Redstate

Hopefully same-sex marriage advocates will see these successes and finally abandon the judicial activism strategy. My worst fear in this area is that they will continue pushing until a federal court finally does overturn a state constitutional amendment or the Defense of Marriage Act, and then all hell will break loose with the end result being the ratification of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

It was a good arrangement. He was a bachelor, I was a bachelor. I had insurance, he needed some. My plan provided for domestic partners, and I didn't have one. So I signed him up on my plan- he basically had socialized medicine through me. He still owes me big time for that - except mostly what he got from it was free Adderall, his ADD medication, which he shared with me. Good times! There's nothing like Adderall for staying up all night getting hammered in Santa Monica.

Oh, and lest any of you get any ideas, we were most definitely straight. He had a string of girlfriends, and periodically my old girlfriend would drop by to hook me up with some pity p***y.

What does all this mean? Well, domestic partnerships allow for more than just the furthering of the gay lifestyle - they can even be the basis for new forms of assistance to friends, at least until a President Obama institutes a Canadian-style one payer system (oh the horror!).

Your public boasting of having broken a clear command of your Creator is neither wise nor profitable.

soli Deo gloria

The Ten Commandments don't prohibit pre-marital sex....

I think the Commandment that CincoSolas is referring to is: "Thou shalt not steal." (Exd. 20:15, KJV).

I don't know anything of victorvodka's insurance plan, but it most likely required that the person named as a domestic partner actually be in a registered domestic partnership with him. The statute defines domestic partners as "...two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring." Cal. Fam. Code S 297(a) (West 2007). It's likely that "intimate" means that the partners have a sexual relationship, and aren't just very close friends. If it does, then there's possible fraud.

In addition, those who wish to take advantage of the DP benefits with their roommates, and not with "real" partners should take heed. After termination of a registered domestic partnership, former partners have "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon former spouses." Cal. Fam. Code S 297.5(b) (West 2007).

Your roommate might be able to hit you up for alimony.

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5, ESV)

In context, Jesus was demolishing our sinful tendency to re-define God's law downward (although I borrow Moynihan's useful phrase, the practice started with the first temptation: "Did God really say?") in the vain attempt to produce a self-based righteousness by limiting the law's prohibitions to areas in which we consider ourselves most innocent before the thrice-Holy God.

soli Deo gloria

This gentleman's comments illustrate nicely why the legal recognition we as a collective afford "marriage" ought to be de-coupled from the religious aspects which some, but far from all, bring to it. An America, happily, religious belief is all over the map, and there is far from that consensus on what "God" proscribes necessary to make that a useful basis on which to found our laws. For example, Orthodoz Jews find some 613 commandments in the Jewish bible; unless one makes it a life's work it's hard to turn around without breaking one. The notion that the state's definition of "marriage" should bottom on one group's beliefs about God's expectations is thus highly unrealistic. The solution: let the people of each state decide what arrangements between people will trigger the rights and duties the state calls "marriage," and let each group of believers make its decision, neither binding the other.

When you say, "on what 'God' proscribes necessary...", I think you mean "prescribes". I'm not trying to be a spelling geek but it does make quite a difference.

God would never "proscribe" (or ban) anything that was "necessary".

you will see that the writer did in fact mean "proscribes."

Let me parse it for you:

"there is far from that consensus on what "God" proscribes necessary to make that a useful basis on which to found our laws."

what he meant was, "there is far from the necessary consensus concerning what God proscribes for that to be a useful basis upon which to found secular laws." The word "prescribes" could also fit, but it wouldn't follow as meaningfully from the comment to which the writer replied.

It's an arguable point, but it isn't illogical.

Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”

about separating religion from government by replacing "marriage" with government-generated "civil unions" for all and religions dispensing "marriages" as their policies dictate.

I don't think that she does anymore. She told me about this in 1998, before she was made aware that her views were at odds with her religious leaders. Now, she has become converted to being a gay marriage opponent whereas before, she had your libertarian view on marriage.

It's worth considering actually. That is how it is done in the Netherlands and Brazil. But in the U.S., politics and religion are much closer together than they are in secular states like France, the Netherlands, and Brazil.

I actually disagree with you. But my views, while resonating with the voting public, do not have their basis in pure rationalism, as your views seem to. I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of separating religion from government by taking away the right of the people to have their legitimate marriages recognized by he government. I believe that the unintended consequences will reveal themselves only after a theoretical switch in the U.S.

Look at where the Netherlands is today, and ask yourself if that is where you want America to be. Now ask yourself if any presidential candidate would ever publicly voice support for this view. That should tell you a lot about why government-recognized marriage is here to stay.

The ten commandments don't prohibit pre-marital sex? You need to go back to Bible Class.

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)

I agree. He's a "moby" in the sense that he's pretending to be something he's not. He threw a firecracker into a crowd and now he's making his getaway.

I doubt that he actually did what he claimed to do.

But it raises a question that must be raised: why give homosexuals special rights that heterosexuals don't get?

Why say to gay people "get your lover insured" when we don't give the same rights to young heterosexual people?

Lest you think that I misunderstand California law, a friend of mine wanted to take a "family illness" day off to care for his sick fiance. Denied. His employer, the City of Los Angeles does not allow employees to take family illness days to care for friends, only "family". Fiances are not considered family. But, if he had been gay, no supervisor in the world would have tried to tell him that he couldn't take a day off to care for his bun boy, whether they had the paperwork on file or not. We have become overly sensitized to the wants of homosexuals and we have given them rights that the rest of us lack.

If civil unions existed, the situation you describe in your last paragraph couldn't happen. Only homosexuals who are in a civil union or domestic partnership would be able to take sick days to care for their partner, just as only heterosexuals who are married can do so.

As for your assertion that we're giving homosexuals rights that heterosexuals don't have, that's simply not true. Heterosexuals have all these rights and more when and if they get married.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

By offering civil unions, we are saying homosexual behavior is ok and it should get the blessings of government the same way married couples do.

That is why civil unions must be opposed. The attempt to normalize this kind of behavior must be stopped. Also, why should I allow my tax money to be used to support a behavior I find abhorrent?

These are special rights for homosexuals and lesbians. I can't marry another guy or have a "civil union" with them. The homosexual or lesbian has every right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If they choose not to do this, it's their choice.

That is what marriage is, the union of a man and woman. And to offer "civil unions" is to offer special "rights" that don't now exist, and would only apply to homosexuals and lesbians. Why is that bad? See the first two paragraphs.

Just as a gay person can marry but chooses not to do so you would be perfectly entitled to enter a civil union with any man willing to have you. The fact that you choose not to do so is your busines.

A civil union is a "special right" in just the same way that marriage is a "special right" for straight people.

Maybe that is what you want, but by trying to argue both ways at once you are only going to get dizzy, as well as confused.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

to this quandary that will be discovered sooner or later. Even Bill O'Reilly has recognized it, although he is about as articulate on the subject as President Bush is.

Well within the ability of any state's legislature, all it takes is a law allowing anybody to name anybody else (only one at a time) as the equivalent of a spouse for the purposes of legally or contractually defined benefits. Thus, one's fiance, one's marital spouse, one's good friend, one's lover, or even one's brother or sister or parent could be named, and that person would receive the benefits without having to claim they're having sex under any circumstances with the other person.

To create civil unions that have the effect of marriage without such legislation is itself discriminatory. Why should "just" friends or siblings be prohibited from sharing benefits, when others could do so simply by claiming to have a sexual relationship?

Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”

There is no reason for such benefites to be restricted to sexual relationships. What does sex have to do with next of kin status for medical purposes or the tax benefits associated with marriage, etc., etc.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I'm glad someone else understands this.

“Political Correctness” is just short for “Capitulation to Extortion.”

if the courts found a Right to Life and decided all abortions were unconstitutional?

What if the courts found a right to contract and invalidated all minimum wage laws as violating that right to contract freely?

Or what if property rights were upheld to the extent that a person could pollute as much as they want on their own property?

Saying the courts "recognize" rights may describe how the Warren Court approached their job, but I think if there was ever an activist right-of-center court (as there was in the Lochner days), you may have a different opinion.

Many times these debates about "rights" are actually debates about public policy. Whether a same-sex couple should be treated similar to a married couple is such a public policy question. Just as the question about whether three or more person relationships should be treated similar to a married couple is a public policy question.

The law is stronger if people believe they have a word in the process. By favoring courts to impose their views of public policy, you are encouraging the disenfranchisement of people you disagree with.

______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

I think everyone agrees that it would be nice if every constitutional issue were resolved at the legislative level, but that wouldn't negate the role of the courts. The law would still have to be subject to review in the event of a dispute. The fact is that legislatures have actually resolved this issue - either by authorizing equal rights, prohibiting equal rights or by deciding not to act at all. It's up to the courts to decide which of these courses of action is consistent with the Constitution.

I'm very displeased with the SCOTUS's recent decision on the abortion ban, but not because the court weighed in on the issue. I'm against the decision because I think the law is unconstitutional, and because the court strayed from precedent. So, while I strongly disagree with the court's interpretation of the law and the Constitution, I don't dispute that the court had a responsibility to settle the issue.

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

It's up to the courts to decide which of these courses of action is consistent with the Constitution.

Why can't they all be consistent with the Constitution? If the Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage - and it doesn't, not even remotely - then wouldn't any course of action be consistent with the Constitution?

I'm very displeased with the SCOTUS's recent decision on the abortion ban, but not because the court weighed in on the issue. I'm against the decision because I think the law is unconstitutional, and because the court strayed from precedent. So, while I strongly disagree with the court's interpretation of the law and the Constitution, I don't dispute that the court had a responsibility to settle the issue.

So basically what you're saying is that the Supreme Court has a responsibility to rule on the question of abortion even though there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, but it also has the responsibility to rule only the way you want it to? That sounds like what you're saying to me. On what grounds is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 unconstitutional, and do you not believe that the Court should abandon precedent if it's bad precedent?

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

Allow me to clarify. I was essentially making two points in that post - one with which I think you would agree, one with which I know you do not.

The first point is pretty simple: the Constitution charges the Courts with the responsibility of interpreting the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches of government. In other words, it's not "judicial activism" for a courts to issue opinions on constitutional disputes - they may, after all, decide that the Constitution doesn't speak to the issue at hand. Either way, they should settle the dispute.

The second point was purely editorial, and I don't expect you to agree. I was merely saying that the SCOTUS, in my view, interpreted the law and constitution wrongly. They were still right to settle the question, I just disagree with their interpretation of the matters at hand. My interpretation of the Ninth and Fourteenth amendment includes a constitutional right to privacy that covers abortion. The SCOTUS disagrees - doesn't mean that they shouldn't have heard the case at all or issued an opinion.

As far as the precedent question is concerned, the whole idea of stare decisis rests on the assumption that the court will abide by precendent unless there is a compelling reason to deviate. In my mind, this case did not present the court with a compelling reason to deviate from the precedent.

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

"The first point is pretty simple: the Constitution charges the Courts with the responsibility of interpreting the constitutionality of the actions of the other branches of government."

You will find no such assignment of responsibility in the Constitution. It's an authority that was arrogated to the Court by the Marshall (I think, too tired to look it up) Court, itself.

According to Amendment X of the Constitution, answers to those questions should be left to the States.

The Constitution was written in such simple language that there apparently was not thought to be a need to have its words interpreted, beyond the guidance given in the Tenth Amendment.

Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”

Your post is the first time I can remember anyone at Redstate posting that the right of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a law is NOT in the Constitution. I missed that question on a Constitution test when I was a Jr. in high school. AND, your reference to Amendment X is completely correct. It is my belief that the "Tenth" is totally ignored by the Court and both "distinguished"
legislative bodies in the U.S. Congress. And, yes, it WAS Marshall who set the precedent, and I think the first use was his ruling with regard to Pres. Jackson's relocation of the Cherokee from the Carolinas to Oklahoma. Marshall ruled that it was unconstitutional, and, if I have my history correct, Jackson simply replied, "Mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it."
The "Tenth" was specifically put in the Bill of Rights to keep the Federal Government from over-stepping its authority over the "Several States." If one observes the Federal Government today--can anyone tell me that the "Tenth" has not indeed been ignored?

Don Cheney

Flagstaff is correct that judicial review (the concept that the judiciary has the power to review the constitutionality of a statute) is not explicitly granted to the judiciary in the Constitution and that it was Marshall who "found" it in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Some state constitutions do explicitly grant this power to the judiciary.

In any case, to say it was taken without justification is overstating I think. I understand the sentiment that Madison felt: that the judiciary should not be granted that much power. But, I agree with Hamilton, who provides the justification for judicial review, in Federalist No. 78: If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Wikipedia has a decent summary of the case and the issues.

Thanks for quoting Hamilton on judicial review. It's one thing to rightly decry judicial activism, it's quite another to deny the courts the power of judicial review. Without judicial review, the power of the legislature would be virtually unchecked.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

"Without judicial review, the power of the legislature would be virtually unchecked."

And, as it is, the power of an unelected judiciary is COMPLETELY unchecked. The Legislature and the Presidency is checked by the PEOPLE WHO ELECT THEM. The Court has NO CHECKS on its members except the grim reaper.

Please read the "takings" clause of the Constitution (4th amendment, maybe?) and tell me that the Kelo Decision didn't turn the Amendment's intent on its head. Now tell me, what can be done about it?

“Political Correctness” is just short for “Capitulation to Extortion.”

Seriously? Every Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison has overstepped its bounds?

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

No, under the doctrine of stare decisis once the Marbury Court held as it did, all later Courts also had the power of judicial review.

Basically, your first point in your "Clarification" post is correct, if one reads your statement as: "the Constitution [implicitly] charges the Courts with the responsibility of interpreting the constitutionality [of Federal laws (statutes and treaties)]."

I suppose one could think that every Supreme Court since, and including, Marbury has overstepped its bounds if one believes that the Marbury Court got it wrong.

As a gay man, I feel more than comfortable saying that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. It is not for the courts to read rights into the Constitution that simply aren't there. Mind you, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should indeed have their relationships legally recognized - but I don't believe in activist judges making up a constitutional right.

To counter the argument I already know you're going to make, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey a right to same-sex marriage or similar legal recognition. Because anyone in America can marry someone of the opposite sex and no one in America can marry someone of the same sex, equal protection under the law is already being provided. This clause would be violated if some could not marry someone of the opposite sex while others could, or if some could marry someone of the same sex while others couldn't.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

So, I'm guessing you would disagree with the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia?

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

As politically incorrect as it may be, I do indeed disagree with Loving v. Virginia. Equal protection under the law says what it means and means what it says. If a white person could not marry a black person, and a black person could not marry a white person, if there were no exceptions to this whatsoever, and if there were identical penalties for anyone who broke this law - then there is absolutely no constitutional reason why the law should not stand.

With that said - and this is very important - I believe it is morally wrong to prevent people from marrying on racial grounds, just as I believe that all racial discrimination is wrong. I don't believe this law should ever have existed and, if it were still in place, I would strongly support its repeal. But I don't think that the courts can simply make up rights.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

Usually it's the judicial activists favoring court imposed gay marriage, who claim Constitutional equivalence between anti-miscegenation laws and those restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, asserting that if one is unconstitutional then logically both must be unconstitutional. I think the analogy is wrong either way, whether you believe both or neither are unconstitutional.

The legislative history and public debate of the 14th Amendment makes it clear everyone knew they were talking about race in its guarantee of equal protection of the laws. That's been properly interpreted as a very high hurdle against racial distinctions in the law (not interpreted high enough in my opinion). So if a black man is allowed to marry a black woman, the law can't deny a white man the same right to marry a black woman.

The same legislative history makes it clear they weren't talking about legal distinctions based on sex. There is no equivalent Constitutional principle saying that if a man can marry a woman then it must also allow a woman to marry a woman. If the Equal [gender] Rights Amendment had been ratified, then there would be such an equivalence, but it wasn't.

It's just the miscegenation analogy I disagree with you about. Like you, I favor legal recognition for same sex marriages, and oppose achieving it with judicial activism.

Were the framers thinking of semi-automatic weapons or assault rifles when they drafted the 2nd amendment? Were they thinking of the internet when they drafted the 1st? Were they thinking of data-mining when they drafted the 4th amendment?

I would argue that the 14th amendment goes beyond race - it's primarily about citizenship. And I would argue that there is a constitutional right here - that if Lisa has a right to marry Jeff, than Rick must have that same right.

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

No, the framers weren't thinking of semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, the internet or data mining when they drafted those amendments. Those things didn't exist at the time.

They did know that there were two sexes, and they did know there were homosexuals, at the time they enacted the 14th Amendment. If they wanted to protect gay rights with the Amendment, they would have.

Your position is anti-democratic. The Constitution provides for amendment only by democratically elected representatives of the people. Your argument is to enact a de facto amendment to the Constitution without the democratic consent of the people.

First, disregard that last comment - it was a mistake.

Now, I have to disagree with you re: the framers and homosexuality. Yes, the framers knew that homosexuality existed, but they had a radically inadequate understanding of what it is. Most still believed at that time that homosexuality was a chosen behavior rather than an unchosen orientation, but we know now that's not the case. Whether it is genetic and/or hormonal ("nature") or environmental and/or developmental ("nurture") in nature, homosexuality is unchosen. That makes a huge difference. If it is an unchosen orientation, then there is indeed cause to say that homosexuals must be protected for their unchosen orientation just as black people, for example, must be protected for their unchosen skin color. We get into muddy territory which threatens to turn into quicksand when we start arguing that certain people don't deserve equal protection under the law. All Americans deserve equal protection under the law, and no one - least of all the government - should discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

unchosen is right in there with the notion that global warming is anthropogenic; it is very "unfashionable" to challenge it, but it is by no means proven.

I do not doubt that nurture can make some men very effeminate. I don't dismiss the notion that biology/genetics can make some men effeminate. I also can observe that relatively few women find effeminate men sexually attractive; some may like to hang with them, but they're there really just one of the girls, not a potential sex partner.

There was a time when an effeminate man was either forced by society to change his manner or, in more tolerant environments, cities largely, he could either adopt the quiet old bachelor lifestyle or be very, very discretly homosexual.

We have in the last fifty years or so created a culture where sexual "satisfaction" is the sina qua non of our existence, and a life without sexual gratification is considered a life not worth living. Well, if you aren't getting that gratification in one lifestyle, there are others available to you. Over the years, I've seen numerous instances of "recruitment" to a homosexual lifestyle of men who quite obviously were not getting any "satisfaction" in the heterosexual culture. Likewise, you can go to any college campus and watch the lesbians circle like vultures around the incoming freshman class. I live in a "tolerant" enough city and travelled in fashionable enough circles that a fairly significant percentage of the men I know have been either openly flirted with or propositioned by gay men, and almost all the women I know have been flirted with or propositioned by gay or bisexual women. Amongst the younger women, it is fairly true that "today's date is tomorrow's competition,' and the young men talk derisively of the "vagitarians" they deal with. Last night Fox had a segment on that ever-so self-consciously cool show they have on Sunday night about "Lesbian Chic" among younger women and I didn't hear much in the way of convincing denial from the women on the panel.

There may really be those "men in a woman's body" or "women in a man's body" out there, since I don't know for sure, I can't deny it, but I believe that far, far more of this behavior is conditioned and chosen rather than determined. I also know that there is no more likely to be objective science on this subject than there is to be on AGW.

In Vino Veritas

The seething hysteria against Gay Recruitment is the best part.
Do you watch alot of prison movies?
What informs this understanding of yours about gays in our society?
And did you save up "vagitarians" for this special occasion?

about anything I said; just personal observation from life in a very "gay tolerant" environment. I have gay friends and in my working days had many gay coworkers and subordinates, and I really didn't and don't care as long as they kept their bedroom out of the office and left my choices to me as I left theirs to them. Hell, my wife and I once vacationed in very gay friendly Puerto Vallarta with one of my gay co-workers and his "friend." So, don't trot out the thinly veiled homophobia argument on me.

You, on the other hand, start screeching condescension, since you view any opinion other than your own as "unenlightened." I stand by my final statement; gay determinism is just as much an article of faith as AGW and just as unlikely to ever have any objective debate or study.

In Vino Veritas

back in my single days, I considered the vagitarians to be both somewhat unfair competition and a very tititlating challenge.

In Vino Veritas

First of all, that is about as bad as saying you have black friends, therefore when you call black people a racial slur, it's okay.

Secondly, I challenge you to call any gay friends you have effeminate or any lesbian friends you have vagitarians, and then see how long you have gay and lesbian friends!

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

I never talk to any of them about is what they do in the bedroom any more than I think it is appropriate to publicly much discuss heterosexual interests or proclivities. I find a heterosexual couple walking down the street kissing and groping each other just as ill-mannered and offensive as a gay couple doing so.

I find the gay attempt to try to co-opt the vocabulary and sensibilities of the Black civil rights movement to be both silly and offensive because unlike Blackness, the "gay lifestyle" so agressively acted out by many gays is purely a matter of choice. One does not even need to get to the debate regarding private acts or whether homosexuality is determined, conditioned, or chosen. Many, many homosexuals have adopted an in-your-face open show of sexuality and demand that it be tolerated and accepted. I don't have to do either any more than I have to accept gangsta talk and behavior because "it's a Black thing." There is no equivalence between equal civil rights for a race and an assertion of some right by people who have made a lifestyle choice.

I am fine with tolerance of whatever within some reason people choose to do in their bedroom, but I do not have to accept it, approve of it, and I do not have to see it wherever I go. I do not have to be at all tolerant of the agressive, activist man-hating exhibited by many, many lesbians. I'll freely admit to not having any open, activist lesbian friends; I've met very few that I could stand to be in the same room with. I've known quite a few women who've adventured with lesbianism, but in that case, we're dealing mostly with simple hedonism.

You, like CarolinaMan, define acceptable opinion as that which comports with your own opinions. When confronted with someone of a contrary opinion, you start "screeching hysterically." So, why don't the two of you get together and screech. Ad hominem enabled, since I really couldn't care less what you think.

In Vino Veritas

on this subject on Redstate.

to Carolna, above!

In Vino Veritas

of your narrative when you talk about the gay men and lesbian women in your life. The part your leaving out is the part about the life they are living is a hard life. They get the cr-p beaten out of them by gays and by straights. They can't go to shelters. If they report to the police they'll get the 'you were asking for it' line. I don't know why they do something that makes life hard and hurts them. Maybe you are correct, and they can choose the better road to follow. I do think you should not put out there the argument that there only having fun and gay always means happy.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

depends on where you are; I've never seen it here except with HS age boys. Interestingly, though the HS literally pounds "tolerance" and "acceptance" into them, they can be astoundingly homophobic - and I'm using that word in both its real and its politicized meanings. It certainly isn't a part of the adult culture here nor have I ever seen much evidence of it in other West Coast cities. Gays in Juneau, Anchorage, or even Seattle aren't as open as, say, SF, but there is an active and open gay culture that is largely ignored unless one of the "gay" bars has a particularly good band. One down on the waterfront here had a quite good jazz group playing a couple of weekends ago, and my wife and I hung there for two or three hours without becoming "hysterical."

In Vino Veritas

I can't believe you're even making the argument that violence against gays and lesbians is an overstated problem. Maybe in San Francisco it is, and maybe in other big cities it is, but we don't all live in big cities. I live in suburban-to-rural Ohio. The threat of violence is very real for me, and it is real for most gays and lesbians in America. This is one of the many reasons why very few people, if anyone, choose to be homosexuals.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

I only said I had no experience with it because of where I live. Any comment I might have on any other place would be informed only by hearsay.

In Vino Veritas

One person's over publicized experience (no matter how unfortunate) does not prove your point.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I thought about not even replying to this, but it was too good to resist.

First of all, no one here is talking about effeminacy. There are effeminate men who are straight and there are non-effeminate men who are gay. What we're talking about here is sexual orientation, and that's not about whether one acts more like a man or a woman, it's about whether one is attracted to a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. The fact that you don't understand the difference only illustrates how ignorant you are and how you should not be "challenging" that which has been established by medicine and science.

Secondly, your explanation seems to be that the whole genesis of homosexuality is effeminate men who can't get a woman to be attracted to them and women who don't want to be with men. Do you have any medical or scientific evidence to back this up, or are you just shooting your mouth off? If the latter, that's your prerogative, but everyone here should be clear on the difference. How do you account for the gay men who are not effeminate but who have always been attracted to men, or for the lesbians who are effeminate - there are quite a few of them! - who have always been attracted to women? Your simplistic understanding of this is bothersome and ridiculous. Even the homophobic "ex-gay" people believe that homosexuality is an unchosen psychological condition. I don't even know how to classify you, aside from incredibly ignorant.

There may really be those "men in a woman's body" or "women in a man's body" out there, since I don't know for sure, I can't deny it, but I believe that far, far more of this behavior is conditioned and chosen rather than determined.

Again, this just illustrates how ignorant of the subject you really are. What you're talking about here - "man in a woman's body" or "woman in a man's body" - is Gender Identity Disorder, commonly known as transgenderism. It is not homosexuality. The two can be related, but usually a homosexual does not have Gender Identity Disorder. Please look these things up somewhere other than Fred Phelps' website before issuing anymore authoritative pronouncements. Wikipedia isn't that reliable a source, but it's a start.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

It has become both tiresome and pointless; about in the same category as trying to convince a college sophomore that Bush didn't lie, so out of a sense of noblesse oblige, I withdraw from the field.

In Vino Veritas

What if Rick and Jeff are brothers?

-
NARF

Not a valid argument. Of course the framers weren't thinking about things that didn't yet exist, but they DID address gun ownership, press freedom, and due process, and court decisions in those areas only serve to clarify how the the new technologies fit within existing rules.

On the other hand, the framers were all well-educated men, and knew what homosexuality was. And yet, while they argued at length about the "rights" that would be granted to slaves and native Americans, I don't know of any record of the constitutional congress taking up a discussion on the matter of gay rights or marriage in general.

So, unless you're claiming that the the first marriage and the homosexual relationship in history both occurred after the constitution was signed (which would be great because then we'd have a new suspect for the cause of global warming!), you really can't consider the need for, say, a wiretapping decision to be as consitutionally valid as a judicial fiat on same-sex unions.

I completely disagree with you in regard to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment says quite clearly that "no State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That says any person, and I contend that if it had been the intention of Congress to base this amendment on race alone then the amendment would have said so. I agree that race was the catalyst for the Fourteenth Amendment, but that doesn't mean the sole intent behind it was to provide equal protection for people of different races. I think the intent was to provide equal protection for all Americans period, and the language of the amendment is on my side.

With that said, I still contend that because everyone can marry someone of the same sex and no one can marry someone of the opposite sex, equal protection under the law already exists and the equal protection clause cannot be used as justification for judicial activism in this matter. But I think we open up a whole messy can of worms when we try to say that the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment apply only to this group or that group, based on this criteria or that criteria - the amendment makes clear that it applies to all Americans.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

I still contend that because everyone can marry someone of the same sex and no one can marry someone of the opposite sex,

Reverse that...

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

There seems to be something a bit dubious about this equal protections argument to me. While it is true that along the access of same versus opposite sex marriage there is equal protection, it seems that under another axis of ability to marry or receive legal protection and codification of a loving relationship that equal protection is not applied. Some that love someone else are given state sponsorship of this love, while others are not...There does not seem to be much equality when you view it in this light...

Of course, my personal belief is that religious and civil marriage should be made completely separate institutions. I think this solves the gay marriage issue quite nicely as well as further separates church and state. The state should grant legal protection and recognition to any two human beings over the age of consent that both agree to enter into this contract ( because in the eyes of the state marriage should only be a financial and ethical contract between consenting individuals). Meanwhile, individuals could choose to or not to get a religious marriage. If a gay or Lesbian couple finds a priest willing to ordain their marriage, then so be it. This is irrelevant in the eyes of the state and should likewise be in all matters of financial concern.

"because in the eyes of the state marriage should only be a financial and ethical contract between consenting individuals".

Just like any other business contract. It is this kind of thinking, this lack of discernment, that has lead us to where we are. It is what has lead to Nikki comparing the murder of slain students to dead elephants.

Marriage is much more than what you show above. If you look at the damage that has been done to marriage in the last 50 years, you know what the consequences are to society when marriage is not honored. Commonsense would tell us this if we weren't so into "equal" and "feelings" and all the rest.

I agree that if you are going to change the laws, to do it though the legislature is the way it should be done. But that also means that I have the right to work against civil unions, which are nothing more than efforts to normalize a reprehensible lifestyle, shameful behavior, and to make government benefits available to more people. It is pure modern liberalism.

I think you're missing the point of what's being said. No one is arguing that marriage should be culturally or religiously regarded as merely a contract between two individuals. Rather, we're saying that legally, that's precisely what marriage is. It's a contract between two individuals, a financial and ethical contract.

As far as culture and religion go, I agree with you that there needs to be more respect for marriage. But we need to stop expecting the state to fight our cultural and religious battles for us. The state needs to keep its hands out of the cultural cookie jar. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two consenting adults. We can and should endow it with a more significant cultural and religious meaning, but that's not for the state to do. The state must be guided by the law, not by culture, not by religion, and not merely by the will of the majority. A tyranny of the majority, while democratic, is no less a tyranny than a tyranny of the individual. The rule of law must be the basis for democratic government.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

The sense of decency is what drives more than a few of us who are heterosexual and Conservative to support both civil unions and SameSexMarriage.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The Constitution in no way requires the state to recognize same-sex unions. One can only think it does if they buy into the absurd 'living constitution' nonsense, which gives judges almost unlimited power to impose whatever they want..

The Constitution in no way requires the state to recognize any union, unless I'm mistaken.

I wonder why anyone would want the state in charge of that. This strikes me as one of those things better left out of the hands of the state.

Of course its true that the Constitution in no way requires any recognition of any union. If we as a society ever chose that path, then so be it.

All I'm saying is that, Constitutionally speaking, the decision by the people/state/society to recognize traditional marriage in no way compels it to do the same (or something similar) for same-sex unions. It is one of the many issues on which the resolution should be left entirely to the democratic process.

You talk about 'the constitution' as though only one constitutuion were involved here. The trouble is, all the decisions under dispute were rulings by state courts as to state constitutions. That is why none of these decisions has been appealed to SCOTUS.

While I would agree that, tactically, supporters of civil unions and SSM would be wise to focus on the democratic process, I am not willing to condemn a state supreme court for a ruling on a state constitution without first reading both the ruling, the dissent, and the constitution in question. Your reference to 'the constitution' implies to me that you have not read those documents either, and that rather undermines your credibility.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

The reason I focus on the US Constitution is because we all know that federal courts will eventually get involved, and that the Sup Court will eventually settle this. That's why its hard to take too much comfort from a state supreme court that rules correctly, like when the Louisiana high court ruled that the popularly passed marriage amendment could stand. It will all mean nothing if there are 5 judges on the Sup Court who would rather substitute their will for sound judgment.

So, its just a matter of time before the only constitution that matters is the Constitution.

As to the actions of the state courts; you're right in that I haven't poured over the state constitutions in question. But the same principles of originalist/restrained/strict constructionist jurisprudence that apply to how federal judges should act also applies to their state counterparts. It is probably safe to say that not one provision in any state constitution was ever intended to, or understood as, requiring the state to recognize same-sex unions, or more generally, to apply constitutional principles of 'equality' to homosexual relations so that they are treated the same as traditional marriage. Therefore, state judges should not take their state constitution and apply it in ways that violates the original understanding or intent.

.. is that this is nuts. Does bluenc mean that courts should decide that people have a "right" to form corporations, and the only role for legislatures is housekeeping? Courts should decide speed limits and the driving age?

Court's have NO role in "bestowing" "rights"; the role of courts in adjudicating claims of constitutional rights, as John Marshall observed, is simply the traditional judicial function of reading a contract (here, constitutions) and determining whether a given action comports with the undertakings in the contract. The notion that the courts are somehow fonts of "rights," as captured in the kind of offensive praise editorialists of the NYT ilk like to bestow on their favorite jurists--"he greatly expanded the rights of..."--is pernicious nonsense. We, the people, acting through our legislatures, determine what people may, and may not, do, subject only to the overriding limits we we, the people, have assumed through our constitutions.

In 1789, the First Congress actually did codify several rights. An "equal rights advocate" like yourself should be familiar with these rights. The are commonly referred to as "the Bill of Rights". Had these principles come from a court decision rather than from elected representatives of the people, they would have lacked authenticity.

The judicial branch is in charge of recognizing rights, yes. But they are charged with only recognizing those rights which have already been codified by the legislature. They are not in charge of creating rights. They don't get to decide what rights people should have. They only get to decide what rights exist. And they must turn to legislation to determine that.

This is a big beef I have with you "equal rights advocates". You really don't care about what means is used as long as you get the results that you want.

However, I do not think that states who refuse to expand marriage or its accompanying rights are doing anything wrong.

I'll be more than happy to accept it if state legislatures decide not to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships if same-sex union opponents will be willing to accept it if state legislatures decide to give them legal recognition. Any takers?

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Some opponents of the FMA have claimed that it would ban civil unions in addition to gay marriage, but that is not so. The FMA is worded to prevent federal or state courts from imposing civil unions, but it would allow voluntary adoption of them through legislative or popular action.

So even if the FMA passed, NH, Connecticut, and all the rest would be free to recognize same-sex unions if they so choose.

I suppose I'd settle for keeping warm with this caveat; some federal protection for the states that refuse to recognize another state's civil unions or gay marriages. That's where the devil lives in this discussion.

I can't think of any reason to go to SF or to the Northeast unless somebody is paying me a great deal of money to be there, so I don't much care what they do there so long as I don't have to do it too or pay for it. The question comes when someone "married" in MA or CA moves to some state that doesn't recognize the marriage. Now I know somebody will chime in that not all states recognize all states' marriages, but those exceptions are on the margins and not supported by a large "civil rights" lobby, so AK's refusal to recognize an LA "common law" marriage was unremarkable and unremarked. But when Ted and Bruce, a CA married couple, move to AK for the specific purpose of provoking a dispute over recognition, they bring with them a whole bunch of political power of the sort that gets legislatures to act against the will of the majority and courts to write their own versions of rights and laws. There is no doubt in my mind that the same SC in my state that refused to recognize LA common law marriage would loudly and defiantly require recognition of that CA marriage, probably on equal protection, despite the fact, more correctly because of the fact, that a DOMA amendment passed by around 80% of the popular vote.

In Vino Veritas

"I don't much care what they do there so long as I don't have to do it too or pay for it."

I wish you had left it at that because you are losing me in your posts upthread:

"Well, if you aren't getting that gratification in one lifestyle, there are others available to you. Over the years, I've seen numerous instances of "recruitment" to a homosexual lifestyle of men who quite obviously were not getting any "satisfaction" in the heterosexual culture. Likewise, you can go to any college campus and watch the lesbians circle like vultures around the incoming freshman class.
The men I know have been either openly flirted with or propositioned by gay men, and almost all the women I know have been flirted with or propositioned by gay or bisexual women."

IMO people are not gay because they are not getting satisfaction in a heterosexual culture. It is not like somebody watching Hannity&Colmes and because they are not satisfied they switch to American Idol.

IMO there is no growing threat and menace of gay men and lesbian women recruiting straight men and women into their ranks. It's like being at Orly or Heathrow. You recognize the Americans from the rest of the travelers. You can't explain how but you can tell who they are. That is the way gay men and lesbian women are.

I don't hate them, and I don't fear them. I don't much care what they do so long as I don't have to do it too or pay for it.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

How do you know that recruitment does not occur?

I have seen it and can and will verify that it does. It has been attempted re: my wife and myself. It happens on the majority of college campi and is even moving into the HSs.

It may not be a majority of the homosexuals in the USA who engage in this behaviour, but it is at least a large and pernicious and vocal minority.

I don't hate or fear them, myself, but the next one who gives me an unwanted proposition will receive the same response as a Jehova's Witness does. IOW Not funny, but rather purely hostile.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?

I'm not a researcher or pollster, but in my life I have not experienced homosexuals preying on straight people. I know people at my job who are gay. They are not interested in 'hitting on' a straight person. I'm open to the idea that things are different elsewhere, but I have formed some of my personal opinions on my own life experience. I can't claim to be any more knowledgeable than you or anyone else on this subject.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

...except to say that I think the best way to see whether or not society truly is unwilling to do something is through the electoral process. If elected representatives do something that society won't accept, society will vote them out of office and replace them with someone who will repeal what they did. Thus, I don't see any reason why state legislatures shouldn't pursue the legal recognition of same-sex relationships in whatever manner they deem best. If the people don't like it, they can kick them out of office and replace them. That's how indirect democracy works. Alternatively, most states have a method of direct democracy by which the people themselves can undo what their legislators have done: ballot initiatives.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

In what way would the recognition of same-sex relationships lead to "social and political collapse"?

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

Would it be arranged marriages? Because that's the form marriage still took when our country was founded. How about polygamy - if it's good enough for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it's good enough for me? Jesus Christ was celibate - should we all follow his tradition and be celibate? Does traditional morality give husbands the right to engage in spousal corporal punishment? Or how about this - does traditional morality give husbands the right to expect sexual relations from their wives? Does traditional morality prohibit interracial marriage? Can women even work? Would that be traditionally moral? You might think these are all silly questions, but there have been Americans - a good many of them - who would have argued that all of these were matters of traditional morality.

Puritanism is dead and morality is not the law. Get with the program.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

expressed during one of their battle royals:

Alice: You men just think you OWN this world!
Ralph: But you women get revenge; you MARRY us!

Of course, they loved each other. But marriage is no bed of roses and certainly not a "right".

The prudent (i.e. conservative) man or woman is very cautious when it comes to marriage and the law.

That strikes me as a very pessimistic view of marriage! That perhaps made sense when being unmarried carried a social stigma and many people ended up "settling" for an unhappy marriage rather than being single, but I'd hope society had moved past that! Marriage ain't no bed of roses, but if you think it's an act of revenge on the part of the other sex, then i'd say you're in the wrong game altogether!

Assuming your questions were non-rhetorical, I would be happy to address them: they are answered easily within the redemptive-historical hermeneutic undergirding reformed (indeed puritan!) Christian thought, but not wanting to incur editorial wrath for improper treatment of dead horses I shall forbear for now.

You do get one flag now, however, for hasty referencing: Isaac a polygamist?

soli Deo gloria

...but by the time I do have one, I hope that the damage done by judicial activists will have been sufficiently undone and I will be able to have basic legal recognition of my relationship. If not, though, I'm fine with making my case to the people and to their elected representatives. I don't need a tyrannical oligarchy to give me rights that the Constitution doesn't.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

comes up with. (I have my suspicions)

I remember reading about that study. It was with animals (mice, I think), not humans. I think they were able to fuse two eggs together, absent any genetic material from a male. I don't think they went any further than that, though, and I don't think there were any plans to extend the study to humans.

I have been advocating this as the solution to the issue for years.

-exits

I generally like your idea, but it's not practical for the law to completely avoid addressing the issue. There's still the issue of adoption. Both members of a married couple are parents of the adopted child with the same legal relationship as if they were the two biological parents. The law has to decide whether both members of a same sex couple can acquire the same legal relationship through adoption.

it doesn't speak to whether a couple is engaged in a civil union. All prospective adopters should be evaluated for whether they're ready to take in a child.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that government get out of the marriage business entirely. If so, I agree - I think it's a common-sense solution that folks on all sides can agree to.

Yes, I'm a Democrat. No, I don't hate Republicans.

...because it lends credence to the bogus, absurd, and constitutinally-bankrupt idea that IF the state chooses to recognize traditional marriage, then it MUST also recognize same-sex unions. Your solution is in response to a view of the Constitution as the 'living Constitution', with its twisting of the various provisions of that document into meaning things that they were never understood, intended, or envisioned as meaning when adopted. Such a view of the Constitution is a perversion that should be crushed and sent to the dustbins of history.

As to the religion aspect; well, traditional marriage laws do not run afould of the 'separation of church and state.' Again, we've had traditonal marriage laws from the beginning, yet only recently has anyone put forth that they are somehow un-Constitutional. To say that certain provisions of the Constitution now say otherwise is to give judges power they were not meant to have.

If I've misunderstood you then I apologize. If you are saying that the govt SHOULD get out of marriage and instead issue civil unions rather than it MUST recognize same-sex unions, then that's a more palatable position.

For me, better solutions are as follows; (1) have one side prevail with a Constitutional Amendment that sets policy one way or another, (2) get the courts out of it completely, let the federal DOMA stand, and then let true federalism reign where the people and/or legislature of each state sets its own policy.

The notion that the Constitution requires the state to recognize any particular sort of union might be bankrupt, but that also means that the Constitution doesn't require the state to define Marriage, either. ...and at it's core, this is the core of the 'Gay Marriage' conflict- people are trying to use the government to impose their view on others, and everybody hates that.

If all the state recognized was Civil Union, wouldn't that protect against the state(whether judicially or legislatively) redefining marriage? Sure, that would mean that other people might have their civil unions look differently than the one my wife and I have- but the way I see it, I have better things to do than regulate my neighbors' bedrooms.

Of course, this will require a choice- which is more important to you?
a) the opportunity to protect marriage (whether 'traditional' or otherwise) from government, or
b) the right to use the government to regulate other peoples' marriages

In case there's any question, I'm in favor of the limited-government approach here.

...and I could accept any outcome, whether I personally liked it or not, because an outcome chosen by the people and/or legislature (I prefer direct ballot initiatives),w/o judicial coercion, is a legitimate outcome.

No, of course the Constitution does not require the state to define marriage. Of course the idea that marriage would ever come to mean anything other than a man and a woman (notwithstanding polygamy issues) would have been unbelievable to anyone before the 1980s or so. But anyway, the states and the federal govt could choose not to recognize marriages at all, and instead limits it role to enforcing private contracts when the need arises.

But of course every state and the federal govt has chosen to recognize marriage. Whether the motive is religious in nature, or simply a belief that its good public policy, doesn't really matter. My main point is that the decision by the state and by society to grant public recognition (with all the status, benefits, and obligations that goes along with it) to traditional marriage is certainly Constitutionally permissable, and doing so in no way requires the same or similar recognition be extended and granted to alternative arrangements. Not one provision of the Constitution was ever understood, intended, or envisioned at it time of adoption as having any such meaning. Therefore one must buy into the ludicrous 'living Constitution' idea to arrive at a conclusion that says recognizing traditional marriages then compels the state to do the same for same-sex couples.

What I'm saying is that the people and/or their elected legislators should be free to set any policy they desire, including the current policy of most states and the federal govt, which is to recognize traditional marriage and nothing else. If you think you can convince any state or states to adopt your more libertarian sounding idea of getting the govt completely out of recognizing marriage, then go for it. I don't think you'll get far, but again, if that's what the people want, then so be it.

The part about regulating your neighbor's bedrooms is just nonsensical hyperbole. Its a soundbite with no real relevance to the debate over gay marriage. The decision as to what unions will and will not receive state recognition (i.e. societal endorsement) is not an intrusion into the bedroom. People can share their bed w/ whoever they choose and lead whatever sex life they want (assuming consenting adults of course). If a married couple on one side of the street has their marriage recognized by the state, and the gay couple across the street does not, then the gay couple is still free to live as they choose. This whole bogus 'bedroom' argument might have some merit in the debate over sodomy laws, but it is not relevant to the marriage debate because it has nothing to do with what actually goes on in bedrooms or how people live their private lives.

As to the question of imposing views on others; well, its for those seeking radical change to justify the change. The onus is on them. Since we are not talking about genuine Constitutional rights here, then it is a matter properly left to the democratic process for resolution, just like most issues should be. As such, I'd rather have the people 'impose' their values through legitimate democratic action rather than have as few as 5 arrogant, power-usurping, judges engage in illegitimate judicial activism.

...and I could accept any outcome, whether I personally liked it or not, because an outcome chosen by the people and/or legislature (I prefer direct ballot initiatives),w/o judicial coercion, is a legitimate outcome.

Are you really serious?! You could accept any outcome as long as it comes from the people or a legislature? I suppose you could also accept limitations on speech, so long as they were enacted in law? Or limitations on gun ownership? Or limitations on protection from unwarranted search and seizure? So long as they come from the legislature, right?

An elected legislature or a democracy can trample a man's rights as easily as a king. Indeed, it was a legislature (the British Parliament) that was far more responsible for the American Revolution than King George III.

The courts serve a purpose. They decide disputes, including the dispute of whether something is Constitutional or not.

You appear to be operating under the delusion that we live in a Democracy. Please re-educate yourself. We live in a Republic that has a Constitution protecting our rights, which were granted to us by God if you believe in him; by Natural Law if not.

The solution is to take marriage out of the law. If we recognize marriage, we have no grounds to deny two competent people the right to marry. If we wish not to recognize homosexual marriages, then we should remove marriage from the law.

But what do I know? I'm just a libertarian nutcase.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

I thought the topic at hand was gay marriage/civil unions, not the issues you bring up where genuine rights are involved. That's a typical leftist tactic you used there -- confusing real rights for ones you want judges to create, and which have no basis in the Constitution.

Your comments are in response to something I did not say. You are the one who needs the education here. There is a Constitutionally protected right to speech, gun ownership, and against unlawful seach and seizures. There is no right for homosexuals to have their unions recognized by law. Put another way, having recognized traditional marriages, nothing in the Constitution compels the state to do the same for same-sex unions.

How is it than you can say otherwise? What part of the Constitution says the recognition of traditional marriage means the same must be done for alternate unions? I'll save you the trouble of looking and let you in on the fact that not one provision of the Constitution was ever understood, intended, or envisioned at the time of its adoption as having the meaning you put to it. The only way one can arrive at the position you take is if the buy into the 'living Constitution'; an absurdity that should be buried in history. Don't whine and complain about decisions like Kelo if you insist on a judiciary that will invent rights to gay marriage/civil unions, because it is the same judicial philosophy at work in both cases. They subtract from the Constitition in one case, and add to it in another, all depending on what outcome they wish to arrive at.

It is not the proper role of the Courts to meddle in issues the Constitution leaves to the other branches, or the states/people. The question over marriage is one of public policy that is properly in the domain of the states to do as they see fit. There should be no dispute over the Constitutional question here. Do you really think that marriage law is something the Framers ever envisioned the judiciary as setting?

There are no Constitutional (or Natural) rights involved here. So again, the best solution here is to recognize that this is a matter that the Constitution leaves to the states/people to settle. So yes, ON THIS MATTER, whatever the people and/or their elected legislatures decide should carry the day, and not the whims of as few as 5 power-usurping judges acting with contempt for the people.

I can understand that a lot of libertarians hold leftwing views on social/cultural issues, but I really don't get why so many of you guys buy into such a ludicrous method of Constitutional interpretation. It may serve you well on Culture War issues, but that's about it.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The Right to Love - its such a nice phrase, who could possibly be against it? It is also absolutely ridiculous if you meant it in a Constitutional, or even natural rights, sense.

We aren't talking about homosexual acts here. As much as I find the acts disgusting and sinful, I don't have the authority to tell anyone how to act in that sense. Do whatever you want in your own bedroom. This is a discussion of state recognition (and therefore tacit approval) of something that was never considered marriage and has no reason to be considered marriage. There are no laws preventing two homosexuals from living together, so it is pure fancy to say that any people can't "love" each other as they prefer.

You and I are not God. And we are not to judge what God has created. If two men or two women can find love with each other, who gives us "the right" to condemn them?

If you mean some nebulous god who is out there somewhere, you could be right. If you are referring to the God of the Bible, though, you need to go study a little more. This is a great example of moral relativism - who are you to say that something is wrong? As conservatives, we have to be able to say that some things are right and some are wrong. That doesn't mean that we will all agree on those issues, as this thread quite obviously shows and that is all right, but this thing about "not judging" is a lot of baloney. We judge actions all the time. Otherwise, we would be liberals.

I do have respect for those who are pushing homosexual marriage through the legislatures as oposed to the courts, though. At least you are going about it correctly.

Nathan Nelson, I don't mean the above against you personally. You are going about it correctly, and I applaud you for that, as well as any others who do the same.

legal definition of "love," we have something to talk about.

In Vino Veritas

First of all, if freedom of speech is also an inalienable right, then that gives us the right to 'condemn' whatever we want. Doesn't make it right to do so, but we say whatever we want.

This is a debate about public policy. People can love and live w/ whoever they want. Is there an 'inalienable' right to that? I don't know. Maybe there is, but there certainly is no inalienable or Constitutional right to have your loving relationships recognized by society and the state.

We can choose to recognize no relationships at all, or we can recognize traditional and gay, or we can recognize traditional marriage only. Its purely a matter of public policy that should be left to the people and/or their elected legislatures.

Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me

My guess is, should DoMA be ever overthrown, the delay in seeing - at best - a Constitutional amendment duplicating it will be primarily determined by how many members of Congress are away from Washington at the time.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

That would imply that their romantic feelings are contingent, perhaps even exigent, and not intrinsic. What a horrible way to live.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

if your love happens to be foreign.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction