« A Moving Tribute | Main | Nancy Pelosi Conducts her Own Foreign Policy »

Goin' to the chapel...

When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he did all he could to stave off gay marriage. This wasn't much, considering he was saddled with a legislature that was 85% Democratic and a state supreme court that sanctioned gay marriage by a 4-3 vote, but one thing he could do was dust off an old law and insist it be enforced. This measure, dating back to 1913, was a legacy of segregation and racism -- it forbid couples from marrying if their marriage was illegal in their state of residence. At the time, it was to keep interracial couples forbidden from wedding in their home state from coming to Massachusetts, gettting married, and going back home and forcing their home state to sanction their union.

Well, Romney's successor, Deval Patrick, wants to repeal that law. So do the heads of the heads of both houses of the legislature. With that much heavy firepower behind it, I think it's safe to assume that the bill's days are numbered.

This brings up a whole peck of fascinating (well, fascinating to me) issues and questions. Setting aside the impetus for the matter, gay marriage (which I support and a whole bunch of you don't), let's look at just what this entails:

1) The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not explicitly given to the federal government are the responsibility of the states, or the people. Marriage is not one of those listed.

2) The Defense Of Marriage Act (signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996) says that other states do not have to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states.

3) Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution says that in cases of conflict, federal law supercedes state law, and the Constitution and treaties supercede federal law.

4) Article IV, Section I, says that each state must give "full faith and credit" to the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This has traditionally included marriage and divorce -- witness Las Vegas and Atlantic City marriages and divorces.

I think a compelling argument can be made on both sides of the issue here. But to attempt to reconcile the above citations, though, require some interesting twists of logic:

Marriage, as an institution, is regulated by the states. Each state can set its own rules, but it has to accept those marriages sanctioned by another state. Unless it's a same-sex marriage, because then the federal government says they don't have to, and federal law trumps state law. Except when it conflicts with the Constitution, and that says that states have to accept marriages and other things certified by another state, and the Constitution trumps federal law. Or maybe not.

Regardless, I still can't claim my computer as a dependent on my taxes, and that's gotta violate my Constitutional rights somehow.

I'd be interested in hearing you folks' arguments on this one. I'll just ask the lawyers present to set aside specific cases and examples, though, and discuss this one purely on its own merits and principles. I'm not looking for legal opinions, but simple analysis of the facts and the existing situation. In other words, I'm not asking "what would the courts say," but "what SHOULD be done."

And please, keep the particulars of the case out of the argument. Today it's gay marriage, but the Massachusetts law in question was created to address interracial marriage -- and I think we all agree that the government has no business preventing that.


Comments (64)

Is there a difference in qu... (Below threshold)
kim:

Is there a difference in quality between skin color and sexuality?
====================================

In humans, both come in all... (Below threshold)
kim:

In humans, both come in all shades of the rainbow.
=================================

Well said, Kim.... (Below threshold)
Myackie:

Well said, Kim.

Thank you. We are beasts w... (Below threshold)
kim:

Thank you. We are beasts with two backs.
=========================

While I wouldn't like the o... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

While I wouldn't like the outcome, I think the full faith and credit clause would mean that a agy marriage performed in Boston would have to be legally acknowledged in Houston.

Of course the political impetus of this would likely be the same as the state constitution amendments. A federal amendment would be forthcoming, which would make it the definitive word (subject to 5 justices finding new rights dancing in the shadows of the consitution). The democratic congress would at first reject the amendment, but then is likely to either cave in 2008 or 2010 (depending on when the case ripens) or find that there is a reason state amendments are passing at such overwhelming margins. Given that 27 states have passed protection of marriage amendments and 14 more are at varying stages of putting an amendment forward to vote on, the chances of the amendment going through are relatively high. Which would then leave the pro-gay marriage people in worse shape because they not only would have to convince a majority of the voters to change the law, they would have to convince a super majority to repeal a constitutional amendment.

As an aside, while I disagree with Kim, I note her swimming against the tide of political correctness in her statement of support and solidarity with the pedophiles. Isn't their desire for young children just another shade of sexuality?

Again, marriage is legally ... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Again, marriage is legally defined between a man and a woman (regardless of race, color or creed). Not between a man and a dog, or a horse, or a computer, or another man.

It is this sort of liberal ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

It is this sort of liberal idiocy that will resurrect the Republicans
from their doldrums and bring them back into power.

Well said Michael. This wil... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Well said Michael. This will wake up the base in a very big way. ww

There is a long held ('39 o... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

There is a long held ('39 or '40 I believe) public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause that essentially holds that one state's laws can't be used to violate another state's laws in the same "arena" so to speak. So if state A allows gay marriage and state B forbids it by statute, you can't get married in state A and then move to state B and force them to recognize the marriage.

"Isn't their desire for ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Isn't their desire for young children just another shade of sexuality"

Yes, but I'll take the libertarian view on this one:

Gay marriage hurts no one. It may offend some, but I thought only lefties believed in laws and rules designed to protect people from being offended.

Pedophilia, on the other hand does great harm to certain persons and is therefore not comparable to gay marriage as you seem to want it to be.

A federal amendment woul... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

A federal amendment would be forthcoming, which would make it the definitive word (subject to 5 justices finding new rights dancing in the shadows of the consitution).

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The supreme court has absolutely no say in constitutional amendments. Congress could pass and the states ratify a new amendment making all women slaves belonging to their fathers or husbands and the supreme court couldn't do a damned thing about it because the instant it's ratified it becomes the law.

As far as what should be do... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

As far as what should be done...

We are (were) a republic. The Founding Fathers rightly believed that most of the government should be at the level closest to the governed. That is, the degree to which government affects your life should be in decreasing order of local, county/parish , state, and lastly federal.

Having said that... if residents of one state go to another state in order to circumvent the laws in their state of residency, I believe that the state of residency should not be forced to recognize the act/ contract/ whatever which was performed in the outside of the state.

Of course, that still leaves open the problem of residents of stateA, where the contract is legal, moving to stateB, where the contract is not...

What should be done is to s... (Below threshold)
Captain Ned:

What should be done is to separate the concepts of marriage and the civil benefits that marriage confers.

Marriage should become a solely religious construct with no sanction in civil law. Denominations/sects can all have their own criteria for what's permissible. A marriage performed in a church binds a couple only in the eyes of that religion. It has no effect on the civil status of said couple. To my mind, the current practice of granting religious authorities the power to civilly bind a couple infringes the Establishment Clause and should be considered unconstitutional.

The civil benefits of couples should be extended to any and all couples exclusive of the usual blood relative exclusions, as there's a valid public health issue there. Civil ceremonies would be performed by the applicable State or local official, and said ceremonies would have no effect in any church unless a church so decides to honor the civil ceremony.

This gives both sides part of what they want. Churches are not required to sanction gay marriage and the definition of marriage reverts back to the religious underpinnings it's always had. Civil law couples get the benefits they want and can have a religious marriage if they find the right church.

"The supreme court has ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"The supreme court has absolutely no say in constitutional amendments."

Bullshit. The Supreme Court gets to decide what the ammendment really means. They "interpret" the Constitution, remember? (I guess 'cause it's written in English?) The Constitution is a living thing, remember? The meaning of a clause in the Constitution changes over time, remember?

At least that's the dogma the left believes in...

To Michael and WildWillie: ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

To Michael and WildWillie: I think it is sad that this would be the cause to "resurrect the Republicans from their doldrums." I do not support gay marriage, although I voted against Ohio's ammendment to ban it due to language that also banned civil unions. However, I would much rather Republicans snap out of their doldrums over issuse like, say, the war... or corruption... or pork... or any of the multitude of issues much more pressing right now.

If You voted against the am... (Below threshold)
914:

If You voted against the amendment You voted in favor of gay marriage! Sorry.

So Captain, using you're lo... (Below threshold)
engineer:

So Captain, using you're logic, I could be married (or not), form a civil union with the wife of my best friend, and when I die, she inherits all my worldly goods and wouldn't have to pay taxes on it (up to a certain amount).

And why can't the civil union apply to a family member? A homosexual couple can't procreate, neither would a brother and sister (in a strictly platonic union). Why would you discriminate against one set and not the other? The brother or sister should have the same 'civil union' benefits as the homosexual couple, to do otherwise would be disrimination.

Civil unions opens up a whole new can of worms.

Europeans are way ahead of ... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Europeans are way ahead of us again (as they are oft repeating) in the area of a declining birthrate - a factor that has contributed to their economic problem.

To address this, governments tend to subsidize both marriage and children, also finding that a good way to purchase votes. In the US it is likely that we will go from a marriage penalty in the tax code a few years ago, to a marriage subsidy sometime in the future. It does not take Nostradamus to make this forecast.

Subsidy of gay unions will then become a further issue and not a few will object to this subsidy, one part of which group become parents at very low rates.

So the Feds will have a role to play and the American people have spoken loudly on this subject, State Constitutional Amendments passing by wide margins everywhere they have been introduced.

I'm against gay marriage, and for unions, but I would be happy to bow to the will of the majority.

The problem is going to come when the courts reach into their bag of tricks and divine another unenumerated right, over those standing State Constitutional Amendments.

That would be wrong, legal arguments notwithstanding.

I support civil unions, but... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I support civil unions, but not if they are given equal status to marriage. Issues like hospital visitation, wills, etc. should be non-issues, however tax incentives, child credits, etc. should not. Stable, traditional marriage is the best environment for a child to grow up in, and the governmnent should be able to incentivize it in the interrest of the country.
Now, I'll grant you that a stable gay marriage can be better than an unstable or abusive hetero one, but that is more a case for penalties on marriages that fail or criminal actions rather than opening the way for more unstable hetero or homo ones.

In the end, Justice Anthony... (Below threshold)
Wethal:

In the end, Justice Anthony Kennedy will decide. No one else's vote matters in this country more than his.

The Full faith and credit c... (Below threshold)
kevino:

The Full faith and credit clause reads:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect there of.

Note that the second sentence gives Congress the right to place limits on these proceedings. Hence, for example, states have individual regulations and requirements for licenses to practice law. Being admitted to the bar in one state does not mean that you automatically get to practice law in all 50 states. Just because you have a license to carry concealed in your state doesn't automatically give you the ability to carry concealed in all 50 states. And it is the second sentence that gave congress the authority to pass the Defense of Marriage Act.

The real problem with gay marriage and Federal Law is the case of Lawrence v. Texas. It was that Supreme Court decision that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (MA-SJC) used to find that gay marriage was, basically, a right. That decision can also be interpretted as making the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Personal opinion: I agree with Justice Scalia in his dissent. Lawrence is a bad idea that was badly done and creates a raft of problems. For example, Scalia correctly pointed out that by striking down morality or social hygiene laws, the SCOTUS was opening the door to same-sex marriage (which did happen), adult incest, polygamy, and prostitution. You can take the MA-SJC decision, substitute "prostitution" for "homosexuality", and come up with a perfectly good legal argument for making prostitution legal. I don't think that liberals will let that happen, but I don't think they can come up with a reasonable arguement to the prevent it. So they will do what they always do: the Law means what we want it to mean, and it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. And, as in the Bowers decision that they trashed along the way, they reserve the right to change it any time they see fit.

Am I in favor of gay-marriage? Yes, if it's passed by state legislatures and the Defense of Marriage Act should be removed by the Congress.
Am I in favor of lunatics trashing the Constitution and our history of judicial review to get it done quick-and-dirty? No.

There used to be institutio... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

There used to be institutions that were men only or women only. People simply could not handle that a club could be gender exclusive (which is their right to be, btw). Now here is this institution of marriage, which again is exclusive, and again people want to teat that down too.

Except for the last sentenc... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Except for the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, I agree 100% with Captain Ned's post.

While I'm presonally o.k. with gay marriage, it seems pretty obvious that most Americans are not so I would the see solution being a compromise and I would propose pretty much what Captain Ned did.

P. Bunyon,So takin... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

P. Bunyon,

So taking the libertarian point of view. A child of 17 years, 364 days can not make their own decision on sexuality, but an 18 year old could? Kim was saying its all just shades of sexuality. Once you adopt that view point, it becomes a slippery slope. That one day changes it from a shade of sexuality to a horrible crime. That one day changes the ability to give consent and not. What a magical day.

Tlaloc,

If you don't understand the supreme courts free form role in deciding what amendments mean or not you haven't been paying attention. For example, consider the 14th and 15th amendment and then look at 'affirmative action'. Whatever the language, the supremes can make it mean something else.

kevino,

Re-reading the relevant constitution, I think you may be right in the defense of marriage act having more teeth. Looking at it another way, what if a state passed a law that any gay marriage is anulled when either participant enters their jurisdicition. Now we have two states with results that would seem to contradict each other. One says the two are joined, the other says the joining is dissolved like it never happened. Of course going down that path has its own pitfalls.

The ability for congress to determine the effect would seem to lie within the congressional power. As such, the defense of marriage act wording becomes relevant.

First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

"Churches are not required ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

"Churches are not required to sanction gay marriage and the definition of marriage reverts back to the religious underpinnings it's always had."

by: CaptainNed

What makes you think that this would be the end of it? It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU supported some gay couples legal suite against a major church for descrimination.

Liberalism/Communism are like a cancer, in that they can only survive so long as they have healthy tissue to feed on. Once the host dies, then the cancer dies. Lung cancer doesn't stop at the boaders of your lungs, it spreads to surrounding tissue. Liberalism must have a capital base to support it. In this case the base would be a functioning church, that the liberal crowd would like to see destroyed. What better way than to force the members to accept gay marriage as an acceptable doctrine, thus causing many of the members to leave.

Liberals are unable to create a functioning country on their own, so they have decided to highjack this one. The joke on them is, that once they succede in destroying capitalism, the country will die, just as the cancer patient dies.

Well yetanotherjohn,<... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Well yetanotherjohn,

I think you're turning it into an apples and oranges thing. Yes, there are tons of shades of gray, but sometimes we have to draw lines and we try to do it at the best place possible.

Some 12 year olds are more mature and better equipped to make sexual decisions than some 30 year olds, but overall we decided to draw the line somewhere and hopefully err on the side of caution.

Still I think it can be more easily established that while homosexuality and gay marriage harms no one, pedophilia clearly does and they are entirely different things- apples and oranges. Yes, some people do view homosexuals on the same level as all sexual deviants, but I don't think that's right at all-- at best it's just opinion, and only to leftists do opinion and conjecture become fact.

The libertarian in me says, if they aren't hurting anyone (other than possibly themselves) then let them do it. If you want to refute this argument from a libertarian standpoint, then you have to show who it hurts and how.

I do see the potential slippery slopes here, I just don't think your example was one of them.

I too would like the republ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I too would like the republican base to come alive for other matters such as illegal immigration, over spending, government growth, but the large picture is most americans, although tolerant of gays, do not respect their lifestyle. Let me help you dimmers; WW you are a bigot, homophobe, hate monger, yada, yada. ww

All of what Captain Ned sai... (Below threshold)

All of what Captain Ned said.

The gov't is not in the marriage business, period. Gov't should define civil unions (age and degree of blood relation ONLY) and leave the institution of marriage to the churches.

Do any of you know what mar... (Below threshold)
Judith:

Do any of you know what marrriage is...I don't anymore. I cannot tell my 20 year old son what the purpose of marriage is.

As to patrick's dance, is anyone PLANNING this state's future? Long ago, Massachusetts was ridiculed (and admired) for trying to maintain clean living. Mind, body and soul included. It seems to me the plan for Massachusetts is anything goes. Meaningless marriages, a safe haven for illegal aliens, criminals always given multiple chances to make things right, tax the public to death, declining education standards and no morality whatsoever (I couldn't define morality at this point). This state is a farce and the public is certainly not consulted about its future...or if they are (votes for lowering taxes, petitions for voting for or against gay marriage denied, etc), the overlords put such things aside and "do what THEY consider best" for their subjects.

USMC Pilot:Libera... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

USMC Pilot:
Liberalism/Communism are like a cancer, in that they can only survive so long as they have healthy tissue to feed on.
[snip]
Liberals are unable to create a functioning country on their own, so they have decided to highjack this one. The joke on them is, that once they succede in destroying capitalism, the country will die, just as the cancer patient dies.

"If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders--what would you tell him to do?"

"I ... don't know. What ... could he do? What would you tell him?"

"To shrug."

You may find the book from which this is an excerpt interesting.

"...but the large pictur... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

"...but the large picture is most americans, although tolerant of gays, do not respect their lifestyle. Let me help you dimmers; WW you are a bigot, homophobe, hate monger, yada, yada."


Don't fear gay marrige, WildWillie. It's not like any self-respecting homo would ever marry you.

yetanotherjohn:In ... (Below threshold)
kevino:

yetanotherjohn:

In light of Lawrence v Texas the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, believed that laws against homosexual marriage would not stand after this decision. He was right: the MA Supreme Judicial Court used Lawrence to make it's finding. Justice O'Connor in her concurring opinion disagreed, saying that laws against homosexual marriage could pass a rational basis test. Unfortunately, her opinion is based on wishful thinking, and she didn't provide any reasonable logic or argument.

The only reason that the Defense of Marriage Act stands is because appropriate test cases haven't found their way through the Federal court system yet. They probably will.

Judith - Do any of you... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

Judith - Do any of you know what marriage is...I don't anymore. I cannot tell my 20 year old son what the purpose of marriage is.

What a shame. It's people like you who are screwing up this country. You probably worked on your son's self esteem rather than teach him responsibility, discipline, and the consequences for particular behavior.

It's Natures Law or God's Law. Either way, two men or two women together are NOT in ANY way normal and I for one do NOT have to tolerate their intolerance of my normalcy.

I hate it how these people are forcing their behavior down our throats (yes, it's nothing more than behavior, abhorrent as it is) and attempting to mainstream it through books, magazines, schools, and now the legislature. Why should my children have to grow up faster than NORMAL so some person can feel comfortable about their abnormal behavior?

Why do I have to explain why those two men are holding hands or kissing to my 5 year old?

Why should I have to explain anal, oral sex and AIDS to my 6 year old?

Why should I have to deal with ANY of this because a group of people want their abnormal behavior construed as OK or normal when it is NOT?

Keep your stuff to yourself and I'm OK. I could care less what gays do to themselves behind closed doors, but force it upon my children and I am not going to stand for it or tolerate it.

I have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law and eventually my kids will figure it out, but not while they are so young. They are still kids.

Sheesh, all this gay shit pisses me off.

My thoughts FWIW.1... (Below threshold)
Matt:

My thoughts FWIW.

1) The Full Faith and Credit act has been ignored by government at all levels for many, many decades. A Drivers licens in one state isn't neccesarily valied in a different state. Some states issue "Farm" licenses to drivers that are 14 or so, and those are generally recognized in the issueing state. Same with concealed weapons carry permits. Same with teaching certificates, real estate licenses, hunting/fishing/boating licenses, various and sundry proffessional licenses (lawyers?) Etc.

2) I still beleive the best answer is for the state to stop defining, sanctioning, and regulating marriage. Some current marriages might not be legal in some states even with hetero couples. In some instances the marriage of very young girls to men would be illegal in one state, not neccesarily in another. Leave it to the religious institutes to sanction marriages, or not. The local govt should just record the paperwork like they do for many other contracts. You shouldn't have to get a license to get married, the darn thing doesn't even have an experiation date.

"You shouldn't have to g... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"You shouldn't have to get a license to get married, the darn thing doesn't even have an experiation date"

LOL - that was a good one!

BillyBob, you have made my ... (Below threshold)
Judith:

BillyBob, you have made my day. I AM THE GREAT LEADER OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SCREWED UP THIS COUNTRY. And no, you idiot, I have not sacrificed my child's mind, character or body for the nonsense that passes in this state for education. My point was that with rampant divorce, living together and "marriage" to everybody and anybody, what is the purpose of marriage?

I for one do NOT have to... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I for one do NOT have to tolerate their intolerance of my normalcy.

Please relate an incident where a gay person failed to tolerate your "normalcy".

I hate it how these people are forcing their behavior down our throats

I should avoid noting the obvious imagery here. But how is their behavior being forced upon you? Were you raped by a man?

Why should my children have to grow up faster than NORMAL so some person can feel comfortable about their abnormal behavior?

How does acknowledging the existence of gay people force your children to grow up? If anything, your attitude seems like it would retard their growth.

Why do I have to explain why those two men are holding hands or kissing to my 5 year old?

I don't know. Why do you? Do you explain why a man and woman are doing it? If so, it's the same explanation.

Why should I have to explain anal, oral sex and AIDS to my 6 year old?

I have no idea why you would choose to introduce your child to sexual positions commonly used by heterosexual couples, and diseases contracted by heterosexuals and drug users. Do you think that's responsible of you?

Why should I have to deal with ANY of this because a group of people want their abnormal behavior construed as OK or normal when it is NOT?

I'm sure people had a similar sentiment after seeing black people eating at the counter, or riding in the front of a bus.

Keep your stuff to yourself and I'm OK. I could care less what gays do to themselves behind closed doors, but force it upon my children and I am not going to stand for it or tolerate it.

If anyone forces gay "stuff" upon your children, you should report them to the police immediately.

I have a gay brother and a gay brother-in-law and eventually my kids will figure it out, but not while they are so young. They are still kids.

Great, so you are teaching them to be ashamed of their uncle. You should be so proud. When they "figure it out", they will either shun him, or resent you for being so small-minded. Either way, you are intentionally training your children to hate. Just so you're aware, and you're not caught by surprise when they resent you.

Sheesh, all this gay shit pisses me off.

I'm sure they feel the same way about you.

Bullshit. The Supreme Co... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

Bullshit. The Supreme Court gets to decide what the ammendment really means.

Tlaloc,

If you don't understand the supreme courts free form role in deciding what amendments mean or not you haven't been paying attention. For example, consider the 14th and 15th amendment and then look at 'affirmative action'. Whatever the language, the supremes can make it mean something else.

I was speaking directly to the creation of constitutional amendments, the supreme court has no say until they become law. As for open interpretation, it's not exactly dificult to close off loopholes "Marriage shall consist only of a union of one man and one woman." one sentence, rock solid.

And why the hell can't anyone type my screenname right, it's only 6 letters, hardly a spelling bee challenge.

This is a quality discussio... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

This is a quality discussion..for the most part folks are giving reasonable points with references..
..and this is a topic with obvious points of contention...Wizbang allows for a spectrum many places Left and Right only ridicule..
By the way..I support legal acknowledgment of common-law adult relationships as a binding union..(not a marriage)

"Billybob" ...is it your po... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

"Billybob" ...is it your position(no pun intended)that when your 6 year-old sees public hetro affection you feel obligated to discuss hetro oral/anal sex?

kevino: "Am I in favor of l... (Below threshold)

kevino: "Am I in favor of lunatics trashing the Constitution and our history of judicial review to get it done quick-and-dirty? No."

Brilliantly stated.

I fear nothing and no one. ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I fear nothing and no one. If you believe homosexuality is a practiced devian act, that does not mean I don't have compassion for the sinner. dd

Judith -- if BillyBob gets ... (Below threshold)

Judith -- if BillyBob gets around to going back and reading ALL of your original comment (as I hope he does), I think we'll all agree to have a laugh together -- he clearly read the firs tsentence and entirely misunderstood your slant --

An earlier post mentioned e... (Below threshold)
Allen:

An earlier post mentioned explaining aids, etc to his 6 year old child. Well, remember the Super Bowl when Janet's nipple was exposed. The fricking FCC went nuts, fined the TV station, etc. But then comes the ad about viragra, (sp) and 4 hour erections.

I and almost any parent or adult can explain what a nipple is to a 6 year old. Try explaining what a 4 hour erection is. I emailed that to the FCC, and never got any answers back. To this day, you can still see the TV ad's for a 4 hour erection. Why haven't the company producing that ad be fined? Who's in charge? That tells the answer to that question.

And what people do behind their doors is their business, not anyone else. But the sight of two men or women smooching in public should be outlawed.

But the squeaking wheel gets the grease, and the gay people are squeaking. IMO marriage should be between a man and a women. Civil union as one said, for hospital visits, surviver benefits, etc is ok, but not tax deductions, etc.

Billybob is obviously frust... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Billybob is obviously frustrated with the gay agenda. A little rub with some EVOO should settle him down.

Oh hell "pucker puss" (lee ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Oh hell "pucker puss" (lee lee) is back.
Gay marriage--PUKE.

I'm for throwing out the wh... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I'm for throwing out the whole system and starting over. (similar to Captain Ned, I believe)

Create a variable length of union equally available to both gay and hererosexual couples. If the couple (regardless of gender) get in line for their license and one is looking for a lifetime committment, but the other wants to look at the 2-year model, then perhaps the couple will think twice about whether they are as committed as they think that they are.

When enough people start thinking twice about the importance of the decision - and maybe communicating a bit more honestly - perhaps marriage will start meaning something again.

With religion out of the state's affairs make the state stay out of religous affairs and let individual faiths decide who can marry within their churches and who can't.

Were it not for procreation... (Below threshold)
kim:

Were it not for procreation, there would be no need for sexuality. For the satisfaction of the need to be most effective, its potential must be as broad as possible. Thus, with broad potential and the human gift of cultural creativity, almost anything can become acceptable. Now, whether it should, or whether it can persist, are entirely different questions; the first in the realm of spirituality and ethics, the second in the realm of evolutionary processes.
====================================

"one sentence, rock soli... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"one sentence, rock solid"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One sentence, rock solid. Unless it's an "assault" weapon, or can hold too many bullets, or is concealed, or uses a certain type of ammuntion, or can be repeatedly fired without releasing the trigger, or etc.

There is no such thing as "rock solid" in leftist legal land.

Hell, just yesterday five fascist, activist, leftist judges decided the court can legislate the responsibilities of a federal agency!

And I maintain that the fou... (Below threshold)
kim:

And I maintain that the founders put 'well-regulated' and 'shall not be infringed' in the same sentence so we would argue about it rather than shoot each other about it.
==================================

kim:If you are try... (Below threshold)
kevino:

kim:

If you are trying to say that "well-regulated" means to place limits (i.e. government regulations) on the the 2nd, you should research what was intended. You should also note that the militia clause is a dependent clause, only. And you should then research how the amendment was drafted.

In any case, if you are trying to imply that government regulation of firearms is needed to keep people from killing each other over simple arguments, then must have a terrible distrust of your fellow citizens.

I know that the purpose of ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I know that the purpose of drill was to diminish friendly fire casualties. I don't know all that other stuff you apparently think I should.
====================================

kim:You seem to be... (Below threshold)
kevino:

kim:

You seem to be implying that government action prevents people from shooting each other instead of engaging in discussion. That's a pretty low opinion of people.

You are inferring something... (Below threshold)
kim:

You are inferring something I am not implying. Read what I wrote, again.
==============================

I see I could explicate my ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I see I could explicate my point better. We, as a nation, argue about it. Where else in the world is a discourse this rich on this subject being held? Where else in the world is near universal suffrage for bearing arms better regulated than here? Well, Switzerland. Where else is personal defense with borne arms more universally possible and effective? Well, Afghanistan.

I maintain that it was the framing of the debate that has put us in this fortunate position. Nothing to do with government action.

Everywhere else, on the sticking point of who bears arms, people are shooting each other.
===============================

kim:Thank you. Yo... (Below threshold)
kevino:

kim:

Thank you. You meaning was unclear to me.

RE: "And I maintain that the founders put 'well-regulated' and 'shall not be infringed' in the same sentence so we would argue about it [the sentence] rather than shoot each other about it [the sentence]."
When I read this I had to ask why would we shoot each other over an argument, much less an argument over the sentence?

RE: "Everywhere else, on the sticking point of who bears arms, people are shooting each other."
I wish that were true. Unfortunately throughout the industrial world citizens long ago gave up their right to bare arms. There is no discussion or shooting. My in-laws live in England. They gave up the right to firearms long ago; they gave up the right to self-defense, even in their own homes; they are giving up the right to carry pocket knives; and they will probably give up the right to make sharp, pointy sticks if told by their government it would be good for them.

Cheers. Got to go home and clean the guns.

In England, they gave up th... (Below threshold)
kim:

In England, they gave up the sticking point awhile ago.

What I really meant was that we would continue to argue pro and con about what 'well-regulated' and 'shall not be infringed' mean, and, because of the debate we have an excellent compromise between too much infringement and too little regulation.

And thanks for recognizing that I don't have such a poor opinion of people.
==================================

I don't agree with the idea... (Below threshold)
kevino:

I don't agree with the idea that we have an "excellent compromise". Federal Law barely acknowledges the right at all and makes very little effort to defend individuals against over-reaching by state and local authorities.

For example, notice in my writing above that liberals will throw around half of the Fair Faith and Credit Clause to state that marriage licenses issued by one state must be recognized by other states. They will almost always point to drivers licenses and state that it's the same thing. Most will make blanket statements about how "States must recognize other state's licenses." Fine. Now ask the same person if that applies to concealed carry permits. Oh, all of the sudden the Fair Faith and Credit Clause doesn't mean that states always have to recognize other state's licenses.

In NH, for example, we have a very good law on the subject, but in neighboring Massachusetts, for example, carry permits are discretionary by local officials. Abuse and arbitrary limits are wide-spread. Ayoob, the famous writer on firearms and deadly force, points out that he and his father had pistol permits in New York city because they were in the jewelry business. Similary, celebrities and their body guards can get permits, but ordinary citizens, even those with extensive training, cannot, even if they are in danger (e.g. actively being stalked).

Preventing individuals from owning and carrying arms effectively takes away their right to self-defense.

And a lot of this is based on a lack of faith in ordinary people. One of the best writers on this idea is Snyder's A Nation of Cowards

Given the qualifications required of [concealed carry] permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will.

Anyone who hasn't read this article should read it and think about it. It is an excellent essay.

Let me explain 'excellent'.... (Below threshold)
kim:

Let me explain 'excellent'. Our compromise is better than the arrangement anywhere else, therefore it 'excells'. I agree it is far from perfect.
====================================

Now, should you be able to ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Now, should you be able to defend your relationship with your soulmate? Is that part of personal defense?
==================================

RE: "Now, should you be abl... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "Now, should you be able to defend your relationship with your soulmate? Is that part of personal defense?"

That's a stretch. A relationship is based on feelings between the parties themselves. If another love interest catches the attention of one of the parties, then the other person (or persons) cannot do anything about it because you can't change another person's feelings. In addition, you have to ask how strong the relationship was to begin with.

In the area of self defense, we're talking about the imminent and unavoidable risk of grave bodily harm to ourselves or to an innocent third party.

In any case, this has little to do with the topic: gay marriage.

Actually, I was asking if y... (Below threshold)
kim:

Actually, I was asking if you could defend your marriage with your borne arms; and what if it were gay?
=============================

Again, I could be more clea... (Below threshold)
kim:

Again, I could be more clear. By 'defense of marriage' I didn't mean defend illusory possession of a spouse, I meant defend the fact of marriage itself. For example, suppose you found the perfect partner, yet such partnership was despised by others. Could you defend that partnership with borne arms?
=================================

RE: "Again, I could be more... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "Again, I could be more clear."
Then I suggest that you focus less on trying to be cute and work on clarity.

RE: "For example, suppose you found the perfect partner, yet such partnership was despised by others. Could you defend that partnership with borne arms?"
Many such relationships exist. Some live, and some die. As I said, a relationship exists between two people, you cannot defend it by force, and what goes on outside doesn't really matter. (If it did, then the relationship wasn't that good to begin with."

As a wise person once said, "it's never about them anyway."




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy