Redstate

....in protecting traditional marriage. Yet another general election issue neutralized by Mr. Maverick, along with domestic energy production.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

It runs on the Queen's Royal Bush Bashing rules.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Or, if something happens long enough to enough people, it officially changes status to "Traditional"?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I thought better of you than that. You just get completely unhinged when we talk about these freako issues. I don't get it.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...means different things to different people, I guess.

Getting a divorce in April and remarried in May could strike some as not terribly traditional.

But, again, if enough people do enough of a thing enough times... it becomes a tradition, I guess.

I'm still married to my first spouse.

How long until that isn't traditional anymore?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965334/posts

I was recalling the event 4 years ago when he spoke out against the GOP attempts to push the FMA.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I don't support FMA at this time either. DOMA is still held as constitutional and as long as the states are passing their own constitutional amendments against it, I'm fine with that. If that situation changes (and with this ruling, it might), then we'll probably easily pass a FMA.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican.

All it takes is one ad on abortion and it's over.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

A legislature cannot, nor can the electorate on a referendum, create a law that violates the constitution of a state. The same applies to Congress and the US Constitution. If you want to stop gay marriage, then you will need a constitutional amendment. That's not likely to happen in California and it's not likely to happen to the US Constitution either.

a federal regulation on preserving humming bees can trump the California state constitution.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress cannot make laws that violate it. State Constitutions cannot deny rights granted by the US Constitution. And, state legislatures cannot make laws that violate their own state constitutions or the Constitution of the United States.

are relatively easy to do.

A typical process would be:
State Legislature approves (some require only a 50% +1 majority)
Public referendum

Michigan recently enacted a ban on affirmative action this way.

State-level constitutional amendments are a great way to go.

to ban same-sex marriage. I wouldn't support it but I live in Illinois so I have no say in the matter. If Californians vote to change their constitution to ban same sex marriage and then the court tries to enact same sex marriage by judicial fiat, I will come to the defense of the voters of California, despite my own feelings on the subject.

If you buy into the premise that liberals get to enact policy by judicial fiat, and that only conservatives are required to go through the process of amending the constitution, then you are buying into a whack-a-mole problem.

A Supreme Court can do wrong far more easily than the public can rectify those wrongs.

I support the law. That means that Liberal judges don't get to make laws but it also means that Conservative legislatures and voters don't get to make laws that are unconstitutional. Feel free to flip Liberal and Conservative above as I believe this works both ways. If the voters of a state want to change their constitution and their change doesn't violate the US Constitution, then they are free to do so.

The state constitutional amendment process varies hugely state by state. It is one of the reasons pro-gray marriage advocates targeted MA. Remember that before MA they had won some judicial victories in other states by then were always thwarted by state constitutional amendments. They knew this was much harder to do in MA. The whole goal has been to force it through judges in one state and then spread it to other states through the consent(?) clause.

It is the FF&C clause.

I'd say we need to democratize the courts now. So, when morons like those in the Cali SC can be held accountable to the people when they DICTATE the law. This Aristocracy must be destroyed once and for all time!

CA citizens vote up or down on whether appointed justices should remain on the court... This is the same argument that was used by redstaters in an attempt to prove that Janice Rogers Brown was in the mainstream, since even liberal CA didn't have a problem voting for her.

6 out of 7 justices on the CA Supreme Court are Republican appointees. They're a moderate court and they made the same decision that a lot of moderate courts are going to be making over the next decade.

they made the same decision that a lot of moderate courts are going to be making

I am not a lawyer so cannot assess this, but to the extent the decision is well-grounded in the California constitution, I don't have a problem with it. What I want from 'conservative judges' is not legal chicanery in favor of conservative politics, but no chicanery and no politics. I want judges to follow the law, not make stuff up to justify imposing their will on the rest of us, even if their 'druthers are the same as mine.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The ruling said that you cannot limit marriage just between and man and a woman, so thusly, a person could marry themselves, a sister, a brother, a dog, or their work

BTW, cousins can already marry in California

Just because that makes sense doesn't mean the left will pull it off anyway.

No. The CA Supreme Ct explicity based its ruling on sexual orientation discrimination laws. I don't think there is a sexual orientation issue at state in plural marriage or in cases involving siblings.

I wonder if it is still illegal for two people of the same sex who identify as STRAIGHT to get married though.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

BTW, cousins can already marry in California

And their children can grow up to be State Supreme Court judges...

________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.

notatool.com

The ballot initiative is doomed to fail? Maybe. My guess is that the 61-39 margin has shrunk, but by how much?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Which "socially conservative hispanics" are currently voting for far left Democratic pro-aborts?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

and the socially conservative democrat politicians from Red districts.

All three groups vote Marxist by the end of the day.

...when it comes to gay marriage. Abortion is a 50/50 divide. Gay marriage is a 65/35 divide.

And they vote for dems because they think it would help them economically (healthcare, unions, etc). But I think the CA marriage amendment will pass overwhelmingly.

Abortion on demand is losing support especially among young voters. The access to sex education and inexpensive contraceptives have made the concept of using abortion as contraceptive is not something young people are accepting of. Whether they would support government intervention is another issue. We will have to see, but there is some hope there to limit legal abortion to the first trimester (like in Europe) and in cases where the health of the mother is involved.

On the issue of gay marriage, I think that ship has sailed. More and more statess are going to allow it and eventually, it will be "normal".

65-35 in favor?

That would require not only that the largely unmarried 18-29 year olds do not change their opinion if they get married and/or have kids (it would be nice if it were an "and"), but also that their enthusiasm for such redefinition of marriage will increase.

"In polls of young adults, support for gay marriage ranges from 42 to 56 percent."

http://www.mobilize.org/index.php?tray=content&tid=top530&cid=dc18

The liberals know they won't get a bare majority in 20 years among the people at large. But they don't need that--just a significantly large minority to undermine any resistance to their judicial dictatorship.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

If you can, the FMA is a losing proposition.

And we're not talking a small loss either. We're talking a crash/burn loss.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If it's done by the state legislatures--all but the 21st Amendment, it doesn't have a chance. If by state ratifying conventions, chosen by the people for that particular purpose, I suspect it could, even in California.

However, getting it proposed in the first place is the tough one. Won't get it through any conceivable Congress in the next few years, at least. Would require 2/3 of the state legislature to propose it. Unlikely unless the Supreme Court imposes it nationally.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

New York, New Jersey, Delware, and Maryland alone makes 14. I can imagine that several upper Midwestern states would oppose it as well. An amendment isn't going to pass.

Not only that, but the Defense of Marriage Act is unlikely to be upheld, even by a conservative Supreme Court. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is tough to get around.

Gay marriage is here to stay.

If the people in New York, New Jersey, etc. were so in favor of gay marriage, it would have passed by now legislatively in all those states.

As for the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause, the argument is extremely weak. Not only do you have the public policy exception (a million precedents in favor of this, including nothern states refusing to recognize the validity of slavery in the South), but federal DOMA represents an exercise of Congress's regulatory power over such interstate recognition.

I agree for the foreseeable future, it's here to stay in Massachusetts.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

but their legislatures aren't against it enough to pass a federal amendment.

You may be right about the public policy exception, though. I still wouldn't give the Defense of Marriage Act more than a %50 chance of holding up, even in a conservative court.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

State conventions are called by the governors. If the governor refuses to call a convention, then none convenes. Good luck getting three-fourths of governors to even call a convention, and, even if they did, getting those states to all elect pro-amendment representatives to said conventions.

There's a reason this has only happened once.

I would give DOMA - at least the portion that allows states to refuse recognition to gay marriages - a very good chance to pass muster. No state is required to recognize any out-of-state marriage based on Full Faith and Credit. The FF&C clause is about judicial orders and judgments. Marriage is not a judicial order or judgment - it is a permitted/licensed activity. While a divorce decree comes from a court, a marriage license comes from a clerk.

If FF&C requires a state to recognize a marriage license, why would it not require every state to recognize a concealed carry permit? Why not require everyone to recognize my law licenses?

Black letter law - taught to every kid taking the New York Bar Exam - is that the state is not required to recognize a marriage that is counter to the public policy of the state. That conclusion has never been overturned by a federal court claiming that FF&C requires such recognition. I'm not sure why everybody automatically takes as gospel the claims of the Left that the FF&C clause means what THEY say it means. Do some homework and learn the law - or ask someone who does know it befire you shoot your mouth off about what is and isn't the law.

I was merely basing my opinion on the way things seem to be moving.

If I understand you, though, not only is the relevant portion of the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional, but it is also redundant (i.e. the public policy exception makes the DOMA unneccesary). Is this, in your opinion, correct?

....it would be constitutional. And it is probably redundant. But it could be said that the public policy exception is of judicial origin - this would be a legislative pronouncement that they agree with that construction of the clause. Having the legislature (and the executive who assented by signing DOMA) weigh in expressly is never a bad thing.

However, I will add that I do not believe that the federal definition of marriage in DOMA is constitutional. But I seem to have in mind that a federal court has already upheld that provision once - as long as it is limited to only federal laws. Personally, I don't want Congress deciding what is and isn't a marriage. It leaves open the door for Congress to decide that, state laws notwithstanding, a marriage of first cousins will not be valid, or a marriage to someone under 17, or a marriage to someone who isn't mentally capable of entering into a marriage. When Congress is deemed to have the power to decide what is a marriage on one issue, they inherently have the power for any issue that they feel strongly enough about. No person that believes in limiting the feds to their Constitutionally-given powers can believe that marriage is fair game for federal regulation.

decades ago

your optimism may be folly

unless its the present roberts-alito court plus one more

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The big difference between Prop. 22 and the one that will be on the November ballot is that Prop. 22 was meant to stop the redefinition of marriage and to not extend it. The upcoming initiative would itself re-redefine marriage, LIMIT what people will now be able to do (i.e. take away their court granted CIVIL rights).

People will not take it away because they won't see any reason to take away what people will not legally enjoy.

The battle for gay marriage in California is over. A defeat for a DOMA initiative in California will be the last nail in the coffin.

It ain't over until the people say it's over.

And the definition of marriage is the same as in prop 22: between a man and a woman.

Liberals will lose at the end of the day.

PARA LA FAMILIA!!!!!!!!!!

A defeat of November DOMA initiative would mean that it is over, as the people themselves would have supported the court mandated position

mobilization when californians get angry. Prop 22 will be nothing compared to what we will do in November. Take it to the bank. This is a major major poke in the eye and it comes at just the right time.

I predict McCain will win CA just because of this issue. Hispanics like him anyways to begin with, and this is will be a final straw in effecting:

1) the success of the California Marriage Act
2) the victory of McCain / Huckabee in 2008

If gay marriage is in your Top 10 most important issues facing America, there's no way you were voting for Obama to begin with. McCain can't win CA, but it may help his cause with social conservatives who dislike change even more than they dislike him.

Although, I'm pretty sure McCain voted against FMA, so he'd probably just get hit for flip-flopping if he brought it up.

The people of MA refused to overturn their Supreme Court's decision... I think it's incredibly optimistic of you to expect a different result here.

The people of Massachusetts never got a direct vote on their Supreme Court decision. Their elected representatives kept it from a popular vote. After a lot of heated rhetoric, things seemed to have calmed down. This is probably the result of the lack of a stampede of pet owners rushing to marry their dogs and cats, as so many traditional marriage proponents imagined.

The California vote will be unique because (1) there is an example in Massachusetts and the sky has not fallen and (2) it would be one of the few (only?) times people would be voting to take away a right. I think that's a tougher sell for the Campaign of Fear, but it will probably be a very close vote.

If the CA referendum was in June instead of November, I'd say it had a great chance. The blowout victory for Prop. 22 occurred in March, after all.

It's been 8 years, plus Massachusetts and Canada and a lot of compelling personal stories shown on the local news. Then you have the Barack Obama youth turnout. It will be closer than the presidential popular vote in CA, probably, but that's not saying much.

Really? I'd say it's 50-50.

Both Alaska and Hawaii's referenda 10 years ago were passed following court rulings.

Even if the DOMA fails in California, in how many years do you think that all the believing Jews, Christians, and Muslims in America will just shrug their shoulders and say, Oh, OK, marriage is just about "coupling."

Sounds like what commentators said about abortion in 1973, or even 1992.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

that referendum in deciding to confer State HI benefits to same-sex couples, absolutely turned it on its head by concluding that the amendment did indeed prohibit benefits to unmarried heterosexual partners but that the due process clause required that benefits be conferred on unmarried homosexual partners.

In Vino Veritas

Who cares? Does the Federal Government really needed to expanded? Does it not have enough to do?

MA has gay marriage and lower divorce rates than plenty of states where there is no gay marriage.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

I've lived in MA, and one of hte reasons MA has a lower divorce rate is that people don't marry, they just live together. People who do marry are probably more religious, and those that aren't are more educated and get married later in life, which is good wisdom that lessens the chance of divorce.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

Article 1 talks about Rights.

Section 3, (2) says this:

A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.

If I had to guess, I'd put it there... but I haven't spent more than a couple minutes with it and I haven't read the decision yet.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Marriage is unimportant?

Good news? Not if you (1) believe in traditional marriage, or, (2) believe in the right of self-government.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

But there's a 50% divorce rate anyway.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"People who support gay marriage point to the number of straight people living in sham marriages, but let's not bring the Clintons into this."

The ruling, however, is pretty much as expected. And, as far as I know, the Constitutional amendment process for the State of California would make it almost impossible to change. So forget about that right now.

I'd make some more wisecracks about the decision, but I think they might be in somewhat bad taste for the decorum of this site... with the exception of my brother's weird advice on how to turn such a decision into a Pyrrhic victory:

"Sure, you can make gay marriage legal... but you didn't say anything about legalizing gay divorce!"

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

I support gay marriage.

Someone else points out how Marriage is a Sacrament or Heterosexual Marriage is The Foundation of the Traditional Family and NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED.

And *THEN* the person who supports gay marriage points out the divorce rate among those who argue that Marriage is a Sacrament or whathaveyou.

The unitive function of marriage is attainable to homosexuals. Sure, they can't attain the procreative... but there is a huge number of marriages out there that are only good at the procreative but horrid at the unitive.

We need more positive goods at the moment. The unitive function of marriage is a positive good.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

1. First, you use a strawman. Who is arguing that marriage was just fine and dandy until the courts tried to redefine it. Of course it's terrible shape.

Moreover, you make an empirical claim that is probably false: the divorce rate is 50% not only among the population at large, but also among those persons most strenously trying to preserve AND strengthen the institution of marriage. Do you know that divorce is just as prevalent among believing, practicing Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc? I highly doubt it.

2. Unitive is not possible among homosexuals, because homosexual act(s) involves contact, but not organic unity. To the extent there is genuine friendship between such persons (and there surely is in many cases), the fact that they also regularly engage in various acts of mutual masturbation does not make that friendship particularly "unitive."

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

"Do you know that divorce is just as prevalent among believing, practicing Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc?"

Um, that's what the numbers say.

Well, people who profess to be such, anyway. This was actually a big scandal within the church in the 80's, how the divorce rate within the church was pretty much the same as without.

Now, of course, you can point out that there are plenty of people who go to church but are merely whited sepulchers and I will agree with you 100%.

As for your #2, I'll just say that you're assuming facts not in evidence.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Yes, I'm familiar with the polls asking self-described born-again Christians about this, etc.

I would prefer a poll among persons who profess to believe that marriage is for life. Not exactly the distinction you were drawing in referring to "whited sepulchers."

In any case, the fact that the respondents to these polls adhere to a nametag--much like Nancy Pelosi et al. clinging to the nametag "Catholic"--makes the poll weak as a refutation of my claim that is not only supported by my own (infallible) anecdotal experience, but also rests on the intuition that ideas have consequences.

As to the facts I have assumed, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I suspect that any further argument as to the positive value of homosexual acts is likely to end, as if often does here, in mutual exchange of accusations of delusion and blindness.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

I'd say that the people who have never been divorced would be a lot more likely to argue that marriage is for life than those who had been divorced before.

Though there probably is a number of people who have been divorced before who would explain that marriage is for life, but my circumstances are extraordinary so you shouldn't hold my decisions against me, as you would have done the exact same thing in my place, and anyway, judge not, etc...

But, if I had to guess, I'd say that the folks who have never been divorced will be a lot less understanding of divorce and those who have would be a lot more understanding of it.

I don't find this particular insight particularly interesting, however.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Because we know that Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer would not find an emanating right for homosexuals to marry in the penumbra. And Kennedy would never want to write the majority opinion with the far-left thus making himself appear very important and learned to his European summer friends. Nope! No way, would never happen. That's why SENATOR McCain saw no reason to support the Constitutional Amendment.

.....for the same reason I do. It is totally counter to every principle of federalism the conservative movement claims to stand for. Marriage is NOT NOT NOT a federal power. It shouldn't be defined by the federal government, and I'm not sure where Congress gets off on thinking that it should be.

DOMA is the law. To date, as far as I know, it hasn't even been challenged in a court, let alone struck down. That law so far, has been sufficient to prevent federal judicial action. What state courts do under their own laws and constitutions on the issue is not a matter that the feds should step in on. If the people of California want to do nothing, that's their business. The rest of us still have the capacity to effect the laws in our own states.

McCain did not believe that the marriage amendment was a necessary imposition at this point. And given the way it is written I don't believe it is either necessary or good policy either. This is part of why the Party is having problems. Some social conservatives seem all to willing to abandon some of the base principle when it suits their outcome preference. Federalism needs to be the guiding principle, and conservatives should not be so quick to run to Congress and the feds when they don't get what they want. If we do that, we are no better than the liberals who attempt to do at the federal level what they can't get people back home to support.

Does support for the Second Amendment mean that gun-rights people are anti-federalists?

The Second Amendment, by definition, make gun ownership a Federal issue.

I don't see anything in the Constitution preempting the definition and licensing of marriage, which has always been a State governmental function. DOMA deals with regulating the relationships between states, which again by defintion is a federal matter.

So where is the violation of federalism taking place?

And Rightly So!

This thread is talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Some are arguing that we can't have FMA because it violates federalism. Federalism, however, is not the be-all and end-all principle of the constitution.

It's the putting of the head in the sand to ignore that the ONLY reason the homosexual activist have not challenged DOMA is because they are not 100% sure that Kennedy will join Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. If Kennedy (or Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Roberts) are replaced, no reasonable person would not understand that DOMA would fall and a constitutional right emanating from the penumbra would be created.

That is why I supported the Amendment. Yeah! Yeah! to federalism, but the issue is too important to one day soon look-back on and say, well we lost and we KNEW we were going to lose, and just like abortion the Court has hoisted abortion on all 50 states, but by gosh I stood by my federalism principles.

I think its time to take the gloves off with homosexuals. For too long we have allowed the word "gay" to be used and for this group to be looked upon as just your normal everyday folk who just happened to have sexual relations with the same sex. We have refrained because we preferred to live in a G or PG world, it's now time to really discuss as graphically as necessary the perversity of this lifestyle.

"Good news? Not if you (1) believe in traditional marriage"

So straights can't marry now?

Personally, I hate that it was imposed by a 4-3 court decision after it lost nearly 2-1 in a popular vote of the people. But practically, I don't give a rat's rear. Doesn't affect me at all. All the family values in the world won't end the war or get gas under $2/gallon.

Good campaign issue for McCain tho, s'long as he doesn't overplay his hand. Simply say, "this is just another example of social engineering better left to the people" and move on.

Be interesting to see what happens when those judges come up for re-election. Also interesting that Corrigan, the "moderate" who replaced JRB, dissented.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Sorry, but you are. If you don't understand, if you haven't noticed that we can only put things behind us with political solutions, rather than through judicial dictates, then your critical thinking skills do not exist.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

a case of the court creating laws. Rather, it is simply interpreting the state's constitution. The solution though is to simply change the Constitution of the State of California and the US Constitution. That is the democratic solution to this (if you are one who thinks this needs solving). I don't think that's going to happen. So, let's move on. If you don't want to marry a dude, then don't.

If they correctly interpretted their state's Constitution then your whole argument is irrelevant.

if we want to be considered a Republic consisting of free people

Too bad it won't really make you go away, though...

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

but I'm not clear on whether by the mullahcracy or by the legislature.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

...have same-sex marriage. Only MA and now CA have marriage. And both were judicially imposed. Hawaii actually has a constitutional amendment. They were the first proof of the stupidity of the gay Left. The Gay Left went to Hawaii first to get a court decision thinking it was a liberal state and they'd have success. They won the court case, but the voters turned around and changed the constitution to eliminate the basis for the court decision. Of course, almost 40 state marriage amendments hasn't stopped the gay Left in its belief that the answer is the courts.

CT has legislatively created civil unions. They may be the only ones - though I don't recall if there was a NJ marriage case before or after they decided to create a civil union deal. VT, of course, was judicially catalyzed, though it was a legislative enactment - the court required them to go with marriage or civil unions.

...has been granting civil unions since 2005 with nobody particularly giving a tinker's dam. Funny how that happens when you do this sort of thing via the legislature.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it stating that it should be left to the courts to decide the issue. So it's unfair to say now, after the issue has been decided by the courts, that gay marriage should be decided by the legislature.

Do we look like Arnold Schwarzenegger to you?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

So, question : are they calling it civil unions or coopting the term 'marriage'? I think the civil union thing encounters considerably less opposition. In my opinion anyway, since I'm fairly serious soCon, and I don't have any objection to civil unions.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

I do not believe the statutory language coopts the term marriage. However, I would guess the laziness of legislators means that the civil union law had a provision that basically amended all of the state's laws such that in any place where there was a reference to "marriage" it will not say "marriage or civil union" and "husband and wife" will become "spouses" or some other neutered terminology.

In effect, civil unions are only marriage by a different name - they come with all of the privileges and responsibilities that married couples have in the state.

Discriminating on the basis of foreign origin, or lack of one, is unacceptable in Modern, Diverse America.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

might was well go for the most important job in the land, you know, where the real decisions are made

There is no federal appeal of this. The only federal clause that could conceivably be used in this instance - where a state court is interpreting the state constitution for state law purposes - is the "republican government" clause whereby the federal government is supposed to guarantee to the states a republican form of government.

However, the SCOTUS long ago decided that the clause has no judicial function - the courts will not, and cannot, evaluate the question of what is a republican form of government and are not empowered to "remedy" any breach of that form even if they find it. It is a political question left within the complete discretion of the other two branches.

They already had some of the most generous policies of any state in terms of domestic partner benefits. This really was about the acceptance of a redefined term, marriage, than anything else.

In 2000, the argument was to keep the currently legal definition.

In 2008, the argument is to CHANGE the definition, and do it in a way that it would take away a currently held right to marry between some people. People will not vote to change it back if they don't think that they are being directly harmed.

Come November, expect a massive Dem turnout against declining GOP numbers. Then you have to consider that a non-significant portion of Conservatives seem adamant about staying home on election night. Finally, you have to factor the effect of eight years passing. There are now eight years worth of new (young) voters who are much more open to gay rights, and eight years worth of (old) voter die-off who (mostly) supported DOMA/FMA.

Having said that, I don't have a good read on how the populace will vote - but it will make this Fall even more interesting (if that's possible).

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

This isn't about states rights. No state legislature has approved gay marriage. It has been forces on everyone through activist judges.

Your type of silly argument simply proves that libertarians care more about results than principles.

I know dont know anything about the Constitution of California. I'd be opposed to this in my state. But I'm not overly concerned with what is going on in CA. It's not my constitution and they are not my judges. It is California after all.

But to say that his argument proves "that libertarians care more about results than principles" is about as fair a statement as pointing out that the Republican controlled Executive/House/Senate branch proves that Republicans care more about Pork than principles.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

States rights is about the federal government letting states do their own thing within their own sphere. Judicial imposition of marriage is a travesty - but it is a travesty that must be dealt with by the people of California. It is not the business of the representatives of the other 49 states to step in and slap California on the wrist and say "bad California, no!" These are state judges addressing themselves to the state constitution in the context of a set of state laws. If the people of California are so profoundly offended by it, they will fix it. If they are not, and choose not to alter the result, then that should be the end of the story for the rest of us, unless and until some federal court imposes some rule that we all need to live like Californians.

with your characterization of Kyle's remark as crap. :)

Your claim is that "states rights" is a matter merely of state governmental sovereignty without any regard for popular sovereignty.

Virtually every argument for states' rights that I have heard has made reference to popular sovereignty.

In this case, the other 49 states would not be slapping California on the wrist, but slapping the judicial elite on behalf of the people of California--much as Congress might guarantee to the states republican governments and protection against domestic insurrection.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

If a state supreme court just decides to abolish the legislative and executive branches and declare themselves the grand puba council then there is nothing the federal government can do? Granted this is the most extreme case, but how bad does judicial activism have to get before it crosses a line?

Granted it likely is. But I don't know CA law, I don't know their constitution.

CA constitution + CA judges, appointed by CA legislature = CA business, not mine.

Does it really surprise you that these judges voted this way? It is California. They pick their judges, my states picks it's own and we can't pick California judges noses.

Didn't the CA House and Senate twice passed gay marriage laws and the governor vetoed them? So I think it's incorrect to say no legislature has passed it...

Also, 6 of the 7 justices are Republican and so far as I can tell, it appears they did a good job based on the CA State constitution and an earlier precedent. So I'm not sure calling them activist judges is fair either.

Being federalists doesn't mean we can't have opinions of what goes on in a given state.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Ought to be disbanded and smacked as a thoroughly unconservative position. This is a California issue, and it ought to be up to the citizens of California, which if I understand correctly will be voting on this in November, and then the results should lie with the people. The decision to go through the Courts should be mocked, but the conservative thing to do is exactly what Californians are doing-putting in to a vote to let their state decide, not to push a constitutional amendment to let the federal government decide what's best for each state.

The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Case in point, Fred Thompson opposed FMA on the same federalist grounds that I do. It's unnecessarily involving the federal government on a state issue. This is the slippery slope where we ask the federal government to do everything that the states should handle themselves, and we wonder why we end up with big federal education programs and large scale economic regulations-we like the federal government to be big when it's convenient on our side, but we're all small government when it's good for us too. You're either a federalist all the time, or you don't get to claim the label.

The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

...

The trouble with our friend McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

The Constitution itself--which transferred alot of power from the sovereign states to a national government.

13th Amendment--slavery--sorry states, we're not that open minded.

14th--citizenship, due process, equal protection, ditto.

15th, 19th, 26th--voting rights.

It's hard to say whether support for, or opposition to, any of these amendments was "conservative."

Same goes for the FMA.

Do you have a rule in mind for when the Constitution ought to be amended so as to impose new restrictions on the states? I don't.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Of arguments that we were "forcing freedom" on the Iraqis at the beginning of the Iraq war.

The argument that abolishing slavery is restricting the lifestyle choices of slaveowners strikes me as...

Well. Let me be kind and say I find it unpersuasive.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Where does federalism fit into this worldview? Does something have to reach some high or extreme level of "wrongness" to qualify? Your 1 and 2 seem to imply that the federal government should step in to fix the situation in any state where a law is not righteous or just. At that point, why even have states at all?

N/T

You are being overly simplistic here.

Not all methods and means are appropriate to opposing every particular problem.

People can and DO weight things, internally. It is entirely possible for someone to value federalism more than he or she values opposing gay marriage.

In this particular case, I cannot see that the two are at odds with each other. To resort to crass legalism, ultimately some states are going to allow same-sex marriage, many others will ban it. If a same-sex couple moves from the state that they got married in to a state in which such marriages are not recognized, how will their legal rights be addressed? Federalism only applies here if the issue is truly one that can be solved by a local government. In this case, it cannot. Federalism becomes secondary to moral right/good/justice.

are wrong. Should we have a Federal Pothole amendment?
You don't support potholes, do you?

What other problems can we solve with the federal government?

...let there be a Federal Pothole amendment.

That's what amendments are for.

Let's keep making the federal government bigger and bigger, because it's ok as long as Republicans are doing it right? Somewhere the principles of small government went out the window to be replaced by this trash and you all wonder why conservatives are considering staying home. But by all means, continue to increase the size of government to suit your means. After all, it's for The Children.

The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

amendments that are driven by the people. Unless you are saying that there is no use to the amendment process at all.

Whenever you want, rather than letting the state take care of state business. Unless you are saying that wasn't you jumping up and down shrieking for FMA. Because it's the federal government's business to define marriage in a federal constitutional amendment, again to save The Children from The Gays. Cue the scary music.

The trouble with our friend McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

Are so utterly annoying. I don't suppose it's properly the place of the federal government to define state property laws, but there we have the 13th Amendment anyway. The spectacular non sequiturs you and the rest of your lot have rattled off in this thread are quite frankly embarrassing in their transparency.

The unbroken testimony of at least 6 millenia of human history confines marriage to heterosexual relationships. Your answer to this is a sneer about scary music. There is no definition under which this kind of response can be characterized as "conservative."

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

Your book that you use to justify the evil of gay marriage certainly gives a compelling case for that too. And certainly there's a lot of testimony in there that says slavery isn't specifically wrong either. Frankly the SoCon wing that calls itself conservative is equally utterly annoying-your rush to expand the size of government to suit your means and "protecting" your children from gay relationships and the "gay lifestyle" isn't going to make people stop being gay, and it won't make them go away, no matter how immoral y'all think it is. But like I said, you guys keep going making government bigger and giving us the right wing nanny state. It's what America needs.

The trouble with our friend McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

Or Lesbian Americans from rebelling against the male figures who molested them as children from becoming lesbians. But, it's not expanding the size of government to state that marriage is between one man and one woman, and let states (federalism!) decide the respective ages and relations allowed to marry.

and adds nothing to your argument.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

It's not about marriage at all-its about you keeping the "fudge packers and the lesbians who rebel against their molestors" in their place. Now I get it, boy that sounds eerily similar to some stuff we used to hear before 1965, but ok, I'll go with that. At least your honest about it with me that it's not about marriage, you just don't like gay people. Fair enough buddy, you're going to be awfully upset when your kids have some gay friends but good luck fighting the good fight.

The trouble with our friend McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

They might have friends that steal or have other myriad of personal issues; what I won't do is tell them that abusing alcohol, stealing, etc. are just wonderful traits that are no different that not abusing alcohol or stealing.

Your remarks are remarkably inclusive and tolerant. I'm sure that such remarks will work only too well in convincing these folks that their choices, and indeed their very essence, is vile and needs correction.

It's at least a 1 in 10 chance that one of his kids is gay. So, he can disown that kid or risk losing that kid because of his intolerance.

Just because I use an analogy for one purpose doesn't mean that that I am using it for all purposes. I nowhere in my post compared gay marriage to slavery, I used the two phenomena to illustrate that your argument, as such, holds no water. Then, as has been typical of your argumentation throughout this thread, you responded with something that had nothing to do with the topic at hand that was designed to lead into your next repetitive, dull sneer at religious people. I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but I will point out that the Bible does anywhere support slavery, it encourages slaves to seek a higher purpose in life than their human freedom.

But like I said, you guys keep going making government bigger and giving us the right wing nanny state.

Your continued assertion that preventing gay marriage will make government bigger also won't make government any bigger. In fact, it will keep it smaller, as I have already demonstrated.

Sorry for interrupting your hysterics; I have to go back to work.

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

And certainly there's a lot of testimony in there that says slavery isn't specifically wrong either

Actually "slavery" was a way for people in Biblical days to get out of debt. If they could not pay their debts (and they were bankrupt), then they were forced to work for 7 years to make it up. So it was a form of employment actually, between Hebrew brethren.

represented on the Federal level through a democratic process known as an amendment. We're playing by the rules as outlined in the Constitution.

Let me ask you, why do we even have a federal government?

I have heard a lot of different arguments for why gay marriage should be legalized (none persuasive) but this is the first time I've ever heard it argued that a constitutional amendment banning the recognition of gay marriages would increase the size of government. Absolutely freaking mind boggling.

Especially since the status quo is that gay marriages are not recognized, and the recognition of gay marriage increases the number of people who are eligible for all sorts of governmental services and benefits, and as an added super-duper bonus, will increase the administrative complexity of several government programs due to fraud.

You 'Toids make me laugh. Just go ahead and say that you think that the government should be forced to recognize all sexual choices as equal. I'd respect you more for having the courage of your convictions, at least.

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

I've also said that I support the 10th amendment, and this is a state decision and is unnecessary to get the federal government involved. I have plenty of courage on this issue-I wrote a blog about it on RS in fact. Like I said, you guys want the federal government involved when it suits you, and then later you'll scream about the federal government taking over like when gun rights go to court. You don't get to claim federalist principles when its convenient. You either respect states rights or you don't, and Fred agrees with me that this is a profoundly nonconservative move to try and push this stuff from the top down. But like I said, you guys know whats best for the GOP to be working on-who cares about small government and the economy. We must protect The Children from The Gay Lifestyle.

The trouble with our friend McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

Clearly, you support gay marriage. No one is doubting your, uh, "courage" in taking that stand. What you lack the courage to do is to deal honestly with the reasons that you are taking for that stand.

Like I said, you guys want the federal government involved when it suits you, and then later you'll scream about the federal government taking over like when gun rights go to court.

I'd be interested if you could find one statement from me that is even remotely similar to this. Let me know if you need help finding my archives, or using an internet search. Or I could just save you time and tell you that such a statement from my mouth (keyboard) does not exist. In fact, I have repeatedly pointed out that both sides of the aisle are wont to use federalism like a club when it's handy for a given issue, and forget it for others. I, for one, am not nor ever have been a believer that federalism is a higher principle than several others which have existed and been fabrics of Western society for far longer (the sanctity of human life and the family relationship, for starters).

Someone ought also to inform you that Fred Thompson is not the fount from which authoritative interpretations of conservatism flow.

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

And are both running into a brick wall that neither of us will change. I'm with you on abortion by the way, and on that too I would leave it to the states to decide. There is no dishonesty on my belief in federalism in opposing the FMA-and I stated that I have no problem in Californians deciding that they want to prevent gay marriage in their state. I don't care about the 30 some odd states that do as well-my belief comes from the idea that we need the federal government to intervene and waste time on a federal constitutional amendment. You have the DOMA, you have have states banning gay marriage, and on top of this, this is going to the ballot in CA in November. Where is the need to push this through the federal government, please by all means make the case for why this is a federal issue. And I'd love to hear whose a authoritative modern voice for conservatism that isn't Fred-perhaps Huckabee for you as well? That would be shocking.

The trouble with our friend McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.

I use the word "conservatism" to convey its actual meaning; that the traditions and experience of the past are useful teachers and ought to be "conserved" absent an extremely compelling reason to do so. You use "conservatism" to refer to what is actually libertarianism because somewhere along the line, Barry Goldwater went crazy and got the idea that the two were the same thing. They're not. They have a remarkable confluence of interest and purpose on several occasions, but they proceed from diametrically opposed premises, and thus on important questions reach entirely different results.

I'm with you on abortion by the way, and on that too I would leave it to the states to decide.

See, we're not together on this. I really do have to go work, but suffice to say that I'd throw the relatively recent historical principle of "federalism" overboard in a heartbeat in favor of the much older and more sacred principle that mothers should not be allowed to kill their children at will.

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

Can I at least argue that sexual choices between consenting adults are none of the business of the government?

I mean, I don't want to say that *ALL* sexual choices are equal. There are quite a few that are not. The ones, for example, that involve consenting adults and entities who are not consenting adults.

But when it comes down to it... why is recognition of sexual choices something that I want the government involved in, on any level?

"WE NEED SOMETHING LIKE THE TSA!!! ONLY FOR RECOGNIZING SEXUAL CHOICES!!!" is not a rallying cry that appeals to me particularly.

Moreover, I find it difficult to imagine someone for whom it would be a stirring cry. The ones I can imagine creep me out, somewhat.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

But of course you're arguing that the government has no interest in the preservation of familial cohesiveness, and by extension no interest in its own self-preservation. I reject that argument.

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

That homosexuals being allowed access to financial and civic protections will do any damage at all to familial cohesiveness.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Unless you somehow reject the notion that it's important that "family" has an identifiable meaning within society that reaches beyond "two people who are having sex."

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

That the government has the power to do anything, at all, with that meaning.

If The People have redefined marriage to mean that it's merely something for two people who may or may not have children can do for a couple of years until they fall out of love...

Well, the government saying "NO! IT'S A SACRED VOW!" ain't gonna do a whole lot.

Even if they get a Constitutional Amendment.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Then surely you would have no objection to supporting the FMA?

Would the FMA mean that homosexuals be denied, for example, inheritance rights?

Hospital visitation rights?

That sort of thing? Because, quite honestly, I hear a great many echoes of Loving v. Virginia in the gay marriage debate and a last-ditch constitutional amendment in the 1940's or 1950's entrenching "State's Rights" would strike me as a Constitutional Amendment in service to some very ugly sentiment.

Even though, as a Libertarian, I totally dig on the 10th (and 9th!) Amendments.

Would I support an FMA? No, I don't think I would. I kinda like the Constitution the way it is and while an Amendment might look like we're actually paying attention to it for once, it wouldn't have the result of us paying attention to it more.

But, for the record, I totally support your right to call for an Amendment to the Constitution.

To prevent guys from getting married.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I want to suggest that you read the actual opinion - the California Supremes understood this much. You see, the argument the State AG made was that gay couples already had all the civil privileges of marriage, they just didn't have the title "marriage." The court rejected that argument specifically because denying gay couples the right to be called "married" sent a societal message that their relationships did not have equal dignity with married couples. And you know what? The court is right. There are loads of areas where the law leads public opinion - public opinion on abortion permissiveness raised significantly after the Supremes declared it a constitutional "right." If you really think the government has no power to move public acceptance of a phenomenon, then you've got a hopelessly naive view of how much a significant portion of the population thinks deeply about most issues.

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

The naive thing, I mean.

The damage to Traditional Marriage has already been done, Leon.

It wasn't done by the homosexuals either.

The Heterosexuals redefined marriage in the late-60's and through much of the 90's.

It used to be a Unitive/Procreative Covenant.

Now it's a contract between two people who like sleeping in the same bed.

It wasn't homosexuals who changed the definition of marriage.

Personally, I'd like to see marriage redefined into something much like a Unitive Covenant between Two Life Partners rather than the contract between two people sleeping in the same bed thing that it's got going on now.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If that's all you think is at work in a gay coupling by definition, you are singularly unqualified to have an informed opinion.

Courageously so, I must add.
Worse are those who claim "they don't care", and even worser are those who claim to oppose homosexual marriage, but don't want a federal amendment. With the former, if they truly "don't care", then why not just go ahead with the will of the people, pass the Amendment and be done with. Since they don't profess "to care" whether homosexuals get married, then why should they care if they can't? But those in the latter group are either ignorant or (and I suspect) dishonest when they ignore the realities of the Supreme Court of the USA and the agenda of not only the MSM, but the law schools and "legal community" who have prioritized a Brown v. BOE-like homosexual marriage case. As I have stated many times prior, anyone with even minimal knowledge of the current Court would recognize that there are at least 4 votes for homosexual marriage right now (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer); that is why this Presidential election is so important.

"Since they don't profess "to care" whether homosexuals get married, then why should they care if they can't?"

I do not care if black people and white people want to get married.

I don't care at all.

But if you ask "well, why would you care if they can't?", then you misunderstand my not caring whether they get married.

I like the idea of two consenting adults signing a contract.

So much so that if two consenting adults sign a contract or choose not to... that I don't care as it's not really my business so long as the contract does not mention me.

But if you are saying that two people cannot sign a contract?

That's Wrong.

I don't think you have the Right to say that they can't sign a contract together.

Seriously, dude, that was an awful argument.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

My wife and I have a contract with each other.

Colorado has recognized the contract, I'm pleased to say...

But our marriage is a contract with each other. (The way out of it is to die.)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

yesterday. Of course, contracts cannot violate public pilicy as reflected in laws passed by we the people (e.g. see contract killing Ks).

Analogies to former laws that were based on race are an insult to civil rights movement leaders.

skin color is not analogous to genitalia

We the People in super majorities, not 5 lawyers (or 4), corrected that race matter in the 14th amendment.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I agree, wholeheartedly, that being gay is *NOTHING* at all like being black.

I do hear a great many echoes in the arguments given against gay marriage and the arguments given against inter-racial marriage.

Note: I am not saying that being gay and being black are anything at all alike.

But read the "dicta" in Leon Bazile's ruling and say that you don't hear echoes of that in some, if not many, of the arguments against gay marriage.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

And good for you. If your marriage is a commitment that the courts would not let you out of easily, I wish more were like yours.

In the general case it is not, though. It is a social institution; hence the "common law marriage" without any formal vows.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Do you think a Constitutional Amendment will push it more toward the (for lack of a better term) Sacred or further away from it?

Personally, I think it'll do an even better job of trivializing what marriage has become.

It'll also be a Constitutional Amendment that limits Liberty, rather than protects it or expands it.

We had another of those, once.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Addressing marriage without divorce won't fix it, which is why some states *are* looking to strengthen marriage by letting people do as you've done, and get in a marriage that's harder to get out of. I think the proposed law that some of the states followed calls it a 'convenant marriage' as it has provisions to deter divorce.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Quite honestly, the thought of two people who love each other and want to live together until one or the other is dead just makes me very, very happy.

I wish that there were more such arrangements.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Agnostic and atheist lawyers have reduced the definition of marriage to a crude legalism. It's disgusting, it's wrong, it rejects not only the past 6,000 years of human history but also the dignity of the human being, the human family and the ideals of love, faithful bonding and commitment.

Libertarians are ever dogmatic about the essential contractual nature of human relationships to each other. It's sad and to me smacks of a certain Sartre-esque view of the world. There is no meaning to life in such a view. Life is simply a series of movements from one contract to another with little joy in-between. Utter rejection of idealism, faith, and metaphysics. Is that the vaunted freedom or liberty that Libertarians are advocating for? Thanks, but no thanks!

The Christians in the church who got divorces at pretty much the same rate as the agnostic and atheist unchurched helped a lot too.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

That is more related to both the attitudes of various Christian denominations toward divorce and the generally lackadaisical practice of religion amongst Christians in America. To be slightly more offensive, I find many Christians in the US to be either apostates or heretics.

Within my own broadly speaking branch of Christianity, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches (which, unlike some, I regard as one and the same), the normative beliefs and practices of the faithful in America are generally less than optimal. The term "cafeteria Catholic" has been most appropriate since at least the turn of the century (that is 1900, not 2000) and has been formally condemned by Popes Pius IX to Benedict XVI. Amongst the Orthodox, things are slightly better.

Both Churches condemn divorce in the strongest terms, with Catholics allowing remarriage only after formal ecclesiastical annulment of the existing marriage. Orthodox allow divorce only after extended counseling and then only allow a second marriage to be performed with the understanding that it will be a grave affair, not a joyous one. Both Churches frown on marriage past the second (the Orthodox will not allow it period; I think that it is basically not allowed amongst Catholics either, but I'd have to check that).

For people of certain faiths who actively practice their faith in a traditional, orthodox manner, divorce rates are quite low. In fact, if I recall correctly, the lowest divorce rates in the country are amongst Orthodox Jews (at least they were until recently). Those folks are more disciplined in their religious practice than just about anyone in the US. Consequently the divorce rate is quite low. Is there a formal correlation? I think so, but I believe that it has more to do with awe toward God and an understanding that when one makes a commitment to God (that is, taking marriage vows in a particular faith), one does well not to break it.

Fear, trembling, dude. Totally.

However, these folks have covered their light with a bushel.

I've no idea where the city on the hill is. I'm looking for it but... unless someone has hid it (and who can hide a city on a hill?), I'm going to reach the conclusion that it just ain't there.

Like most kids who grew up in the 80's, I have a number of friends whose parents got divorced when they were in their teens. Every couple of months. "Dude. My parents are getting divorced."

This happened to friggin' EVERYBODY.

Dumb crap, mostly. People trying to find themselves... which generally translated to "I'm going to diddle someone else."

I don't know what the numbers are for most of the country but I know that my circle of friends does not have a single divorce (wait, one guy got a divorce... he married a stripper and she screwed him over big time and he considers that a "starter marriage" but other than him...) among us.

Everyone says "we won't make the mistakes our parents made".

My wife and I are hitting our 10 come October. We're the kids in the group. The others will be hitting numbers in the mid-teens in the coming year.

And the general philosophy everyone has is "Murder: Maybe. Divorce: Never."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I'm very happy for you and sincere congratulations to you on your upcoming anniversary.

Like you, I was a teenager in the 80's and certainly had a fair share of friends from broken homes. The end results of the divorces were usually unhappiness for both parents and their children.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion here, however.

Also, I hope that you can clarify this for me. I will happily address your point; at this time I simply do not understand it:

"However, these folks have covered their light with a bushel.

I've no idea where the city on the hill is. I'm looking for it but... unless someone has hid it (and who can hide a city on a hill?), I'm going to reach the conclusion that it just ain't there."

That if religious folks really had X, Y, or Z powering them, they'd be better role models.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Even psychologists will admit that human beings are happier when they have faith in .

Happier people probably have happier marriages. I don't believe that is an unreasonable assumption.

As to role models... well that depends on what you are looking for in a role model. I guess that really leads to a larger question though. Assuming that a role model is someone whose values you would like to adopt, you must answer the question posed by all philosophers: what is the summum bonum?

about a people wandering in the wilderness before arriving at their promised land.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

No different then how bioethicists describe life as a random collection cells cobbled together to form our bodies devoid of souls.

Pathetic of them really.

____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

Being that I'm an atheist, I wouldn't overgeneralize :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I thought of it more as a shot against lawyers :)

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The offense was, broadly, meant against lawyers. I certainly weep for your view of metaphysics, but I have no desire to insult your intelligence by preaching to you either. I apologize for any offense I may have caused.

I suppose that I am guilty of overgeneralization here. I have many associates who are attorneys and not one of them is a practicing theist of any stripe, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, what have you. I don't necessarily wish to draw the conclusion that the practice of law leads to atheism or agnosticism as there are some well-known attorneys of great religious faith, but I find that atheism or agnosticism is more prevalent amongst attorneys than it is amongst the general population. That is purely personal observation, not based on any empirical data.

I was smiling as I wrote that; I'm not even a lawyer :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

atheists and agnostics to value life more because of those convictions. I used to think I was an atheist and I may still be kind of a sympathetic agnostic but I'm glad to have my life and I think every other should be regarded fairly.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

This is a good observation. Increasing the number of government-approved marriage licenses will certainly not decrease the size of government. Sadly, whether it's pool tables or matrimony we can't seem to keep ourselves from authorizing the government to make us ask permission to do, well, just about anything.

Especially since the status quo is that gay marriages are not recognized, and the recognition of gay marriage increases the number of people who are eligible for all sorts of governmental services and benefits, and as an added super-duper bonus, will increase the administrative complexity of several government programs due to fraud.

Well, you make a very sound argument for doing away with all government meddling in marriage, co-habitation, or consensual sexual relations between adults! We lower costs, increase liberty, and stay true to the conservative principle of personal responsibility.

The unbroken testimony of at least 6 millenia of human history confines marriage to heterosexual relationships.

Now that you mention that, it occurs to me that for, what, about 5.5-5.8 of those millenia there was no government regulation of marriage. It evidently did quite well for itself without "licenses" and "permits". Why, it seems like this whole gay marriage thing started up only after government stepped into the middle of things and declared itself to be the arbiter of this age-old tradition. So I'd say the conservative thing to do is get government out of the business of marriage, and return back to those traditions of yesteryear.

You've convinced me! The government should be forced to back the hell away from marriage, and fast!

Then I would anticipate the Court would decide 5-4 in a Kennedy opinion that not falling in a pothole is part of life itself, part of being a part of this crazy, crazy universe and potholes would be therefore banned.

Please demonstrate a major ethical system in which potholes are considered immoral. I can find no arguments in favor of such a system in the classics, scholastics or the moderns (Descarte, Hume, Kant, Sartre, others).

You are arguing that inconvenience (potholes) is an equivalent problem to moral wrong/bad/injustice.

I take issue with the 1) and 2) above. If you are Muslim (or are Jewish), and think eating pork is wrong, then 1) does not apply with reference to eating pork. Does that mean that 2) applies, and you should try and get legislatures to ban pork eating?

Neither Muslims nor Jews consider pork to be "immoral" or threatening to society, per se. Else they would have long since driven pigs to extinction.

The Old Testament uses the same term for homosexuality as it does lobster.

"Abomination."

Just sayin'.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

You would think "Abomination" was the right word if you tried their version of lobster fondue. :-)

with lots of good seafood restaurants, I view Red Lobster as a true abomination!

On the other hand we have this little place shaped like a boat called Captain Tom's OMG! best seafood gumbo, best fried fish and shrimp! and its cheap too.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

So I don't eat it and point out to others that the Bible calls it an abomination.

I haven't gotten around to pointing out that that makes me virtuous, but the day ain't over yet.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

That word, "toeiva" in Hebrew, only applies to male homosexuality.

And the same word is used for businessmen who commit fraud, and for men who remarry their ex-wives after she has been married to another man in the interim.

BTW did anyone notice that three of the six Republican Justices voted with the majority?

Charlie Hall

and get back to us

"βδελυγμα"

I never learned Hebrew. Just Greek.

It's the same word they used in Leviticus 11:10, for the record.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Here's the term from Leviticus 10:11:

sheqets (sheh'-kets)
filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object -- abominable(-tion).

Here's the word from Leviticus 20:13:

tow`ebah (to-ay-baw')
something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol -- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

While it's true that they did use different words in the original hebrew, I wonder if it's not a case where... well, you know how Eskimos have 20 words for snow?

It seems to me that they translate pretty much the same.

But I will stop arguing that they use the same word in the original... I'm not going to stop using the Septuagint, though.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I say no.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

in black robes. Those rubes calling themselves the people? They have not had the benefit of law schools and brilliant law review articles celebrating diversity and the LGBTQ cause.

Not Nana Fed.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

You are positive it would never get 5 votes in the Supreme Court of the United States. Are you that gullible?

judges. Moderates of course.

But as you put it, "moderate" Republicans. They probably have delightful "gay" law clerks or know a heckuva "gay American" at the country club.

The only question that matters here is whether or not the California State Supreme Court correctly interpretted the California State Constitution.

Or do you contend that there was some other metric they should have used? Some other rationale.

I would expect no less from a modern liberal!

Having said that, I reject the thinking of the Machiavellians, the Empiricists and the Rationalists. Locke falls into the Empiricist category. Hume and Berkely had the courage to take the conclusions of Locke (which were based on Hobbes) to their logical conclusion: exclusion of metaphysical reality [that is denial of the existence of the supernatural, i.e. God].

reductio ad absurdum

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

It was not reducing it to the ridiculous. Hume deliberately set out to create an ethical system that was based primarily on observation of the world around us and, to a lesser extent, on utility. Essentially, Hume rejects previous faith- or reason-based ethics and embraces a new system based on observations made by Locke, Hobbes, and Berkely. This is hardly surprising as Hume was an atheist. Eventually, disciples of Hume created utilitarianism (specifically Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill).

Locke's problem is that he accepts the underlying premises of his belief system [empiricism] without openly acknowledging that such a system necessitates atheism.

it does not necessitate atheism.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The point that there is ZERO doubt that if Obama gets to make multiple, maybe even one, nomination to the SCOTUS, that homosexual marriage WILL be forced on the American people.

What I am curious is whether Obama will be asked about this decision? My guess is he will revert to the federalism answer on this, and there will be no follow-up as to whether he believes the same with abortion? Rather, the MSM will just fawn over what a brilliant moderate statesman Obama is and how he made the definitive answer to such a difficult, perhaps even unfair, question. And how to support this decision is wonderful, yet to oppose it would be DIVISIVE!

If that's the case, I better tell the wife and kids that we will soon be parted. Then, I have to find myself a boyfriend soon. Are you available?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the argument about "unelected judges". I believe that California Supreme Court Justices are elected. Although both parties have used the resign, appoint option so their pick can run as an incumbent.

Trust me when I say that Democratic strategists in every campaign in the country would love for Republicans to make an issue of this, as loudly as possible. Because really, that line of attack worked so well in 2006, and even better in several notable recent special elections.

Oh, wait.

Look, I get that you feel strongly about this and are obligated by your principles to fight against it. That's your right as a citizen, and I respect it. But setting aside for a moment the moral dimension of marriage rights--which we can argue til the cows come home without agreement--the vast majority of this country cares more about the war, gas prices and their mortgage than they do about who marries who. The politics of fear and division just don't have the bite that they did in 2004, and candidates who have nothing to run on but "teh gay" will find themselves out of a job in November.

Incidentally, a couple of corrections are in order. First, you should probably educate yourself about the judicial system in California before ranting about "unelected judges". The justices on the CA Supreme Court are in fact subject to the will of voters, and taking this line of attack will just embarrass you. Second, you'll find that opposition to gay marriage rights commands far less support than you'd like to think, and the demographics get worse for you with each passing year. Almost 70% of Americans 18-29 support gay marriage, and they are now raising children to whom they will pass on their values.

But by all means, keep banging this drum in every election you can this year. The Democratic Party would appreciate the veto-proof majority.

We'll take your challenge. That's how we won in 2004. That's why Florida won't even be a battleground state this year (they have a marriage amendment there too).

Hmm... it seems kind of odd that Obama himself is running away from gay marriage. I wonder what's the problem?

Your statement has no basis in fact whatsoever. Obama's stance on the matter has been consistent throughout his career: he is not in favor of gay marriage, but supports civil unions. Furthermore, his reaction to this decision in CA was--far from "running away"--an expression of approval.

I think you'll find that far more is at work in the FL numbers than the marriage amendment, not the least of which being the unfortunate flap over the legitimacy of the state's delegates. Get back to me in November and we'll dissect the reasons why running against gay marriage failed to prevent an electoral massacre for the GOP.

The overall numbers for gay marriage are opposed by a substantial margin, and that margin has not wavered much over the last few years (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm).

The beauty behind getting this on the ballot is that it ignites the core conservatives and gets them to the polls. This has happened whenever a gay marriage measure has been on the ballot. So, yes, thank you, I'll keep banging the drum. If nothing else because it's the right thing to do. And because it pisses of the lefties.

A SurveyUSA poll taken just yesterday seems not to make your case too well. It even leads me to question its accuracy.

Oddly enough, people there DO seem to "agree with" the ruling in about the margins I would expect. However, at the same time, they support an amendment to keep regular marriage in greater numbers.

What I found most shocking is that even in the Bay Area, such an amendment is supported 46-39 percent. That is a lower rate of opposition than in Central California!

Among those under 30, support is higher than for those 50-64.

Granted, it's still close, and polls can be prone to error. If these results remain consistent though over coming months, I would expect the amendment to pass.

It often amazes me to see how so many people will support court rulings while at the same time supporting laws to counter them.

as agreeing with the outcome. The decision can be correct according to the law & constitution it is based on but that doesn't mean I agree with the laws and constitution!

Not really caring to get down to the finer points of the decision, if it was based strictly by interpreting the applicable laws and relevant portions of the California Constitution then it would be the correct ruling. I would support the ruling but that would not stop me from using every legal means of either changing the laws or the constitution that the decision was based on in order to overturn that ruling!

I am aware of that, and I haven't read the ruling or the constitutional amendments used in the ruling. However, I do not find it credible that so many people would have read both by the time the poll was taken.

I also do not find a 100+ page judicial ruling on the constitutionality of a law to be credible (unless it's one of those children's book with one word per page).

With the possible exception of a cover page and list of references, judges should be limited to five pages with double-spaced 12-point font and one-inch margins. (I would propose the same limits for our representatives and Senators in Congress.)

Why does MA have the lowest divorce rate in the country and CT has one of the lowest? They both allow gay marriage and are liberal.

Shouldn't we be worried about legislating better divorce rates in places like KY, MS & AR where its about double MA. How about make it against the law to nag or leave the toilet seat up?

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

have one of the lowest marriage rates in the country?

If you want to look at the thread I suspect you're referring to, someone accused McCain of not being a defender of traditional marriage. You asked for evidence. I pointed out that he was on his second one because of his divorce to his first wife.

Now, if you want to argue that divorce is not necessarily evidence that someone is not a defender of traditional marriage, that's great.

If you want to argue that divorce is one of those things that, hey, just happens and we can't judge it, that's great too.

But it's weird to argue about traditional marriage without discussing the many, many problems that traditional marriage has... which, of course, includes such problems as infidelity or divorce.

Personally, if I were going to grab a champion of traditional marriage, I suppose I could do a lot worse than someone "only" on his 2nd marriage, sad to say.

But in response to the question of what evidence is there that McCain isn't a defender, having his 2nd marriage (which happened about a month after his divorce became final) pointed out, is *NOT* an ad hominem attack.

I've long argued that if the heterosexual portion of the country treated marriage as a sacred vow between two people who loved each other, wanted children, and stayed together faithfully until one was dead... it would never occur to homosexuals to even try to get married.

It was when heterosexuals started treating marriage as a convenient economic contract between two people who enjoyed unitive (but not procreative) sex and, hey, if you break up you break up...

Well, why *SHOULDN'T* homosexuals be able to get a piece of that.

And pointing out that McCain's first marriage ended in divorce is not an attack on him.

But it is a piece of evidence that he may not be a stellar exemplar as a defender of "Traditional Marriage".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

disprove or discredit God by pointing at Christian sinners, i.e. the age old illogic of the left that equates hypocrisy with an argument against the issue.

Either God exists, or he doesn't, no matter what humans do.

Either the best policy for civilization is restricting legal marriage to one man and one woman or its not, no matter the failures of its advocates.

I'm into discerning correct policy, not distractions.

Arguments of this type have caused me to lose a lot of respect for liberals.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

And I would never ever dream of trying to convince anyone here that there wasn't a God.

But I do hope that I can convince people that giving "Well, God said so!" as a reason that I should change my opinion on this, that, or the other... well, I will say that the arguments are much more convincing when given by people that I make me question my certainty that there probably aren't saints either.

When such arguments are being given by a person who strike me as just another schmoe and given in a tone of voice that makes me remember the last time I heard an argument like that, and what that argument was in service of...

Well. Let's just say that I am doing my best to try to convince those people that their appeals to the deity could use a little work.

But, of course, I said that much more succinctly when I mentioned the "physician, heal thyself" quotation.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and they are legion

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

And counter-arguments are legion.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I make comparisons to segregation and "State's Rights".

I make comparisons to Loving v. Virginia.

I also make some smaller comparisons to Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and your point is? because I didn't pick it up.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

"and of course someone will throw out slavery"

I am instead pointing out that I am throwing out three Supreme Court cases that I think are relevant, to one degree or another.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

was ready for that but my point is the country as a whole is not ready for gay marriage and I think when it shows up on ballots across the country and it is voted down it proves that point.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I think that this ruling is a baaaaaad idea.

It mostly has to do with how I support gay marriage, actually.

Now that my opinion is out there, here's some stuff I see happening that may cheer you up.

1) an amendment to the California Constitution that says something to the effect of "NOW SAY *THIS* IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!"

2) The SoCons, which (let's face it) weren't that hot when it comes to McCain will now say "OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY WILL TURN INTO CALIFORNIA IF (democrat) IS ELECTED!!!" and support McCain.

3) To that end, the Amendment measure that will appear on the California ballot come November, will be on a ballot with a Republican guy on it. Those Republicans who have better things to do with their time than show up to vote in a State that is guaranteed to go Blue will for sure show up to vote for the Amendment measure... and, while they're there, they'll vote for McCain. And there just may be a handful of Hispanic Catholics who think that Obama supports gay marriage and will vote for McCain on that basis. Plus there's that whole "La Raza" thing that happened which won't hurt with that demographic.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

this ruling even though his judicial appointees would most definitely impose it on all the states.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Because let's say that McCain goes to California and gives a nice rousing speech on the wickedness of Judicial Activism and how Forcing Gay Marriage on people is Wrong (but, my friends, let me assure you that some of my best friends are gay).

This speech will get play in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio... tons of places.

Moreover, it'll force (democrat) to go to California and campaign there... using resources that would be needed in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio... tons of places.

If McCain does a tour through California, he'll be running for his supper.

If this forces (democrat) to go to California to patch some holes in the dikes, (democrat) will be running for his/her life.

McCain can win without California. (democrat) absolutely can NOT.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

that "state's" should decide these issues. He made no distinction between courts and legislatures, nor did he make the point that despite Obama's identical claim is empty since the kind of judges he would appoint are exactly the genre that were the 4 oligarchs in Cally.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

We can vote them out, but we don't vote them in. There's a difference.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Well, there is a good idea for a new ballot intiative, a mechanism which you are fortunate to have.

That should be "ballot INITIATIVE."

Funny thing is there is a popular revolt for the state that created it to abandon it.

Chief Justice Rose Bird became public enemy number one, so we changed the Constitution to vote her out.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

At least ours was in response to widespread corruption from the Pendergast machine.

Gotta love when a single situation causes people to upend a constitution.

Sorry, that last one should have said "reigning OVER liberalism run amok."

Since the Federal Gov't doesn't recognize the legality of same-sex marriages they and those in 'civil unions' must file as 'single'. They may file as 'couple' on their state taxes but should they do so on their Federal taxes are guilty of falsifying information on their return.

Since the Gov't has no way of immediately verifying that information a blanket assumption would simplify it. In fact I think doing away with the joint filing completely using that justification would be great!!

I can just imagine the furor!! Think of all the added tax revenue!!! We might be able to make a dent in our deficit!! It would, of course, be for the benefit of future generations!!

I wouldn't call the ballot initiative for a state constitutional amendment nothing.