Andrew Sullivan and others twisted and contorted to assure readers that what happens in Massachusetts stays in Massachusetts. He’s wrong. Gay marriage will be imposed not by the peoples representatives, but via the bench. Funny I was saying the same thing last month when it was New York, today it’s California.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A judge ruled Monday that California’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state’s highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
“It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,” Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state’s historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.Judicial activism – it’s whats for dinner…
Update: Law professor Eugene Volokh notes that what some have, in the past, called “hysterical,” “emotional scare tactic[s],” or “canards” may well have been quite reasonable predictions. Interestingly he’s not referring to the standard denials of same sex marriage advocates, rather he’s looked back to the Equal Rights Amendment era.
Suzy: Awwww c’mon, there’s nothing wrong with sarcasm — so long as it is used to emphasize a legitimate point and not as a substitute for the ability to make one.
Now the difference between “right” and “privilege” —
There are two concepts of marriage: one is a statutory construct, the other is the relationship between (two) people that is (theoretically) protected by (the penumbra of) the Bill of Rights (u.e., “privacy,” “freedom of association,” “libery & the pursuit of happiness”).
The Massachusetts court said simply that there is no basis in the MASSACHUSETTS Constitution to deny the statutory “right” to marriage to gays. In other words, if the statute grants the privilege to straight people, gays have the right to demand the same privilege.
No federal court has yet to suggest that the Bill of Rights does for gays what the Massachusetts Constitution does. Perhaps the concern that it will is what is driving a great deal of this debate.
Aside: Did everyone detect the monumental contribution made to this discussion by “Jerry,” who snuck in, tossed a dud, and slinked out? Way to go!
“Politically, the gay marriage folks would be smarter to advocate a different word for legal unions of same sex couples.”
I absolutely agree with this. I also think it is a mistake that they didn’t go the civil union route, if marriage was their ultimate goal, they still should have used this as a stepping stone. Right now things are moving too fast and too quickly for the majority of people.
“Does the Civil War ring a bell?”
Did you by any chance ever take a US history class? The debate over slavery didn’t begin with the Civil War, it did end there, but the debate was in the state houses and legislatures and in the US congress for more than two generations, and the abolitionists were making strides.
Every state at the signing of the constitution permitted the ownership of slaves, but within about 10 years, the abolitionists position was taking root in the North, and all the Northern states had abolished it. Then you had the various debates over whether new states would be permitted to be slave or free states (think Missouri compromise, Mason-Dixon line etc-you know those debates that occure in CONGRESS well before the Civil War).
The South absolutely wanted to hang onto its slaves, because unlike the North its economy was tied much more to the ownership of slaves, but the South could see that the abolitionists were starting to win the debate, that is why they were scared of Lincoln. The Civil War started before any slaves were freed (as a matter of fact the Emancipation Proclomation only freed the slaves in the Confederacy, the slaves in the union slave states weren’t freed).
But if you think that slavery debates began and ended with the Civil War, then you need to go re read your history books, the debates began before the constitution was even written, and gradually the abolitionist’s case was made to the people, and they supported it.
Had the abolistionists just given up, and not made their case to the people, our history may have looked a lot different.
Judicial activism MY ASS! In grade school we learn that the judiciary decides whether or not laws which are written by Congress are constitutional, it’s their job.
We shouldn’t be forced into a position where we have to write into a state constitution what the definiation of marriage is!! That’s ridiculous, but we are forced because of a vocal minority that wants special rights for themselves. The definition of marriage has been around for centuries, what gives some judge the power to change it?
I agree with others here that a simple change of wording would make all the difference in the gays agenda. Civil unions I can understand, but marriage between 2 men and/or 2 women is a contradiction in terms. And its not something I want my kids associating with when they learn about marriage.
Steve J.:
This constant and offensive comparison to slavery and blacks is going to come back and bite you in the ass.
Patrick:
Finding rights that don’t exist encompassed by the constitution is judicial activisim.
Mike:
They won’t go for a simple change in wording. We already voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. We’ve had domestic partnerships since 2002. Link. Schwarzenegger says he wants to see what happens in the courts first before changing the constitution. I predict it will be on ballot before the supreme court hears it
Folks, slavery in the U.S. did not end because of a court decision. It ended because of the 13th Amendment. Get your facts straight.
-S-, you have touched on this in some of your previous posts, and I’ll be daring and go a bit farther with it… I think there is at least a fraction of the gay activist community that would very much like to lose on this issue, and I think they are intentionally aggrevating the situation to make sure that happens. Why? So they can claim victim status. They don’t want equal rights; they want special privileges.
If gays expect to win on this issue, they’ve got to get control of the agenda and take a more rational approach. Unfortunately, as in the case of the Democratic Party, right now the moonbats among them are in control.
Cousin Dave also Slavery did not end over the course of 20 or even 30 years.
It took generations for the abolitionists to take control of the debate. The majority of that debate took place in the legislative branches, not the courts.
The Civil Rights movement was also a generations thing, and the majority of rights won, were also won not through the courts but through debate and the legislative (and executive) branches.
Gay marriage has maybe been a prominent issue for about 10 years now. Instead of just running around squalling “biggots” maybe they should seek to use some diplomacy and actually work to make a case for their position, instead of just calling the other side names.
>If you are so all-fired intent on having gay >marriage, then win that right through changing >the law
Um, so exactly WHAT law currently forbids it in Calif?
Blogdog said:
They already have the same rights as straight couples – they can marry anyone of the opposite sex.
And, heterosexuals would still have the same rights as gays if same-sex marriage were legalized: they could marry someone of either gender.
It’s not about “Special Rights”.
>Marrage [sic] isn’t about a piece of paper to >file away or about a tax break; it’s about a >commitment to make and raise babies.
Oh, really! Hmmm, please show me any law in any locae that mentions “a cmmitment to make babies”!
So then, you believe that infertile people should be forbidden to marry? Obviously you do. You believe that senior citizens, past menopause, should be forbidden to marry for companionship in their twilight years? Obviously you do!
Why don’t you tell Republican senator Elizabeth Dole that she needs to get divorced RIGHT NOW, because she has not lived up to her “commitment to make babies”!
BREED FOR THE MOTHERLAND!!–where have we heard THIS before?
[Susan C] I don’t take Dave’s comments literally. What I take from it is, at least with a man & a woman, the normal consequence of “fooling around” as man & wife is having a baby. (You’re right, infertile couples are the exception to this rule.)
That powerful “risk” has a funny way of putting the brakes on frivolous match-ups and dubious unions. Because the two getting together have to know that there’s a good chance that they’ll have a baby whether they want it or not. This implicitly values marriage (as well as any other long-term relationship).
With same-sex couples, on the other hand, the chances of that same behavior resulting in a baby is precisely zero.
There’s no pressure whatsoever not to marry. It would be financially stupid if all manner of “couples” — both legitimate gay couples and “fraudulent” hetero couples — didn’t marry in order to take advantage of the copious financial rewards of married life. The potential for abuse (given no regular social norms to restrict behavior) would be huge.
Doesn’t that have anything at all to bear on the issue, or is this just more irrelevancy from the same “majority rules” tyranny?
Where does this creation of special rights end? Will it ever end?
What “Special Rights” do you mean? If same-sex marriage were legal, EVERYONE would have the exact same right to take part in it, just as you claim EVERYONE can now marry someone of the opposite sex. Just because you have no interest in partaking of it does not mean a right is not there.
“Special Rights” would mean that you HAD to be gay in order to benefit from it. I currently know of NO case where someone is asked “are you gay? If not, you can’t do X”, although there ARE plenty of instances where people are asked “Are you heterosexual? If not, you can’t do X” [e.g. serving in the US Military, donating blood, getting certain security clearances, working in certain companies, etc.].
If anything, heterosexuals are the group who currently have “special rights”. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not give anyone “Special rights” since ALL people would have the same right to marry a same-sex person.
Although, along the special rights issues, what does marriage give a couple that a civil union doesn’t?
[Randy]
When a judge rules the way you want to, that’s justice. When they don’t, that’s judicial activism.
Judicial activism is real. It’s a continuous pattern of behavior driven by certain law schools and judicial circuits who feel entitled to legislate from the bench in order to change society, not safeguard it. Hey, sometimes I like their decisions. But I realize that the way they go about it is just not proper.
[Patrick] Judicial activism MY ASS! In grade school we learn that the judiciary decides whether or not laws which are written by Congress are constitutional, it’s their job.
C’mon, this is just being naive. A raging judicial activist judge obviously can’t do it alone; he or she teams up with a willing lawyer and a “plaintiff” who files a tailor-made Trojan Horse lawsuit with the Court. When it is denied by the lower courts & then appealed — only Appeals court rulings typically have the desired “reach” — the judges on the bench have the opportunity, through their ability to overturn decisions, to change the de facto law of the land.
The “unconstitutional” card is just a sideshow. It’s great for them when these opportunities pop up (to invalidate entire laws) as well, but it’s not the only bread & butter of a judicial activist.
[Randy]
Plain and simple: if you aren’t gay, this doesn’t have a single thing to do with you. Your marriage is just as stable as it was yesterday. If it isn’t stable, it’s not the fault of gays in California. If you dislike gay marriage so, the solution is obvious: don’t marry a gay person.
Thanks Dave Conway for shooting down this myth. Because we are a society that believes in equal rights for everyone – gay and straight – they will legalize same-sex marriage for all same-sex couples, not just for gay couples. Correct?
Besides, AFAIK there’s no scientific “test” to tell whether someone is straight or gay — it’s whatever the person says it is. So they couldn’t restrict the law to gays even if they wanted to. Therefore everyone will be able to marry a same-sex partner. For this reason the decision affects all of us in a very real way, not just those of us who identify themselves as GLBT.
>Politically, the gay marriage folks would be >smarter to advocate a different word for legal >unions of same sex couples. If the eskimos can >have seven words for snow, surely we can have >two words for marriage.
Most gay peolpe I’ve talked to actually agree with this, HOWEVER, there are over 1000 rights currently bestowed by “marriage” that would NOT come part and parcel with a “union”, such as inheritance laws (yes, you can will your property to a same-sex partner, but s/he has to pay a lot of taxes on it that a “spouse” would not), Social Security survivors’ benefits, life insurance, adoption laws, and even car insurance rates where “married” people pay less than “single” people. Unless there was a clause wherein all of THESE rights went hand in hand with the “union”, then nothing short of marriage will be demanded by the gay community.
My brother has been with his partner for 22 years–probably longer than some of the Right-wingers posting here have been alive–and yet in the eyes of the law, they are two “single” men with no connection to each other. They both pay hefty Social Security taxes, but won’t have access to each other’s when one of them dies. They both pay higher “single male” car insurance rates. His partner, who owns his own business, has to pay exhorbitant health insurance premiums because he can’t get a spousal policy through my brother that would cost far less.
Meanwhile, I could run down the street and marry the first street bum I found (as long as he was male) and BOOM, instantly he gets over 1000 rights, including my insurance, Social Security, access to my private documents and hospital rooms if I were ever in one, etc.
It is THESE rights, moreso than the word “marriage”, that gay people are fighting for and being denied. They don’t care if a church they don’t belong to refuses to “mary” them in a religious ceremony; they just want to same rights as a monogamous, committed couple, that any newlyweds assume before the wedding cake is even cut.
Susan you have a misunderstanding of what Civil unions are then.
Civil unions in Vermont permit all those legal things that Vermont is able to bestow (social security is the one that they can’t, but then that is a Federal matter not a state matter, and Federal law currently does define marriage as being between a man and a woman).
So once again, if the government has civil unions what does marriage bring them that a civil union doesn’t?
Why is it marriage that they want? What is it about marriage that they have to have it, when civil unions are on the table.
Look at various polls, ask people if they support civil unions, and the majority of people polled say yes, change it to marriage, and the trend totally reverses.
It is because most people see something in the institution of marriage that they want to keep-so back to my earlier argument. Gays would have been much smarter to have stuck with seeking civil unions-the idea of civil unions doesn’t bring the threat to the instution of marriage that many see in gay marriages, and it also would give gays in favor of full out marriage a bully pulpit to argue from, but right now, the people on the “no gay marriage side” feel like they are having the other sides position crammed down their throats without the chance to debate.
Do gays want the legal benefits that come from marriage (which can easily be given through recognized civil unions) or is it marriage, and what is it that marriage brings that a recognized civil union wouldn’t?
mantis:
Ah yes, the sanctity! I have taken it into consideration, and dismissed it as both irrelevant and hypocritical. It is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with law.
Of course it doesn’t – we agree – but what does that prove? It’s the law that follows society’s consensus of what is decent and proper, not the other way around. You don’t influence what society thinks is right or proper by changing the law, you change what society thinks is right & proper… then the law changes.
Here’s where the sanctity of marriage comes in: it may shape society’s consensus of what a proper definition of marriage ought to be.
(The law then follows the consensus. Ninth Circuit legal jujitsu notwithstanding, there is nothing on the horizon to indicate that a law pointing either way would be “unconstitutional” unless the applicable constitutions themselves were changed to prohibit defining it one way or the other.)
[McCain:]
Bullwinkle has indeed made an interesting argument, but it begs the point. His argument is that marriage is defined in law, which brings us full circle to the point itself, which is: is the law constitutional or not.
You’re framing the question as if it’s a referendum on whether the law “restricting” marriage to a man and a woman is constitutional.
First – the question isn’t whether the law is “constitutional”, but whether it is explicitly unconstitutional. This may be what you meant, but since there’s a semantic difference I wanted to be sure we’re all talking about the same thing.
Second – we are pointing out the obvious: that society’s recognition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is not an unconstitutional act. Nor does a legal statute clarifying that recognition violate the Constitution. The law is, quite simply, a fundamental recognition of the definition of marriage. It’s not really a restriction in the sense that brother-sister, father-daughter or 1st cousin marriages are “restrictions”, because all of those fall within the established definition of marriage.
Even polygamy – which may look similar to the same-sex case but isn’t – is more of a restriction than a redefinition. After all, in traditional (one-man many-woman) marriages, the women are all married to one man but not to each other. Each marriage is a separate contract between one man and one woman.
It is within our rights as a collective society to retain the historic definition (not “restriction”) of marriage through the law. Nor, BTW, does this definition restrict marriage to heterosexuals. We often lose sight of this fact lately (because those advocating same-sex marriage have begun to scoff at this of their own volition) but [self-declared] homosexuals have every right to pair up with whomever they wish, or – if they choose – to marry. Civil unions seem designed to answer every conceivable need for same-sex couples except the right to demand that the rest of society recognize them with equal status to that of married couples. (If I’m wrong here – and there are reasons I’m leaving out – then I truly need to be set straight on this.)
If our laws … are to take into account the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce legal?
If for no other reason than someone might discover, after they get married, that they are gay. (Why should I have to tell you this?) Because marriage is not a prison. Neither should you let the route of judicial activism become yours.
Q: [from wavemaker] Do you really think that the government of Canada is a Theocracy?
A: Since Canada is driven more by ideology than theology (or the will of the majority), that would make it more of an “ideocracy” than a theocracy (or democracy).
(Sorry 🙂
Legalizing same-sex marriage would not give anyone “Special rights” since ALL people would have the same right to marry a same-sex person.
So all people would have this right? Well I am already married, do I have this new right to marry a same-sex person now? I want that right too, but I want the right to maintain my current marriage to an opposite sex person. You say I can’t? Well I’ll sue and have that new right granted to me by some sympathetic judge! Now we have the legalization of multiple marriages. You say that can’t happen because it is just stupid, well think about the first time someone proposed 2 men marrying each other, I bet most people found that stupid (and still do).
Marriage is not a right!!! It is not something you are guaranteed by birth. If you’re an ass and no one can stand you, it’s not like you can sue to get a spouse. A blind person is denied the privilege of driving a car, children are denied the privilege of pretty much anything (with the exception of abortions), and 2 men are denied the privilege of getting married to each other!
Yeah, these arguments and situations are far-fetched, loony, and over-the-top. But so are the insuations from those on the left that people against gay marriage are biggots or are denying gays a basic human right.
Judicial activism
Activist judges
A raging judicial activist judge obviously can’t do it alone; he or she teams up with a willing lawyer and a “plaintiff” who files a tailor-made Trojan Horse lawsuit with the Court. When it is denied by the lower courts & then appealed — only Appeals court rulings typically have the desired “reach” — the judges on the bench have the opportunity, through their ability to overturn decisions, to change the de facto law of the land.
Well, legal conspiracy theories aside (your trojan horse theory requires the collusion of 3000 “willing” plaintiffs and lawyers who filed suits challenging prop 22), I feel I should note that the judge in question is a Catholic who was appointed by a Republican. When will Republicans stop appointing these activist judges anyway?
Civil unions in Vermont permit all those legal things that Vermont is able to bestow (social security is the one that they can’t, but then that is a Federal matter not a state matter, and Federal law currently does define marriage as being between a man and a woman).
So once again, if the government has civil unions what does marriage bring them that a civil union doesn’t?
You JUST ANSWERED this–Federal benefits. Most of the 1000 benefits that same-sex couples are denied are FEDERAL. Civil unions do not and will not achieve those rights. Now, if the US Gov wants to rewrite all of the code and change it to “spouse of civil partner”, then you’ve got an argument, but until then, the answer to your question is just what you say: The 1000 or so Federal rights that come about the instant someone signs a marriage certificate.
Until this injustice is righted, the same-sex marriage crowd is not going to roll over and play dead. Britney Spears and her 8-hour marriage in Vegas does FAR more to harm “the institution of marriage” than any gay couple does, and yet she and her “husband” got those 1000 rights for their publicity stunt that have eluded my brother for over 20 years.
I typo’ed
“Now, if the US Gov wants to rewrite all of the code and change it to “spouse of civil partner”, “
Make that SPOUSE *OR* CIVIL PARTNER
Well I am not sure what Catholicism has to do with it, as John Kerry has proved being baptised and saying you are one, doesn’t mean you actually believe the proponents the church teaches.
As for your question about the GOP appointing activist judges, I can’t help but wonder the same thing, I would much prefer to see more Scalia and Thomas types on the bench than the screw ups like Souter, who is an activist judge, so maybe the GOP should do a better job of choosing its nominations.
Susan exactly what is stopping them from seeking civil unions in the federal level.
I said government, I didn’t specifiy which, and California, Vermont and Massachussettes are all state, changing things at the level isn’t going to do a damn thing to get Federal recognition, you do that at the Federal level.
So once again-what does having a government recognized civil union (just think any government) fail to give them that marriage does? What is it that gays/lesbians are really after? Is it the benefits or is it the institution?
Thanks Dave Conway for shooting down this myth. Because we are a society that believes in equal rights for everyone – gay and straight – they will legalize same-sex marriage for all same-sex couples, not just for gay couples. Correct?
Yes, just as marriage right now is not limited to hetersexual “couples”, and *any* man can marry *any* woman (and do) for reasons such as Green Cards or other spousal benefits. Yes, people could abuse it, and “marry” a roommate just for the benefits, but that’s no different than the many who marry an opposite-sex friend (or stranger) for such reasons today.
Just because a few people abuse the system now is no reason to deny a class of people the right to marry their lifepartner. any abuses that could happen under same-sex marriage are already happening with opposite-sex marriage, make no mistake! Crack down on the problems, not social progress.
Way to go Ardy!
“It is within our rights as a collective society to retain the historic definition (not “restriction”) of marriage through the law.”
It is also within our rights as a collective society to change the historic definition of civil marriage through the law, as has been done often. For example, polygamy and bigamy were matters of local law until the late 19th century, allowed in some places and disallowed in others. In 1967, an activist court had the audacity to declare bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. Indeed, the definition of legal CIVIL marriage in our young country has constantly evolved.
I find the conversation about rights versus priviledges to miss the main point. Driving a car is truly NOT a right. However, if a state passed a law that said gays (or blacks) cannot drive, we would all be glad when that is tossed out based on equal protection under the law. Such it is with gay marriage. The challenge is to apply priviledges equally, which is of course what the constitution requires.
Here is the problem: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
McCain,
What equal protection are gays being denied?? There is no right granted them to marry another gay person of the same sex. There just isn’t. It is not defined anywhere.
I have the privilege to marry a woman and we obtained the license and were married. Any other male out there is allowed that privilege as well. Marriage is not a right!
It’s not about “Special Rights”
Sure it is. You want to change the definition of equal protection and marriage to accommodate a special group.
And driving is not a right. Please respond to the content of my post.
Your argument would apply equally well to interracial marriage. You would simply say that neither blacks nor whites were denied any rights since they could legally marry someone of the same race. In other words, the definition of marriage at the time was between a man and a woman of the SAME RACE. So I don’t think your argument has great sway.
Susan C:
Oh, really! Hmmm, please show me any law in any locae that mentions “a cmmitment to make babies”!
There are hundreds of years of public policy, laws, and regs in this country to promote the welfare of children and families. Go to your local library and knock yourself out.
So then, you believe that infertile people should be forbidden to marry?
Let’s retire this lame argument. I don’t want to expand or diminish the definition of marriage. Oh, and I see we are back to the if we don’t agree with your poorly thought out position, we are nazis. bigot.
Kent:
If same-sex marriage were legal, EVERYONE would have the exact same right to take part in it, just as you claim EVERYONE can now marry someone of the opposite sex.
Sorry, won’t work. The point is to NOT expand the definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would not give anyone “Special rights” since ALL people would have the same right to marry a same-sex person.
Sure it would. You are now giving special rights to gay couples that they previously didn’t have and that you aren’t giving to non-couples.
Susan C:
yes, you can will your property to a same-sex partner, but s/he has to pay a lot of taxes on it that a “spouse” would not
With a spouse, you are just delaying the paying of the estate taxes. If your assets are large enough to be hit by estate taxes, you should consider estate planning.
Social Security survivors’ benefits, life insurance,
That’s nice but who absorbs the cost of paying out extra benefits? Single people?
adoption laws,
Most Americans prefer adoption by a nuclear family composed of a mother and father.
and even car insurance rates where “married” people pay less than “single” people.
There are so many other ways to get a discount in insurance rates, this is just silly: Age, good driver, certain professions, lojack, etc. If, as you say, your brother has been hooked up for over 22 years, I doubt he is paying a “single male” rate. He’s not in the age group that require higher rates single males.
They both pay hefty Social Security taxes, but won’t have access to each other’s when one of them dies. . . . His partner, who owns his own business, has to pay exhorbitant health insurance premiums because he can’t get a spousal policy through my brother that would cost far less.
Your brother doesn’t have any more problems than, I, as a single person do. You want to ameliorate your brother’s financial burden by increasing mine. And you want to do so by bastardizing both the constitution and definition of marriage.
McCain, the definition of marriage did not change with interracial marriage. Opposite sexes were still going to get married. You are asking that we change the definition of marriage and create rights for gay people. Sorry, I don’t buy the equal protection angle you’re peddling.
Well I am not sure what Catholicism has to do with it, as John Kerry has proved being baptised and saying you are one, doesn’t mean you actually believe the proponents the church teaches.
And just how many Catholic Americans do you think follow the Church’s stance on every single issue? The Church is opposed to contraception and abortion, but also the death penalty. The Church supported America’s role in the Cold War, but not the War in Iraq. The Church calls for moral living, but defines that as social justice which looks out for the poor. You’re fooling yourself if you believe that handful of our Bishops who claimed Catholicism was only about one issue, abortion.
And save the snideness about Kerry not being a real Catholic. He went to Church more often than our publically pious president, who doesn’t attend weekly services.
It’s not about “Special Rights”
Sure it is. You want to change the definition of equal protection and marriage to accommodate a special group.
No offense, but typing that sentence should’ve made your head explode. Applying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a technique that strikes down uneven or “special” rights and instead ensures, that’s right, equal treatment before the law.
Someone else has already said this, but it bears repeating. Homosexuals aren’t the ones asking for “special rights” here. They’re merely asking that the same rules and rights that apply to everyone else — in this case, marriage, and all the rights and responsibilities that come with it — be applied to them as well. Right now, they’re second-class citizens. Taxed like all the rest of us, but denied the right to marry, to serve in the military, etc.
Kevin you just proved my point, what does the judges Catholicism have to do with it?
Once again, everyone on the left repeat after me, “Marriage is not a right, it’s privelege.” You cannot be denied a right that does not exist. Gays are not denied the right the be married, they can marry if they conform to the requirements that meet the legal definiton of marriage. Stop calling it a right. The right is to apply for a marriage license, to be granted, and that’s the keyword here, granted, the privilege to marry you must meet the requirements. Rights are not granted. Military service is not a right, they won’t let you in if have flat feet, that’s not discrimination, it’s a requirement of military service you must meet to be granted the questionable privilege of being shot at. The sooner you stop confusing the issue and start admitting the facts the sooner this be resolved. If you have to get a license to do it, whatever it is, it’s no a right. Did you all have a hard time understanding it on that childhood trip to Disenyland that you must be a certain height to ride the rides?
Fine bullwinkle, then do you have a problem with states banning interracial marriage? And if not, why not? Saying “it isn’t a right” doesn’t really get us anywhere. And I hope that you will try fielding my question about a state denying gays (or blacks) the priviledge to drive — how you see that priviledge differing from the marriage priviledge.
And Mike, I don’t get the distinction you are making between sex and race. If you don’t see that the definition of civil marriage changed in 1967, as it has often changed throughout history, we’ll just agree that we don’t have a foundation for debate. Oppose races could not marry in some states before 1967. Opposite sexes cannot marry in some states in 2005.
I’m not saying that it’s a case right or wrong for gay or interracial marriage, only that marriage is not a right. Like I said earlier, I couldn’t care less if gays marry, it doesn’t effect me one way or the other. Ditto for interracial marriage, my last wife was a half black latina from El Salvador, and a Catholic too, so interfaith marriage is no problem for me. What I do care about is activist judges who should know better approaching the issue from the perspective that marriage is a right and people on the left claiming it is. People of all races, creeds, sexual preferences, and religions are denied driver’s licenses all the time, for being unable to meet the requirements. Right now the privilege of marriage has some requirements that same sex marriages don’t meet. If you want that changed vote for someone that will change it. But don’t try to make it a question of rights, it’s not and never has been.
Having read most of the posts so far, I have come to the conclusion that logic is lost on those who will not consider it. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and the segregationists of the 50’s and 60’s were a similar lot, but destined for extinction.
It is patently wrong for the majority to treat a minority differently just because it disapproves of some characteristic that the minority has, be it race, sex, religion or (GASP!) sexual orientation.
Bullwinkle,
Your “privilege” argument is still-born.
To say that the government may discriminate in the treatment of certain classes of people merely by using the term “privilege” as opposed to “right” is asinine.
The equal protection clause states that ALL people should be treated equally by the government, unless there is at least a rational basis for treating them differently.
The only basis for not allowing gay people to marry is that “it says so in the Bible.” None of the other arguments dreamed up by the conservatives make any sense (as shown by the thoughtful opinion of Judge Kramer). ((BTW, how many of you have actually READ the opinion??))
Then you’re saying that if we keep anyone from obtaining a driver’s, marriage, fishing, medical or pilot’s license for any reason we are practicing discrimination and depriving them of their rights. Failure to meet the legal requirements is no reason to deny someone a license in your opinion. The only stillborn arguement here is that marriage is a right. It’s not, if you want to continue to say it is show us some proof. Our rights are laid out clearly in the constitution, that would be a good place to start looking. Get back to me when you find it, I’d love to read that one. It’s probably right between the one about judges not being able to revoke driver’s licenses because of traffic violations and the one that says lawyers can’t be disbarred for misconduct.
– For those of you that have never studied the federalist papers, nor understand the whole purpose of the “federation” in the first place, that and the “forgotten” amendmenst to the bill of rights, the XI and the X, they would be clarifying reading before pontificating in a public forum. The Fed has zero power other than those it is given by unanimity from the states. The federal government is orginized to act at the behest of the state federation, and as such has only the soveiregnty given it at any given time by state agreement and mandate, and not one iota more. If you are unaware, you are a citizen of your state first and one of the United states second.
– The fact that the Fed, and worse the 9th circuit and the SC, has taken on the role of legislation surruptitiously, as well as the over zealous activities of the Fed itself for the last 100 years, leads most people to lose sight of this. And of course Washington likes it just fine that way…..
– Of course the problem is that at some point the electorate will get pissed enough to reassert the desires of the majority and halt this law making rigamarole through the bench. The Dems, mainly the liberals, are doing through the courts what they can’t do through the ballot box, because they hate the idea of majority rule…..
– Of course the problem is that at some point the electorate will get pissed enough to reassert the desires of the majority and halt this law making rigamarole through the bench. The Dems, mainly the liberals, are doing through the courts what they can’t do through the ballot box, because they hate the idea of majority rule…..
Thank You Big Bang Hunter!!
Thank you for the civics lesson, Mr. Hunter. And I do concur with the strict construction view of the constitution, something Scalia prefers to call “original intent,” and I therefore believe that the reserve clause really means what it says. But none of that is important to this debate.
The reason none of that is important to this debate is that the debate is about equal protection, which is something specifically found in the constitution. In other words, you don’t have to infer it from the constitution — you can plainly see it. I posted an excerpt of the equal protection clause earlier, but here is section 1 of Amendment XIV in its entirely:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Others in this thread have pointed out the many ways that same sex partnerships do not have the same equal protections as opposite sex partnerships, so we don’t have to rehash that. We have a situation where a state is offering opposite sex couples perks that same sex couples are not able to receive, by offering a special status under law called a marriage. That is the constitutional case.
Gee, that would mean that they can’t deny a blind person from getting a driver’s license if you apply it that way. incest laws are all invalid, you can’t allow non-incestuous relationships and make a law against incestuous ones. For some reason I can’t quite put my finger on I don’t think that works. Maybe you can explain it to me.
No offense, but typing that sentence should’ve made your head explode. Applying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a technique that strikes down uneven or “special” rights and instead ensures, that’s right, equal treatment before the law.
Oh, of course you meant to be offensive. Not only am I familiar with the Equal Protection and DP clauses, unlike you, I can write a sentence that makes sense. Is this your special technique, i.e., write gibberish so people can’t respond?
Someone else has already said this, but it bears repeating. Homosexuals aren’t the ones asking for “special rights” here. They’re merely asking that the same rules and rights that apply to everyone else — in this case, marriage, and all the rights and responsibilities that come with it — be applied to them as well. Right now, they’re second-class citizens. Taxed like all the rest of us, but denied the right to marry, to serve in the military, etc.
Sure you are. You conveniently ignore the fact that the EP does not bar all discrimination so long as it is rationally related to legitimate state interest. You are not entitled to strict scrutiny. It is your burden to show the law against gay marriage is not reasonably related to any legitimate State interest or purpose. You have the burden to negate every conceivable basis which might support traditional marriage. Those are the rules and requirements that apply to everyone else who makes an EP/DP challenge.
McCain:
And are you throwing out Constitutional law? You well know the standards of review and burdens of proof are different for race based and gender discrimination.