection under the US Constitution. These judges should be jailed.

Posted by: ccoffer at May 31, 2012 01:30 PM (Tm64l)

122 Sooper-evil RINO Orrin Hatch proposed your alternative amendment back in, I think it was 2005.

Posted by: Knemon at May 31, 2012 01:40 PM (9qp4E)

123 The inequality argument is idiotic. Saying "men cannot marry men so its unequal" is irrelvant. There are a good half dozen restrictions on who you can marry by law, that doesn't change equality any. Or as Mekan put it:
"Woot! It is finally law that I can marry my daughter, and a cow, and a car.....don't discriminate against me!"
Now you may shriek hysterically and accuse everyone of equating homosexuality to pedophilia so you can avoid dealing with the issue.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 31, 2012 01:47 PM (r4wIV)

124 Nice headlights on your car, Mekan, IYKWIM.

Posted by: andycanuck at May 31, 2012 02:03 PM (nrW1y)

125 The inability of the commenters here to walk a mile in others' shoes is just sad, and it fuels the argument of those who say the GOP is insensitive at best, hateful at worst. No one has ever bother to present a logical, coherent argument to me about why same-sex marriage should be disallowed--how it would in any way harm marriage overall as an institution. You slippery-slopers are engaging in the ultimate logical fallacy, so drop it. And you Bible-thumpers are irrelevant in a debate about a civil institution.

Posted by: Matt Raymond at May 31, 2012 10:05 PM (fElZc)

126 No one has ever bother to present a logical, coherent argument to me about why same-sex marriage should be disallowed--how it would in any way harm marriage overall as an institution.


The question is not whether gay marriage is disallowed.   It's whether the gov't officially recognizes same sex marriages.  

If a gay couple wants to call themselves married and tells their community to do so, they can.   Their community is free to choose to use the marriage label or not.   There are no gov't agents forcing gay couples to live apart, nor are the police jailing gay couples who label themselves as "married".  


But gay marriage proponents want the gov't, which represents the entirety of society, to redefine the meaning of "marriage" (man + woman), and to treat a gay marriage as entirely equal and interchangeable with a normal one.   .  

Okay, we're a democratic republic, we have a process to entertain that desire.   But where the issue has come up for a vote, many a state has voted not to recognize gay marriage as marriage.    Even a liberal bastion such as CA voted it down.   Society as a whole does not want to recognize gay marriage as marriage.    (If you can get the future society to like it, good for you.   In the meantime, suck it up.) 

Gay marriage advocates have not respected these results.  In CA, gay marriage proponents got a biased judge to overturn such a constitutional amendment as "unconstitutional".   Apparently it is the duty of gov't to change how the majority think, now.    Next up, businesses and organizations that don't recognize gay marriage as marriage are to be penalized and destroyed with gov't power.   


So there's one harm, right there - social liberals are undermining the rule of law and democratic process so that they can get what they want.   We're to revamp our society and its language just to satisfy the whims of a minority.   But to the liberal, abusing the freedom of action and thought of non-liberals doesn't qualify as "harm".

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at June 01, 2012 11:06 AM (v3pYe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
146kb generated in CPU 0.07, elapsed 0.0974 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0364 seconds, 313 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.