August 31, 2007

Same-Sex Marriage in Iowa
— Gabriel Malor

Yesterday an Iowa district court ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriage (PDF of the court’s opinion) under the Iowa Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. It also struck down Iowa’s 2006 law establishing that marriage could only exist between a man and a woman.

The state plans to appeal the ruling to Iowa’s Supreme Court. Proponents of Iowa’s 2006 marriage law will seek to get around the ruling by amending the state constitution.

Complaints about judicial activists overruling laws which were actually approved by a majority of Iowans began about five seconds after the holding was announced.

A quick summary of the opinion’s treatment of Due Process and Equal Protection is in the extended entry. Iowa’s Due Process Clause has the same language as that in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

[N]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Iowa's version of Equal Protection is significantly different from federal Equal Protection. Iowa’s Constitution Article I, sec. 6 reads:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Plaintiffs, gay couples and their kids, used these two clauses to attack Iowa's refusal to issue them marriage licenses and the 2006 marriage law.

Their argument is that marriage is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause. The state can only deny it unless it has a compelling governmental interest. Furthermore, according to the plaintiffs, they are being treated differently than straight couples. To treat similarly situated people differently, a law must have important governmental objectives and be substantially related to those objectives.

The opinion reads as pro-plaintiff from the beginning. I'll tell you what the court said about these arguments, but there are a few things I think the court ignored.

The court does not entertain the argument that marriage is by definition between one man and one woman. Instead, the opinion notes the way that marriage and its treatment under the law has evolved over the years. The court’s point is that the definition of marriage has been constantly changing; there is no more reason to freeze its meaning at this point in time than there was before 1967 when anti-miscegenation laws were conclusively shot down.

The court also holds that the state failed to show how prohibiting gay marriage would actually result in its claimed objectives of promoting procreation, stability for opposite-sex marriages, or opposite-sex marriage in general; encouraging child-rearing by mothers and fathers; or conserving private and public resources.

I tend to agree with the court that regulating gays is not a good way to get straight people to have kids and raise them in two parent homes or to conserve private and public resources. That's the Due Process argument.

The Plaintiffs also argue that, except for the new law, they meet all the requirements for a civil marriage in Iowa. The state argues in turn that the statute operates equally on men and women and that no discrimination is being applied to any class of citizens: all men are free to marry women and all women are free to marry men.

The court summarily deals with this argument:

he U.S. Supreme Court in Loving [the anti-miscegenation law case] rejected an identical line of reasoning with regard to race and held that despite the Virginia law’s application to both white and black citizens, the statute nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause.

In Loving, proponents of the anti-miscegenation laws claimed that all whites are free to marry whites and all blacks are free to marry blacks. To them that meant that no discrimination was occurring when laws prohibited whites from marrying blacks. The court here (and in the other major gay marriage cases) point to Loving to disarm the argument that so long as every person is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, no discrimination is occurring.

There is a bit of judicial sleight-of-hand here. It is true to say that same-sex couples who want to get married are treated differently than opposite-sex couples who want to get married. But it is not true to say that gay men are being treated differently than straight ones; in fact, they're both free to marry any woman they choose.

So I'm not sure that the judge has correctly determined that Iowa's law discriminates on the basis of sex (which causes the state to have to pass a stricter test). It seems more likely that the law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. That type of discrimination needs only to pass rational basis review.

Knowing this, the judge spends the last portion of the opinion discussing why Iowa's marriage law wouldn't pass even the rational basis test. That part of the holding is highly suspect. Laws almost never fail to pass rational basis review. When they do, it is invariably because the law is patently motivated by an irrational prejudice against a particular group.

I expect that the Iowa Supreme Court will focus heavily on the question of whether rational basis or more exacting scrutiny should be applied to the law--unless the case gets mooted when Iowa adopts a marriage amendment.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:52 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 888 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I live in Iowa, but not for much longer.  This state has gone downhill for the last 8-10 years because of our good Lib buddies.  That being said, I heard on the local news yesterday about the gay marriage decision and my jaw hit the floor. I knew things were bad here, but I was totally blindsided by this one.  At least they're going to take it to the state Supreme Court for a final decision.  Hopefully there are still enough justices on the court with enough sense to kill this thing.  It all goes back to the fact that Libs can't get their agenda through by following the legislative process so they resort to the judicial system.  One activist judge can override the will of the people in on misguided decision.

Posted by: Howard Smith at August 31, 2007 11:59 AM (uSCaC)

2

No wonder Hillary, Obama and Edwards were agnostic on gay marriage in the debates


They knew it would be an issue in key swing states like IA, OH and MO and if they "came out" strong in favor of it, the Dems would be gloryholed.


Of course, knowing full well their dumbass hipocrit idiot gay base will vote for them even if they personally chained that kid behind their pickup and dragged him a few miles


If "gay americans" had any integrity they'd vote third party


 


Posted by: TMF at August 31, 2007 12:01 PM (+Ac3z)

3 These rulings result in state amendments limiting marriage to that between a man and a woman. I'm not sure what the tactical advantage is by trying to legalize gay marriage by judicial fiat. It always has the opposite effect. Or, am I missing something?

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 12:08 PM (Bi8sm)

4 I wonder if the judge is a Republican.  This kind of ruling is singularly calculated to get conservatives to the polls.

Posted by: Sobek at August 31, 2007 12:08 PM (6GK9U)

5 That's why almost a dozen states amended their constitutions to define marriage specifically as one man, one woman in 2004-2005. Because they knew judges like this can overrule their will, the law, and reason with a single judgment.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 31, 2007 12:17 PM (wmgz8)

6 Plaintiffs, gay couples and their kids,

Turd-babies?

I couldn't resist.

Correct legal interpretation though, Gabriel

The Iowa Court will likely overturn this quickly, lest the Dems are actively trying to lose Iowa for a cycle.

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 12:20 PM (p1s9n)

7 Gabriel,



Shouldn't we include applicable international law in any analysis of this issue?

(Kidding, kidding).



This should add an interesting wrinkle to the Republican primary. Rudy
is going to have to deal with this, teh Fred! will have to talk
about more than federalism and Mitt will have an issue to beat everyone else up with.

Posted by: Drew at August 31, 2007 12:33 PM (hlYel)

8

The Plaintiffs also argue that, except for the new law, they meet all the requirements for a civil marriage in Iowa. The state argues in turn that the statute operates equally on men and women and that no discrimination is being applied to any class of citizens: all men are free to marry women and all women are free to marry men.

The court summarily deals with this argument:



he U.S. Supreme Court in Loving [the anti-miscegenation law case] rejected an identical line of reasoning with regard to race and held that despite the Virginia law’s application to both white and black citizens, the statute nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause.


Wow, the pretzle logic is strong in this one!


Because a white woman can marry a black man and a black woman can marry a white man , a white man can marry a white man and a black man can marry a black man.


OOO KAAY!


But what about goats? Isn't that the identical argument?


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 12:43 PM (ROA4D)

9

If "gay americans" had any integrity they'd vote third party.


I think this about conservatives too sometimes and then I sober up.


 


malphonse,


I'm not trying to start trouble but I have a question.  Do you hate the sin, the sinner or both?


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 12:44 PM (1tfre)

10 Apparently nobody ever stands these judges against the wall in their formative years and certainly never once they've become "Your Honor" and tells them "You're judges godammit, not legislators! You wanna change the world? Do the unthinkable. Present yourself to the People, you know, those peasants you despise, and see if they'll elect you to office."

Posted by: ricpic at August 31, 2007 12:49 PM (0kHZW)

11 But what about goats? Isn't that the identical argument?

We can decide whether or not to cross that bridge just as soon as genetic engineering has produced a goat capable of comprehending the question "Do you take this man...?" and responding "I do-o-o-o-o!"

Until that time, fuck you for being a fucktard, fucktard.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 12:54 PM (Vgxhz)

12 Rosetta,

Personally, neither.  I hate the politicization and public proclamation of the sin. 

The gay activists make me upset, because they are tinkering with forces quite literally beyond their narrow, narcissistic comprehension. 

In identifying themselves politically and societally by a sexual practice outside the norm, and one that is overall corrosive of the society we have in place, they are threatening the stability of our way of life.  Not all gays, mind you, but militant, activist queer theory types.

I won't say that some of my best friends are gay, because that's not true.  But I have never failed to be decent, polite, and respectful of anyone who is.  Even those activists I've had to deal with.

I think open acceptance of gayness is bad, as opposed to quiet toleration and a ban on outright oppression (beatings, etc).  While I think no one should be fired from a job because of gay, I don't think anyone has a RIGHT to be queer either.  Sexuality is simply something the law should not be involved in unless it is to stop public lewd behavior, or to better order society (traditional marriage).

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 12:57 PM (p1s9n)

13 I guess I missed the part that requires the marriage partner to speak English or understand a phrase. Are you saying people who are very retarded can't marry?


Who are you to deny someone their love? Why must you discriminate against their lifestyle, just because you are a bigot and find it disgusting? After all, if it doesn't hurt you, what difference does it make?


Any of those arguments sound familiar?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 31, 2007 12:58 PM (wmgz8)

14

Vis-a-vis the goats, here is the genuine, real answer, as it will play out :


We can decide whether or not to cross that bridge just as soon as ...


We've allready burned this here bridge and then gotten to that one, at which point we will only then finally be willing to talk about it and point out we did in fact burn the way back.


Posted by: Entropy at August 31, 2007 01:01 PM (HgAV0)

15 Maybe a better question (than the goat one) is to ask why should marriage be limited to two people, regardless of gender?  I think the same logic used to reach this decision would allow polygamy, too.

Posted by: Grimaldi at August 31, 2007 01:01 PM (Rx9GP)

16

It's like...imagine your Moses.


You need to get everyone to go east.


Lots of people don't want to go east because that means they have to cross a huge desert.


Do you want to talk about the giant raging sea they'll have to cross after they cross the desert?


No. Let's focus on the desert. So far as you idiots know, there is no sea on the other side. At least not until, you know, I'd have you ninnies thinking "oh shit, we have to cross the desert in order to go back" weighing my side of the argument.


Eastward ho.


Posted by: Entropy at August 31, 2007 01:04 PM (HgAV0)

17 These rulings result in state amendments limiting marriage to that between a man and a woman.

There was one very significant exception to this, after the Hawaiian supreme court ruled that the clause against sex-discrimination in the state constitution obliged the state to recognize same-sex marriage.

This led to a constitutional amendment with the wording:

"The [Hawaiian state] legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."

The state supreme court agreed that this amendment satisfied the court's concerns about constitutionality.

But what's notable about this phrasing is that it closes the door to same-sex marriage via judicial activism without imposing any kind of outright ban. Instead, the amendment leaves same-sex marriage laws as an option for future generations of legislators to take up at their discretion, without the need for a subsequent constitutional amendment.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 01:16 PM (Vgxhz)

18 I can't wait for the first married Gay Congressman from Idawahoe or wherever to get caught in a scandal having sex with a woman.

Posted by: Kasper Hauser at August 31, 2007 01:17 PM (KeOQp)

19

I have always thought that a severely retarded person cannot enter into marriage because said person is not legally able to enter into a contract. 


Here is my layman's list of obstacles to a legal marriage.


1. You can't marry someone who is already married.


2. You can't marry someone who is underage.


3. You can't marry a close blood relative.


4. You can't marry someone who is unable to join a contract.


I am sure their are more reasons.  Like this one:


5. You can't marry someone of the same gender.


We should not fuck with this list.


 


 


Posted by: eman at August 31, 2007 01:19 PM (F/DIG)

20 But what about goats? Isn't that the identical argument?

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Posted by: Jerry Seinfeld at August 31, 2007 01:20 PM (KeOQp)

21 Grimaldi: I agree that your point about polygamous marriages is totally reasonable in a way that the "man marrying a goat" scenarios are not. Let me make clear that the goat question is objectionable not because it's "homophobic," but because it insults everyone's intelligence by completely ignoring the contractual, reciprocal nature of legal marriage.

And to answer Christopher Taylor's question: whether or not retarded individuals can obtain a marriage license in fact depends on whether they function highly enough to qualify as "legally competent." (The definition/diagnosis of which may vary by jurisdiction.) People with milder degrees of mental retardation can and do get legally married.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 01:24 PM (Vgxhz)

22

3. You can't marry a close blood relative


If you intend to abort all your children and adopt instead, I don't see why the hell not eh?


Posted by: Entropy at August 31, 2007 01:27 PM (HgAV0)

23 Breaking news, fellow morons:  Nifong sent to jail for one day for contempt of court -- lying to the judge during his trial.

Posted by: Paulitics at August 31, 2007 01:29 PM (47+Ys)

24 "Goats," "bridges" ... I smell a troll somewhere.

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0122e.html

Posted by: notropis at August 31, 2007 01:39 PM (zr8/n)

25

Here is my entire wide-legged stance on the marriage question:  Anyone who wants to get married to anyone (ONE  and ONE make TWO), go ahead, fools.


But do not bother me, Judge Judy, the SCOTUS, the local hospital board, or anyone else ever afterwards, about any damn thing at all.  Just get married and shut up about it.


Hey, I think I've finally become that misanthrope I always wanted to be!


Posted by: ushie at August 31, 2007 01:44 PM (8nB5X)

26

Oh, and Entropy, I have no clue what you mean about Moses and the clan Israel crossing the desert.  After all, he got them to where God wanted them to be.


And I believe Moses had them crossing the Red (Reed) Sea first.  Go back and check out your Bible again.


Dueling Bibles!  Who's Ned Beatty?


Posted by: ushie at August 31, 2007 01:47 PM (8nB5X)

27 I'd take issue with what you characterize as being "sleight-of-hand" in your analysis, Gabriel, but it's really pointless.  I'm a realist on this and would be shocked to my core if the Iowa Supreme Court didn't overturn this.  This will be a bone of weary contention for the next 30 years or so, but in the end I do believe we will see same-sex marriages.  Malphonse's religious objections notwithstanding, of course. 

Posted by: John at August 31, 2007 01:48 PM (G+J91)

28 The reason why polymagy is out is that marriage is not merely a
contract between two people, it is a contract between the couple and
society, and society should not enter into such a self-destructive
arrangement.  (e.g. since marriage confers immigration rights, I
could marry a million Mexican women and bring 'em all in, which would
make the NAU truthers cry.)



Marriage is not a right, it's a contract between society and the
couple, and society gets to detemine the terms of that contract.



Having said that, I'm in favor of gay marriage.  I don't think it
would have much effect, except on the gay couples themselves, where the
effect would be positive.  I'm baffled by people who think that a
couple of homos getting married is gonna ruin society.  Yeah, I've
heard all the arguments, but I don't buy 'em for a second.  This
is getting into ad-hominum territory, but since I think it I might as
well say it: a lot of the arguments I've heard are premised on a view
of homosexuals which is inaccurate if not downright bigoted.


Posted by: sandy burger at August 31, 2007 01:49 PM (Cpse7)

29

And someone define "close blood relative."  Sibling?  Ick, how Ancient Egyptian.  Cousin?  Well, go tell it to Queen Victoria.


Blah blah, yes, I know one of the problems in intermarriage is the appearance of birth defects in certain <ahem> closed societies.  But I like that Egyptian remark.


Posted by: ushie at August 31, 2007 01:50 PM (8nB5X)

30

It's like...imagine your Moses.


I don't have a Moses.  Is that like a hefalump or whosel?


Posted by: Ralph L at August 31, 2007 01:52 PM (gOi0+)

31

Until that time, fuck you for being a fucktard, fucktard.


Nice debate tactic there jackass.


Did I gore someone's sacred cow?


You and I have the same right : the right to marry a women.


The government has no interest in your relationship with your wide- stanced friend.


I have nothing against you or any other gay person but I am sick of your in your face screaming about your pride, your rights and your sensitivities.


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 01:56 PM (ROA4D)

32 Hey, up yours, Ushie.

Posted by: Sobek at August 31, 2007 01:57 PM (6GK9U)

33 Nice debate tactic there jackass.



Oh, come on.  Comparing gay marriage to marrying a goat really is
either deliberately missing the point or else profound stupidity.


Posted by: sandy burger at August 31, 2007 01:58 PM (K2rlS)

34

No sir, it was making the point about the ignorant take on the law


 


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 02:00 PM (ROA4D)

35 Also Sandy, stating that polygamy doesn't work because marraig is a contract is foolish. I could simply assert the same about gay marraige and then exclude everything else just as haphazardly as you.

Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 02:01 PM (ROA4D)

36 Sandy, I think people oppose gay marriage because it degrades marriage.  Of course, the no fault divorce laws already destroyed it, so there's little left but an aura, which people cling to.

Posted by: Ralph L at August 31, 2007 02:02 PM (DqtzB)

37 John,

I have no religious objections to SSM (at least none that would influence policy in a Republic). 

I have societal/cultural objections to it.  I think that giving the State's imprimatur to gay couplings  results in an alienation of a significant percentage, if not majority of the populace.   People will withdraw from a society that disgusts them.  THe thousand  and million little daily things that people do without being compelled to do (i.e. volunteering for civic duties) will not get done.  Families will not encourage military service to protect a culture they find alien, disgusting and corrupt.  Taxes will be withheld, civic groups will not be formed or joined.

Maybe none of this will happen.  I fervently hope so.

But in my gut, I believe that you create a society that glorifies the outlier, that celebrates the weird, that revels in the hedonist and deviant, you lose that society.  Rome didn't crumble from outside, it crumbled from an abandonment of Roman virtue.  The small percentage of Christian believers, even after Constantine, was unable to reverse the longstanding abandonment of the idea of Rome.

I fear that gay marriage, as part of an overall agenda of transnational socialist corporatist globalism, further erodes the common cultural values that gave this Nation strength and independence.  Those values were certainly based on religious texts, but were a far cry from a state religion.  Having abandoned out values, I would peg the lifespan of this nation at 20--30 years out, given modern geopolitical realities such as interconnected economies and hostile state and non-state actors.  That's why Soros et al are so keen on maximizing profits now to secure their independent non-state corporate fiefdoms.

It's no conspiracy, just everyone looking out for themselves under the rubric of an ever loosening moral order.  Fun while it lasted.

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 02:08 PM (p1s9n)

38 Ralph, I think there may be some good arguments for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, but to claim that gay marriage would degrade the institution of marriage as a whole is unbelievable.

I can go and get a 8-hour marriage in Las Vegas and it's no threat to marriage--or at least one that's not worth amending constitutions over. But if I were to marry my partner of eight years (uh, if I had one) that would degrade marriage.

Not. So. Much.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 02:10 PM (1Ug6U)

39 If you're a man and you can't marry a woman, what would you chose to marry? And vice versa -- if you're a woman and you can't marry a man, who would you choose to marry? A lot of you have already chosen goats as your beloved. But, me, it's my beagle. Definitely, my beagle. She's really cute and obedient, and always happy to see me.

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 02:12 PM (Bi8sm)

40 I could simply assert the same about gay marraige and then exclude everything else just as haphazardly as you.



Yes, exactly!



But my point is, my assertions about polygame are more convincing,
since I can came up with many specific examples of harm which would be
caused to society by allowing polygamy.  (e.g. think of what it'd
do to your company's health plan.)  In the case of gay marriage, I
hear empty assertions but I find them very unconvincing.  If they
were convincing to me, I'd oppose gay marriage too.  It's not
about "rights", it's completely utilitarian.



Sandy, I think people oppose gay marriage because it degrades marriage.



Yeah, I buy that.  But, while they assert
that it degrades marriage, but I'm not at all convinced that they're
right.  (Unlike no fault divorce, where I can definitely believe
it has an affect on marriages, since it changes the terms of the
contract.)



I think marriage is for society to dish out, in society's best
interests.  (And fairness is a societal interest.)  And if I
agreed that gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, I'd oppose
it too.  But all I've heard are vague unconcinving assertions, or
silly stereotypes.


Posted by: sandy burger at August 31, 2007 02:13 PM (ePQxy)

41 But, me, it's my beagle.



That's disgusting.



Get a Roomba, man!


Posted by: sandy burger at August 31, 2007 02:14 PM (Uuy++)

42 No fucking way am I going to refer to a guy as somebody's wife. And when rosie refers to her wife, I want to puke.

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 02:14 PM (Bi8sm)

43

Get a Roomba, man!


I admit it. I do fantasize about a Roomba. I need one that works with carpets well.

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 02:16 PM (Bi8sm)

44 sparky, you don't refer to him as a "wife." They're both husbands.  ::eyeroll::

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 02:20 PM (1Ug6U)

45 There's also the argument that the government has no business interfering in private friendships (what marriage really is) unless such relationships involve the creation of new life.  Why should the government give you a BFF license?

The only reason the gov't cares about sexual couplings is the POTENTIALITY of offspring.  Gays inherently lack that potentiality, despite science's best attempt to alter that situation.  Because this is a free society, we don't fertility test, but used to be that an infertile marriage was deemed void.  That is the basis of marriage.

When you openly advocate for pairings that by their very nature cannot ever conceive, that's not marriage.  Should that apply to post menopausal woman?  Probably.  But they have a better lobby.

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 02:22 PM (p1s9n)

46 Everything else is an argument about benefits.



Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 02:23 PM (p1s9n)

47

But my point is, my assertions about polygame are more convincing, since I can came up with many specific examples of harm which would be caused to society by allowing polygamy.  (e.g. think of what it'd do to your company's health plan.)  In the case of gay marriage, I hear empty assertions but I find them very unconvincing.  If they were convincing to me, I'd oppose gay marriage too.  It's not about "rights", it's completely utilitarian.

Your assertions are convincing to you and you have the right to try to convince others but you immediately impugn anyone who argues against another restriction. Well Sir, I think you just hate mormons.


stupid,huh?


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 02:27 PM (ROA4D)

48 I was unclear.  People believe sSM degrades their idea of marriage.  The institution is already shot to hell.

Posted by: Ralph L at August 31, 2007 02:30 PM (DqtzB)

49

Gabe, the idea that gay-marraige does not harm marraige is rediculous. It completely redifines the institution. Marraige has never been understood as a contract between any two people. It has always been opposite sex ,even when it has been polygamous.


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 02:30 PM (ROA4D)

50 Well Sir, I think you just hate mormons.



Ha!  OK, OK, I'll try to be less of a smart-ass...



But anyhow, yes, of course I
hate mormons.  They've got this whole polygamy thing going on, but
it's a freakin' scam, because it turns out you're only allowed to be
with your wives one at a time, if you catch my drift.  Talk about
bait-and-switch.  F'n mormons.


Posted by: sandy burger at August 31, 2007 02:34 PM (Cpse7)

51

Bait -and-switch


heh.


So we can agree to disagree? See I think you argue from a utilitarian standpoint but you react from a compassionate one. That's why you didn't like my goat comment. It was insensitve of me but this is a moron-blog and I figure, "all arguements welcome".


Even the "f-u fucktard" ones.


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 02:38 PM (ROA4D)

52 All those polygamists are on welfare and are marrying 12 year olds. yuck. Can you imagine being farmed out to your father's 64 year old business partner?

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 02:39 PM (Bi8sm)

53 If this subject is upsetting people we can always go back to talking about bathroom stalls.

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 02:40 PM (Bi8sm)

54 Gays inherently lack that potentiality, despite science's best attempt to alter that situation. Because this is a free society, we don't fertility test, but used to be that an infertile marriage was deemed void.

There is some irony in you declaring "this is a free society" in the same breath that you claim that because gays lack the possibility of offspring, they should not be allowed to marry.

Setting that aside, you're ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs in this case are all raising children. You also ignore the fact that lesbians are popping out children left and right, and gays are getting into that, too. Obviously, gays do not "lack the potentiality" of offspring.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 02:45 PM (1Ug6U)

55

Grimaldi: I agree that your point about polygamous marriages is totally reasonable in a way that the "man marrying a goat" scenarios are not. Let me make clear that the goat question is objectionable not because it's "homophobic," but because it insults everyone's intelligence by completely ignoring the contractual, reciprocal nature of legal marriage.


I missed this at first so let me respond. I made the "man marrying a goat" comment because I felt that the judicial reasoning "insults everyones intelligence by completely ingnoring" the fact that marraige has a definition and has been understood for centuries in the west to involve opposite sexed people. To use miscegenation laws as the basis for changing the definition of marraige is twisted and dishonest.


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 02:51 PM (ROA4D)

56 Gabriel,

Don't be pedantic.  Of course a gay couple is inherently sterile. 

Adoption is not a reason for say two aunts raising their sister's child to get married, it's no reason for a gay couple to do so. 

Pregnancy is not a reason for a woman impregnated by a turkey baster to get married to her live in girlfriend who had no biological part in the process.

And there's just no reason for two dudes who bump balls to get married. 

The government should stay ENTIRELY out of your business.

There's no irony in saying freedom has boundaries.  It's the difference between freedom and anarchy.

What's your take on polygamy?  It has a far better pedigree than gay marriage.

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 02:54 PM (p1s9n)

57

Setting that aside, you're ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs in this case are all raising children. You also ignore the fact that lesbians are popping out children left and right, and gays are getting into that, too. Obviously, gays do not "lack the potentiality" of offspring.


But they do within the marraige. Also the fact that gays are raising children merely points up the shifts in society that pro-marraige people would like to slow


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 02:55 PM (ROA4D)

58 Sandy, I think people oppose gay marriage because it degrades marriage. Of course, the no fault divorce laws already destroyed it,

Erm... I think that gay and lesbian couples should aspire to emulate the "heterosexual" tradition of lifelong marriage because I believe it's a healthy and spiritually enriching practice -- not because the institution has already been "broken" by heterosexuals, so we might as well let homos share in the dregs.

My mother and father have been happily married for nearly 40 years now; I just attended the 50th anniversary of an aunt and uncle; and successful long-term marriages are pretty much the track record throughout my extended family. (Even the two aunts who first marriages ended in early divorce have each made it to 20-years-and-counting with their respective second husbands.)

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 02:58 PM (Vgxhz)

59

I'm willing to bet that you know most of what my response would be, Malphonse, so I save the keystrokes.  Besides, the Iowa Supreme Court will overturn this and the state will have an amendment in place soon.  I may not like either of those, but those are my predictions.  Interestingly though, some gay couples managed to get married before the judge stayed his decision:


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/iowa.samesex.ap/index.html


I'm genuinely curious here:  say the Iowa Supreme Court overturns the decisions and/or an amendment is passed in Iowa prohibiting such marriages, what happens to these licenses already issued?  I presume they would be considered null and void, but does this not give these couples standing in Federal court under say 14th Amendment grounds?


Posted by: John at August 31, 2007 02:58 PM (7itTb)

60 If you wish to get scientific, Gabe, all of those children are worse off than in traditional marriages as well.

All studies of the adequacy of gay couples raising children were conducted using single mothers as the baseline. Gays were equivalent on all the major indicies to single mothers raising children. So by all means, yes, let's have children raised by two people who do as good a job as one.

Clinical studies observe that the triad of mother-father-child is necessary and desirable for the growth of a healthy child. “‘Early triangulation’ serves especially to consolidate both the self-representation and the parental representation.” Richard N. Atkins, Discovering Daddy: The Mother’s Role, in Father and Child 139, 144 (Stanley H. Cath, et al., eds.,1982). The forward to Father and Child notes the increased awareness of the importance of the role of both mothers and fathers in child rearing: “Our sensitivities and instruments have become honed, attuned to the role a man comes to play during the early years in modulating the intensity of the mother-child tie, inviting that child to become a separate individual in an ever-widening world. . . . Researchers have become more aware of the subtle exchanges of identity taking place and of the mother’s and father’s part in facilitating development. . . .” John Munder Ross, Preface xvii-xviii, Father and Child. Dr. Alfred A. Messer, a psychiatrist at Northside Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, also notes the importance of both mothers and fathers as follows: “Children recognize the difference between maleness and femaleness as early as 14 months of age.” Alfred A. Messer, Boys’ Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome, 23 Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 44, 44 (January 1989). Boys establish their physical and gender role identity between the ages of 18 to 36 months. “If the young boy is deprived of his father’s presence, the result can be deeply traumatic[.]” Id. at 45.
Dozens of same sex parenting studies have purported to find that children raised by same sex couples do as well as other children. However, as one mostly favorable review of the same sex parenting research reports, all of these studies have uniform defects:
there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of such families. Most studies rely on small-scale, snowball and convenience samples drawn primarily from personal and community networks or agencies. Most research to date has been conducted on white lesbian mothers who are comparatively educated, mature, and reside in relatively progressive urban centers, most often in California or the Northeastern states.

Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 American Soc. Rev. 159, 166 (2001) (emphasis added); see also Robert Lerner & Althea Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us about Same sex Parenting 3 (2001) (review of homosexual parenting studies “found at least one fatal research flaw” in each one, and thus, “no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies”).
A rational, non-prejudicial legislature could be troubled by studies showing that children raised by a single mother, particularly a divorced mother, have poorer physical health, poorer mental health, a greater likelihood of substance abuse, a higher risk of suicide, and a higher likelihood of committing a crime that leads to incarceration. This is the group of children to which the same sex parenting studies compare children raised in homosexual homes. As one advocate for homosexual parenting acknowledges, “most of the research compares development of children with custodial lesbian mothers to that of children with custodial heterosexual mothers.” Charlotte J. Paterson, Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men, 62 Journal of Marriage and the Family 1052, 1059 (2000). This is because “it has been widely believed that children living in families headed by divorced but heterosexual mothers provide the best comparison group.” Since the pro-same-sex parenting studies find children raised by homo-sexuals do as well as, but not significantly better than, those raised by divorced heterosexual mothers, policy makers would not be irrational to conclude that children raised by same sex parents do not do as well as children raised by their own married mother and father. fn

fn In reality, the same sex parenting studies show a significant difference in outcome between children raised by heterosexual mothers and those raised by lesbians. Stacey and Biblarz, themselves proponents of same sex parenting, challenge the intellectual honesty of the reports of “no differences.”  Stacey & Biblarz at 178. They observe that “[o]nly a crude theory of cultural indoctrination that posited the absolute impotence of parents might predict such an outcome, and the remarkable variability of gender configurations documented in the anthropological record readily undermines such a theory.”  Id. at 177. Instead of “no differences,” as reported by most studies, some of the studies clearly show a difference when it comes to sexuality.

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 03:05 PM (p1s9n)

61
John,

Void ab initio.

Those folks know fully well the risks they're taking, but that won't stop the lib press from taking weepy pics of these tools (seriously, tools of other powers) when they get their licenses invalidated

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 03:07 PM (p1s9n)

62 John, this is a little different than in San Fransisco in 2004, but there the California Supreme Court came along six months later and declared all 4000 gay marriages performed in San Fran to be void.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 03:07 PM (1Ug6U)

63 all due process rights created under state law must be established by state law, Penhurst II.  If the Court says void ab initio, there is no state right to vindicate under the due process clause

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 03:12 PM (p1s9n)

64 Boy, malphonse, they sure could have used you in Iowa. The defense conceded that "Children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as well-adjusted and as psychologically, emotionally, educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents."

Two-parent stable homes are the best thing for children. Denying gays the right to marry means that their children will be that much less likely to ever grow up in a two-parent stable home.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 03:15 PM (1Ug6U)

65 No fucking way am I going to refer to a guy as somebody's wife.

I can guarantee you that gay male couples who regard themselves as "married in all but the legal sense" would most often say that "I'm his husband and he's my husband."

On the other hand, I have the impression that long-term lesbian couples are less likely to use the phrase "wife and wife," since radical feminists disparage the term "wife" as a patriarchal relic. (Not that all lesbians are themselves radical feminists, of course -- but most lesbians are at least acquainted with self-styled feminists who are eager to complain about phallocentrism at the smallest provocation.)

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 03:16 PM (Vgxhz)

66 and the statistics do not back up that assertion, Gabriel.  THeir is only a slight difference between "stable 2 parent homes" of gays and a single mother, developmentally.  That's the facts, jack.

And marriage doesn't deprive gays of the ability to make a "stable, 2 parent" home.

Non sequitur.

That or your saying that gays are so fickle that hthey will abandon one another with a child in the house unless they have a piece of paper.

Nice.

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 03:18 PM (p1s9n)

67 Robert:  I live in a  gay ghetto. I often here guys refer to another guy as their wife. Then again, it may be in jest. (though they are a gay couple)

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 03:19 PM (Bi8sm)

68

I think it's instructive to think about why marriage is an institution at all.  It is a social construct for at least two reasons:


1)  It encourages the responsible perpetuation of the species, as opposed to the sweet caveman ethic of putting your seed in every available female.  Which, as much as that appeals to me, doesn't do much for instilling the ethics and morals necessary for the foundations of a functioning society.


2)  It provides the basis for a stable interpersonal relationship where the participants have a foundation of support that allows them to focus their efforts on attaining the higher levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; also good for society.


Gay marriage may very well satisfy the second construct but it obviously does not satisfy the first.


Maybe a gay couple doesn't care much about the first construct but society should.  That, to me, is the best argument against gay marriage.


You, as a gay person, should not be resticted from forming a long-term monogamous relationship which supports construct number two.  That's why I think civil unions are acceptable.


But to expect society to view that as an equivalent relationship to that of a man and a woman (even if the man is K-Fed and the woman is Britney Spears) is asking society to accept something that would be to its detriment.


I'm not saying being gay is wrong for you if that's what you choose or were born to be.  But expecting society to grant that equivalent status to a heterosexual relationship (vis a vis marrige) is unreasonable because you cannot satisfy construct number one.


Is homosexuality wrong on an individual basis?  I'm not God so I don't know.  Perhaps it is.  Is it wrong on a societal basis? Absolutely.


After all, if everyone was gay, we would ultimately be extinct as a species.


I need another beer.


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 03:21 PM (omkIU)

69 I'm listening to this psychologist who treats the Larry Craigs of the world. He says that while some of them may be repressed homosexuals, for the majority it is some weird sexual compulsion. He tries to get them to understand that the behavior is high risk and that they can lose everything -- family, job, etc. He also suggest to them that maybe they are gay or bi and they get indignant. He will suggest they go to a prostitute and skip the public anonymous sex and they give dumb excuses like what if my wife finds out I sent $50 on a prostitute. The sex is almost  alway oral, and they go to different bathrooms. Just no emotional connection at all. They feel good at first, then go back to hating themselves. Again, anytime he suggests to them they might be gay/bi they go in complete denial and act indignant. He says studies show it might be caused by weird wiring due to an early exposure to porn or sexual abuse. He also says after they have lapsed twice, he will refure to treat them anymore since it's futile. 

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 03:24 PM (Bi8sm)

70 It's 105 here, so forgive my many typos.

Posted by: sparky at August 31, 2007 03:26 PM (Bi8sm)

71

Obviously, gays do not "lack the potentiality" of offspring.


Gabriel,


Of course the don't lack the plumbing but you can't say that gay marriage encourages propagation.


The very fact that gay marriage discourages it is a legitimate reason for opposing it.


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 03:28 PM (Jf5b4)

72 Thousands of years of human existence seem to inform the distinction between different- and same-gender marriages. That long experience should not be cast aside because of the whims of the self-anointed who envision themselves better informed and more able to grasp 'T'ruth than those who came before.

Call me a conservative on this issue if you must. What bothers me is that they are trying to overthrow the hard learned lessons of those who passed before without the slightest consideration for the consequences.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 03:30 PM (EkG0f)

73 Hmmm... no takers on the subject of the "Hawaiian approach" that I pointed out in #17?

Again, the "definition of marriage" amendment to the Hawaiian constitution was carefully worded so as to allow legislative bans on same-sex marriage without mandating any such legislative bans.

This is in contrast to the more recent constitutional amendment in Virginia, which explicitly, comprehensively, and retroactively banned any form of "same-sex couplehood" legislation by any level of government within the state, down to municipal "domestic partnership" registries.

To me, the Hawaiian amendment is ideal because it puts the brake on judicial challenges from gay activists and the ACLU while still giving state legislators a great deal of flexibility to develop compromise solutions (e.g., some form of civil-union law).

However, it's possible that the Hawaiian approach could have unintended consequences, which is why I brought if up for discussion.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 03:44 PM (Vgxhz)

74

Nom de Blog,


For a chicken fucker you made a cogent point.


Shots of Jaeger on the house!!


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 03:46 PM (AV77T)

75 Your mom's legs aren't that bad. I only call her 'chicken legs' as a jest.

Now get me another shot of Jaeger!

Posted by: Nom de Blog at August 31, 2007 03:50 PM (EkG0f)

76 Not exactly "happy" with Civil Unions, but no compelling objection.  It's all bad, but something needs to give in the welfare/victimology state

Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 03:50 PM (p1s9n)

77

Where's Gabriel and Throbert?  I spent a lot of time on comment # 68 and I want to know where I'm off.


Nom de KFC, you're up for shots you jackass.


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 04:07 PM (6+5Wv)

78

Of course the don't lack the plumbing but you can't say that gay marriage encourages propagation.

The very fact that gay marriage discourages it is a legitimate reason for opposing it.

That makes no sense, Rosetta. It's not like the gay guys are going to start sleeping with women because you refused to let them marry each other.

Gay marriage does not discourage "propagation." Unless you're telling me that you're so turned off by the idea of two guys calling each other "husband" that you've decided to stop sleeping with women, of course.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:07 PM (1Ug6U)

79 Sorry Rosetta. There's a copyright law discussion a few posts up. I'm still catching up over here.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:08 PM (1Ug6U)

80 Rosetta, in response to comment # 68:

What kind of beer?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:13 PM (1Ug6U)

81

Of course the don't lack the plumbing but you can't say that gay marriage encourages propagation.


The very fact that gay marriage discourages it is a legitimate reason for opposing it.

That makes no sense, Rosetta.


Gabriel,


It makes sense in the context of my earlier comment regarding why marriage between a man and a woman is a social construct.


Gay marriage does not discourage "propagation."


So, in your opinion, does gay marriage encourage child rearing or is gay marriage neutral on the subject?


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 04:16 PM (AV77T)

82 Okay, seriously.

I agree with your formulation. Marriage is good for society. But you haven't explained why you think that gay marriage is going to keep straight people from getting married and having kids. As I said earlier, it's not like gay people are taking advantage of marriage now; how is banning them from gay marriage supposed to be "encourag[ing] the responsible perpetuation of the species"?

You also ignore the possibility that gay marriage will encourage more gays to drop the self-destructive lifestyle and settle down with "that special someone." A world with out foot-tapping senators sounds pretty good to me.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:17 PM (1Ug6U)

83 Captkidney: Thank you for clarifying your comment about the "goat marriage."

I still think that (say) a 10-way polygamous marriage between 3 men and 7 women would be a much better hypothetical example of "taking the gay marriage argument to its absurd conclusion" -- because in the case of the 10-way group marriage, everyone involved is theoretically able to give legal consent, which a goat cannot do.

But I appreciate that you were making a satirical point, and apologize for the "fucktard" language.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 04:19 PM (Vgxhz)

84

So, in your opinion, does gay marriage encourage child rearing or is gay marriage neutral on the subject?

We know that some gays want to raise kids. It is easier to raise kids if you are married. Basic economics says that if we make it easier for gays to raise kids, more will do it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 31, 2007 04:20 PM (1Ug6U)

85

John, this is a little different than in San Fransisco in 2004, but there the California Supreme Court came along six months later and declared all 4000 gay marriages performed in San Fran to be void.


First of all, I'm not interested in pro or con arguments (most of us have our minds made up anyways at this point) just questioning a point of constitutional law here.  These two cases are very different I'd say.  The California case involved a renegade mayor who flaunted state law while in this case a judge invalidated a state law as being unconstitutional.  The couples married in California would have no standing whatsoever since the mayor's actions were illegal in the first place.  That's not the case in Iowa.  The judge's ruling which allowed this situation to happen will undoubtedly be overturned, but it wasn't illegal like the mayor's actions were.  My question revolves around whether these couples would have standing under the US Constitution since they legally were married and then their licenses were taken away after the fact.


Posted by: John at August 31, 2007 04:21 PM (7itTb)

86 Setting that aside, you're ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs in this case are all raising children. You also ignore the fact that lesbians are popping out children left and right,

No gay couple has ever produced a child.
Ever.

Your piss poor attempt at slight of hand not withstanding.

Posted by: Jay at August 31, 2007 04:29 PM (4svNr)

87 You also ignore the possibility that gay marriage will encourage more gays to drop the self-destructive lifestyle and settle down with "that special someone.

It's being ignored because it's highly unlikely.

Or are you going to pretend gay males haven't been acting the same ways since, oh, forever?

Posted by: Jay at August 31, 2007 04:31 PM (4svNr)

88 Boy, malphonse, they sure could have used you in Iowa. The defense conceded that "Children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as well-adjusted and as psychologically, emotionally, educationally and socially successful as children raised by heterosexual parents."

And?

So they are correct then?

Posted by: Jay at August 31, 2007 04:32 PM (4svNr)

89

You also ignore the possibility that gay marriage will encourage more gays to drop the self-destructive lifestyle and settle down with "that special someone.


Gabriel,


Let me quickly dispense with this argument for gay marriage by using the oft cited argument that traditional marriages often end in divorce.


Legal marriage isn't some balm that, when applied to otherwise bad relationships, will make things all better.


If a gay couple exists that can't, on their own, realize their full potential as a couple then I don't see how a legally recognized marriage will make for a more fertile ground for a relationship with that "special someone".


If two gay people need the approval of the state to legitimize their relationship, I doubt that relationship is built on strength. 


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 04:35 PM (0vNaM)

90 Gabriel,
 
Not to pick on you but I am not referring to the ability of a gay couple, married or otherwise, to raise kids but rather to have kids.
 
Marriage has existed for centuries, in large part, because it is the most responsible way to guarantee the continuation of the species.
 
Gay couples, legally married or otherwise, cannot satisfy this construct.
 
Maybe you believe that encouraging child rearing should no longer have anything to do with marriage.
 
However I would submit that the declining birth rate of developed countries is a reason not to toss this rationale for celebrating heterosexual marriage onto the trash heap of history.
 
Making homosexual marriage the equivalent of heterosexual marriage cannot help but diminish the primacy of heterosexual marriage in this regard.
 
And the beer I was referring to earlier was cold beer.
 
 

Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 04:50 PM (0vNaM)

91

In response to Jay, I would posit that the more open and accepting society is towards gay couples, the less common self-destructive stereotypical behavior among gay males has become.


For example, if you look at the bathroom antics of Senator Craig, you'll find nowadays that such behavior is far, far more common among the married and closeted than the openly gay. At twenty-eight years old, I can say that such behavior in my social group is incredibly uncommon. Off the top of my head, I can think of exactly one gay man around my age that I know of who has ever done the rest stop/bathroom spiel, and even then he did it just to see what it was like (he hated it).


However, I talk to gay men in their 40s, 50s, and 60s, and the whole bathhouse, restroom, highway rest stop thing is still fairly common with them. Not universal, but just common enough where you can place it within their culture in good conscience.


What does that say to you? Why are the younger, more open generations of gays resorting to that kind of behavior in lesser and lesser numbers? Is there something to be learned about societal tolerance and acceptance and its effects on gay males, or are we to assume - as you seem to - that gay males will never ever change, marriage or not?


I'd say the more expectation placed on gay men, the more responsibilities society offers them, the more likely they are to accept and embrace them.


Posted by: Robbie at August 31, 2007 04:51 PM (6XaQz)

92 Once more before I go for the weekend,
Gabriel,

It's not the traditionalists who bear the burden of proof here. 

It's not that gay marriage will discourage anyone (though studies in Norway or wherever have shown an increase in unmarried cohabitation following legalization of gay marriage).  No, the burden is on you, friend, why we should jettison millenia of social tradition because you want us to (a desire, in large part, stemming purely from one's sexual preference).  Hell the ancient Greeks were queer as fuck and THEY didn't have gay marriage.



Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 04:54 PM (p1s9n)

93

Throbert, thanx for the apology. I recognize this is personal for you.


You are dead on about polygamy, it is the more likely next step.


Goodnight and enjoy your weekend.


Posted by: captkidney at August 31, 2007 05:04 PM (ROA4D)

94 In respects to man-goat marriage:
Since goats have neither the reasoning nor volitional capacity to signify an "I do", the marriage would have to include some type of guardian-facilitator to act on the goat's behalf to make that rational act of will. We've already seen something similar to this in Nigeria(?) where a man had intercourse with another man's goat and after complaints being brought to the village elders was obligated to marry said goat. A bit like a shotgun wedding.

Now captkidney (# , you may think that man-goat love is "disgusting" (whatever that means) but studies have shown that approximately one hundred percent of human exclusive heterosexual couples engage in vaginal intercourse, just like a man and a female goat would. If the couple is a man and a male goat (or perhaps an adventurous, curious female goat), well then I can also show you studies that demonstrate a very large percentage of heterosexual couples also engage in anal sexual activity. So much for the "disgusting" argument. You're applying that selectively, arbitrarily, and in a biased socially constructed fashion.

Besides, who are you to come in between a man and his goat captkidney? There's a word for that, it's called "judging" and when you point a finger at someone, you've got four of 'em pointing back at you. A man and his goat. By no choice, destined by birth. Spoken only in whispers. Forbidden by those whose hardened hearts cannot understand. Theirs is a relationship based upon love. Have a little tolerance for people that don't agree with you.


Posted by: Hippolytus at August 31, 2007 05:06 PM (kEvI+)

95 You also ignore the possibility that gay marriage will encourage more gays to drop the self-destructive lifestyle and settle down with "that special someone." A world with out foot-tapping senators sounds pretty good to me.

I agree that it would be a great thing if lifelong monogamous couplehood were much more universally embraced by gays as a capital-I Ideal.

However, this can only come about by attitude changes within the gay community, not by government legislation -- and the reality is that most gays have a severe PC allergy to stigmatizing so-called "serial monogamy" and cheating. But unless there is at least some degree of social stigma attached to those who cat around, why hope that any significant number of people will prefer monogamy?

This is why I'm not a "hardline" supporter of gay marriage. On an abstract, libertarian level, it makes sense to me that same-sex couples should have the right as citizens to obtain a legal contract of marriage from the government that they support with their tax dollars. But I'm not convinced that a majority of gays are prepared to give same-sex marriage the social framework it needs.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 05:11 PM (Vgxhz)

96

I hate to bring Thor's hammer but...


malphonse,


I'm not trying to start trouble but I have a question.  Do you hate the sin, the sinner or both? Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 05:44 PM (1tfre)


Rosetta,
Personally, neither.  I hate the politicization and public proclamation of the sin.  Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 05:57 PM (p1s9n)


OK, so I hate gays.
Posted by: malphonse at August 31, 2007 05:29 PM (p1s9n)


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 05:17 PM (0vNaM)

97

Throbert:


But what's notable about this phrasing is that it closes the door to same-sex marriage via judicial activism without imposing any kind of outright ban. Instead, the amendment leaves same-sex marriage laws as an option for future generations of legislators to take up at their discretion, without the need for a subsequent constitutional amendment.


First of all, the door to same-sex marriage via judicial activism should already be closed.  There's nothing wrong with atacking judicial activism on its face, without a constitutional amendment.


Do we need to pass a constitutional amendment verifying the legislature's ability to make decisions in every controversial area?  The people who oppose bans on gay marriage almost certainly voted against the Hawaii constitutional amendment -- despite the fact that it didn't prohibit gay marriage -- because they knew it would result in a prohibition on gay marriage.  So let's not pretend that the Hawaii amendment amounted to anything less than a referendum on gay marriage.  Constitutional amendments require a super-majority to pass.  So we should be able to rely on our agreed system of government to address controversial matters without having to resort to super-majorities.


And keep in mind that the issue of same sex marriage is still open to future legislatures even after they've passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.  Constitutions aren't written in stone.  They can be revised by the same procedure they're written.  See, e.g., Prohibition.


[Note -- I'm against laws banning gay marriage.  I'm a small government conservative.  Even if you oppose a gay lifestyle, surely we conservatives can agree that the government is not the only method to enforce that belief.  However, judicial activism violates the principles of government we've all agreed to abide by.  So I'm against gay marriage by judicial fiat.]


Posted by: The Comish (sic) at August 31, 2007 05:55 PM (n8HhO)

98 (Right now I'm being distracted by a Bionic Woman episode that I last saw when I was, like, 7 years old.

(At that age, I don't think I was aware yet that Steve Austin was a lot more interesting to look at than Jaime Sommers -- but certainly by 12 I had started to figure out that men are "suh-suh-sssexy" while women are merely "good looking.")

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 05:56 PM (Vgxhz)

99 (It's the BEST Bionic Woman episode ever, by the way. Lindsey Wagner was so awesome!)

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 06:00 PM (Vgxhz)

100

Throbert, that is incredibly gay even by our peoples' standards =)


Posted by: Robbie at August 31, 2007 06:07 PM (6XaQz)

101

Can we start a list of things that the Constitution is silent on that should be decided by the states:


1)  Abortion


2)  Gay marriage


3)  Gov't provided health care


4)  1970's (OFB) vs. 2000's (No OFB) porn


Posted by: Rosetta at August 31, 2007 06:07 PM (VSQpt)

102 What's "OFB," Rosetta? (I have definite opinions on the superiority of 1970s pr0n, though not for the reason that some gay men do.)

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 06:30 PM (Vgxhz)

103 I'm a bit weary of the "marriage is a contract and animals can't fill out a contract" argument - that's how it is defined legally now but then until this court decision, marriage was legally defined as one man, one woman. It just takes 1 activist to change that, so don't use that as an argument.


The other weak argument is the "consent" one, which is faulty in two ways. First, let's say some sick bastard wants to marry his 9 year old sister. The argument is "too young for consent" but first, that's just a legal argument again: see above. Second, the age of consent has varied through the centuries and is different in different states - clearly there's no consensus, legal base, nor historical standard for consent. It's just a modern construct that has been different in different ages and cultures.


So we're left with the moral argument: this is wrong. When you dispose of that argument claiming freedom and love, then you lose the right to argue against any other marriage arrangement you consider reprehensible or over the line.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 31, 2007 06:36 PM (wmgz8)

104 Robbie: I got the Six Million Dollar Man doll -- oops, I mean "action figure" -- as a birthday present from my grandma when I was 9. And there were vintage G.I. Joe dolls of the same scale in my grandma's basement. But it did not occur to me to put Steve Austin and G.I. Joe into hot nekkid scenarios together until I probably was 14 or so. Which I'm just mentioning as a "when did you first know...?" data point.

(And for what it's worth as a data point, at that age I never put them into buttseckxs positions, -- only "nekkid wrasslin" or BJ poses.)

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 06:43 PM (Vgxhz)

105 So we're left with the moral argument: this is wrong.

Do not flatter yourself. How does your "moral" argument amount to anything more intelligent than "I think this is yucky"?

Posted by: Throbert McGee at August 31, 2007 06:51 PM (Vgxhz)

106

I live in a  gay ghetto. I often here guys refer to another guy as their wife.


Should be the "Ol Balls and Chain."


Throbert, do you prefer the mustaches, the untrimmed pubes, the unsteroided bodies, or the less tedious editing?  Or is the grainy, naughty feel of cheap filming?


Posted by: Ralph L at August 31, 2007 08:07 PM (DqtzB)

107 In response to Jay, I would posit that the more open and accepting society is towards gay couples, the less common self-destructive stereotypical behavior among gay males has become.

Really?

could you explain this then please?

Gay males intentionally try and catch HIV: here, and here, and here

Thanks.

Posted by: Jay at September 01, 2007 03:52 AM (4svNr)

108 Why are the younger, more open generations of gays resorting to that kind of behavior in lesser and lesser numbers?

You are pointing out a particular behavior that is troublesome while ignoring all the rest.

It's quite clear why.

Posted by: Jay at September 01, 2007 04:03 AM (4svNr)

109

What's "OFB," Rosetta? (I have definite opinions on the superiority of 1970s pr0n, though not for the reason that some gay men do.)


OFB = Old fashioned bush


Posted by: Rosetta at September 01, 2007 04:28 AM (omkIU)

110

Thankyou for the exposition on zoophelia, Hippolytus.


Just to clarify; I am not a zoophilaphobe. Some of my best friends are zoophiles.


(at least if you count my dog ...and my fish)


Posted by: captkidney at September 01, 2007 04:53 AM (ROA4D)

111

Christopher Taylor, has a good point, Thorbert.


To define marraige as a joining of any two people is to change its definition.


The legal arguements for your side simply ignore this fact


 


 


Posted by: captkidney at September 01, 2007 05:04 AM (ROA4D)

112 Setting that aside, you're ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs in
this case are all raising children. You also ignore the fact that
lesbians are popping out children left and right, and gays are getting
into that, too. Obviously, gays do not "lack the potentiality" of
offspring.

It's thinking like this that results in those "International Law lessons."

Posted by: Bruce at September 01, 2007 06:27 AM (2q+Ss)

113 Obviously, gays do not "lack the potentiality" of offspring.

I missed that.

Hilarious.

Posted by: Jay at September 01, 2007 07:02 AM (4svNr)

114

What is it you're reacting to, Sobek?


And seriously, het-men, why do you react to the mere thought of gay sex, in or out of a marriage situation, so angrily?  Why the hell do you even care?  And don't yap about AIDS--if there was no AIDS, you'd still be sickened, yes?


When we got married, my late husband and I decided not to have children.  Was our marriage therefore invalid?


Also, I'm pretty sure that without marriage as a legal institution, heterosexual men would be having sex as often as possible with any willing female at any time and in nearly any situation.  Right?


Posted by: ushie at September 01, 2007 08:32 AM (8nB5X)

115

And seriously, het-men, why do you react to the mere thought of gay sex, in or out of a marriage situation, so angrily?  Why the hell do you even care?  And don't yap about AIDS--if there was no AIDS, you'd still be sickened, yes?


Yes, we're grossed out but it wouldn't matter if gays didn't define themselves as such. In other words if you asked me about myself I would not mention being hetero. It's no-ones' business.


 


Posted by: captkidney at September 01, 2007 12:50 PM (ROA4D)

116 Throbert, do you prefer the mustaches, the untrimmed pubes, the unsteroided bodies, or the less tedious editing?

It's mainly the untrimmed pubes and chest hair plus the more "natural"-looking muscles of the men in 1907s porn -- no steroids, no wax-jobs, no painted-on tans.

Also, the only porn director I somewhat respect, Joe Gage, was known in that era for long, lavish portrayals of handjobs and BJs -- with anal sex getting only a few scattered seconds of screentime. (And a couple of Gage's early movies didn't include anything anal.)

Unfortunately, fudgepacking got a lot of attention from other directors of that era, and would go on to take center stage in gay porn ever since.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at September 01, 2007 06:48 PM (Vgxhz)

117 Or, to put it another way, there was a time in the '70s when the focus of gay porn was on COCK, rather than the idea of the anus as a "pseudo-vagina."

Posted by: Throbert McGee at September 01, 2007 07:05 PM (Vgxhz)

118 I also appreciate the arguments of Rosetta in #68, basically saying that there should be a legally recognized category of "civil unions" that are totally distinct from "marriages." The rationale for keeping them distinct is that while long-term homosexual unions can potentially benefit society in a variety of ways, such unions do not produce the same kind of social benefit as do heterosexual unions.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at September 01, 2007 07:19 PM (Vgxhz)

119 Throbert, do you prefer the mustaches, the untrimmed pubes, the unsteroided bodies, or the less tedious editing?

I forgot to mention the editing! Some of the classic '70s porn I've seen was in fact very well edited, with fast cuts from multiple camera angles. Producing such porn clips would've been very "tedious" for the film editor, but the end result can seem "natural" to the viewer.

Posted by: Throbert McGee at September 01, 2007 07:29 PM (Vgxhz)

120 Sigh as a gay man reading thru these comments i am neither heartened or disturbed by some of your more radical comments and ideas but I think your all over reacting, and that most likely the ruling will be struck down and all those guys and gal that wanted to get married for whatever reason, be it pride in traditions, wanting to make their parents happy or simply to be part of the society that birthed them and brought them up, will be annulled and set aside.

You know cause we don't really count.

Posted by: Tim at September 04, 2007 07:03 AM (Zr2oy)

Posted by: bvdbsr at February 05, 2009 03:36 PM (b40qC)

122 Sorry. Make hunger thy sauce, as a medicine for health. I am from Congo and too bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "No photographs can do justice to the grandeur and luxurious feel of these comforter sets." Thank you very much :-(. Dominic.

Posted by: Dominic at July 15, 2009 04:59 AM (RwHhp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
163kb generated in CPU 0.17, elapsed 1.3844 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2737 seconds, 358 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.