Meet The Deaves of Southern Australia
H/T: Wizbang - Skip This If You're Squeamish
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Archived — Comments (63) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
They look like an ordinary every day couple blessed with a beautiful little girl (and little baby Celeste is indeed beautiful, isn't she?), don't they? John may seem a few decades older than Jenny but that is far from uncommon and no more a cause for a raise of the eyebrow than it has ever been.
What really makes this family unit "special" is that John and Jenny are not married and yet, strangely enough, Jenny bears the same legal last name as John. Coincidence - as is 99.9% the case in these situations? No. Not really.
John and Jenny Deaves reunited 30 years after Mr Deaves separated from Jenny's mother.
Jenny was 31 and just two weeks after meeting, father and daughter had sex.
"John and I are in this relationship as consenting adults," Mrs Deaves told the Nine Network's 60 Minutes tonight.
"We are just asking for a little bit of respect and understanding."
Their nine-month-old daughter Celeste, shown on TV, appears fit and healthy.
Mrs Deaves said soon after reuniting with her father she began to see him as a man first and her father second.
Read on ...
I've said this before and I'll say it again; the question of whether or not incestuous "couples" should be allowed to marry is going to come up - and I'm thinking it's going to be sooner rather than later. And from a legal standpoint, they're going to win in any jurisdiction that grants recognition to same sex pairs on the basis of rights.
Gay marriage advocates routinely make the argument that Loving V Virginia should also apply to people of the same sex as it applies to men and women of different races. Of course, since interracial marriages (which have the tendency of producing healthy children at no less a clip as marriages of the same race) have existed since the dawn of time and same-sex marriages are a relatively new invention ...
Either way, even if we accept this, why should this argument about the right to marry not apply to an American version of John and Jenny Deaves?
The interesting thing about a right is that it does not rely on numbers. Even if Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter were the only interracial couple in the United States that wanted their marriage to be recognized and respected by the state, Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws would still not have been Constitutional.
So even if it were just one father and daughter "couple" that are demanding a marriage license as a matter of rights, their claim is equally as valid as that of ten thousand such incestuous "couples."
With the Goodridge decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has established that the institution of marriage is all about satisfying the sexual and emotional needs of any pair of consenting adults - essentially excising procreation and any long term societal interests from the institution in that state.
Well, as Jenny Deave above says; she and her father are in their "relationship" as "consenting adults" and they want their relationship accorded "respect" and "understanding." In other words, not just tolerance, but ultimately, full-fledged societal acceptance.
Soon enough, America's own John and Jenny of e.g. San Francisco (I think one is more likely to find this sort of thing in "progressive", "hip" and "edgy" liberal cities than in the more traditional conservative parts of America) photogenic, well-educated, gainfully employed, financially comfortable, and incestuous as all heck, are going to move to Massachusetts and apply for a marriage license.
Those who say it'll never happen should consider that one of the most effective arguments that was used to derailed the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) in the 1970s was that it would compel states to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
Liberal ERA supporters scoffed; "Whoever heard of such a thing ...? A (wo)man getting married to another (wo)man? Ha! Crazy Right-Wing fascists! Impossible! It'll never happen!
Oh well.
Brave new world.
In the meantime - I think I'll just continue to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!"
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | "Moderate," Eh? — Comments (1) »
Meet The Deaves of Southern Australia 63 Comments (0 topical, 63 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
There is both a biological and a relationship-authority component that makes the outcome you predict highly unlikely.
A better argument for you is the polygamy argument, which as a supporter of civil unions or gay marriage, I find harder to refute.
And, in reply to your snark regarding the "liberal, hip" places of the world, incest has traditionally been the province of the rather less liberal and hip rural locations.
... we tend to assume, as a matter of conventional wisdom that they are by nature, invalid. But that's not exactly true.
There is both a biological and a relationship-authority component ...
The first has already been implicitly rejected by most liberal rulings asserting the right to marriage for gay pairings - children have nothing to do with marriage, and the point is moot if Jenny were a Jimmy or Jack was a Jacqueline (i.e. if this were a same-sex incestuous "couple") - which automatically grants equal legal footing to such "couples" of opposite sex.
And as for the "relationship-authority" component, why are you completely ignoring Jenny's own words that she entered into the "relationship" with her father on equal footing as a fully cognizant and consenting adult? I would not presume to proclaim that she is suffering from some sort of "false consciousness" ...
Besides, what if they were siblings? Twins? From whence comes the authority then?
... the outcome you predict [is] highly unlikely.
Like I took the time to point out above, we heard that about gay marriage well within living memory (from much the same quarters); "Impossible! Preposterous! Yuck! It'll never happen!" Look where we are now.
PS: Traditional being the word here. I know I'm being counter-intuitive but I'm more inclined to believe that people who have made it a way of life to fetishize and celebrate the unconventional and untraditional are more likely to engage in both.
The "slippery slope" is a valid argument in many contexts. There is some validity here. But the nature of slippery slopes is that the best the argument can provide is that a less desirable outcome "may" occur, not that it will.
Consent is critical to marriage or partnership. The state bars certain individuals from consenting to certain partnerships for a variety of reasons (nepotism laws, minor consent, invalidation of wills due to improper influence, etc.) It is not a stretch to believe the state can bar marriage and sexual relationships between close family members based on the idea that consent becomes murky when family relationships are involved. Thus, the relationship-authority argument. This would apply to same sex siblings.
Biology is also still a component. It is impossible for gay relationships to produce children. The state has historically banned close family pairings in part because of the high probability of genetic deformity. Now, the slippery slope there, if you will, is that if the state can profess that concern, then it could conceivably bar marriages between individuals carrying defective genes, and the next thing you know we live in a eugenics-based society. Will that happen? Not likely, but as slippery slopes go, it's there.
Of course, you could also say that if the state interest is based on the notion that marriage is about children, the slippery slope leads to the possibility that the state would not sanction opposite sex marriage that did not or could not produce children. YMMV.
It is not a stretch to believe the state can bar marriage and sexual relationships between close family members based on the idea that consent becomes murky when family relationships are involved.
Well, I do think it is something of a stretch for a Court to automatically assume that a person who is fully functional and not mentally ill by any standard is not capable of giving consent. As the woman above says, she decided to start sleeping with her father by herself. Why should you dismiss her own declaration of her own agency?
It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was considered, ipso facto, a sign of mental illness, and the very prospect of "gay marriage" was considered outlandish. I don't believe that same treatment can be meted out today to people who just want to be with members of their own immediate family.
The state has historically banned close family pairings in part because of the high probability of genetic deformity. Now, the slippery slope there, if you will, is that if the state can profess that concern, then it could conceivably bar marriages between individuals carrying defective genes, and the next thing you know we live in a eugenics-based society.
Interestingly, this would also mean that an individual brother/father/son-sister/daughter/mother pairing who are found to carry no higher a risk than is acceptable (and this actually happens - note that Celeste Deaves above is apparently a perfectly normal fit and healthy child) would be allowed to marry as well.
Of course, you could also say that if the state interest is based on the notion that marriage is about children, the slippery slope leads to the possibility that the state would not sanction opposite sex marriage that did not or could not produce children.
Strangely enough, I find that the prospect of this does not bug me much. I'm actually open to Civil Unions in so far as anyone can enter them - including two sisters living together in old age, three male heterosexual friends who want to pool and manage their resources, etc. Marriage, including the right to not have to testify against a spouse, recognition of children, etc. could then be reserved for heterosexual couples.
If you want to add that the extra-recognition(s) (by the state) should not kick in until a child is produced by that union ... well, I'm open to it.
The reasoning a state uses for allowing consent is not limited to mental impairment. Anti-nepotism laws bar certain degrees of family from being hired into government regardless of their qualifications. Whether the hiring agent and the putative family-applicatant both agree that the hire would be positive for the government and are willing to accept the possibility of negative political fallout is immaterial.
Likewise, the state can invalidate a will on a showing of undue influence by a beneficiary, regardless of whether there is any sign of mental infirmity on the part of the benefactor.
In similar fashion, yes, the state can bar consent of a daughter to sleep with her father on the basis that the very nature of the relationship impairs full consent, regardless of whether she is not mentally impaired and makes the choice freely and willingly.
I agree with you that the biological argument, alone, is probably no longer as persuasive, given the advances or possible advances in medical technology and genetics. I do not think it is entirely moot.
As for the discussion of my own proposed slippery slope, well, obviously views may differ on the relative good of what "may" happen. I personally think marriage is a religious institution, whereas the civil partnership the state recognizes is purely secular. The fact that the state calls it marriage does not sanctify the union one way or the other.
Anti-nepotism laws bar certain degrees of family from being hired into government regardless of their qualifications. Whether the hiring agent and the putative family-applicant both agree that the hire would be positive for the government and are willing to accept the possibility of negative political fallout is immaterial.
Public service, different kettle of fish.
Likewise, the state can invalidate a will on a showing of undue influence by a beneficiary, regardless of whether there is any sign of mental infirmity on the part of the benefactor.
This might call for an investigation by the state in the case of an incestuous couple but on this basis it would be hard to justify a blanket denial. And "undue influence" actually does imply that the person who was influenced was not acting in his right mind (or wrongly informed) due to that undue (i.e. inappropriate) influence by the beneficiary.
In similar fashion, yes, the state can bar consent of a daughter to sleep with her father on the basis that the very nature of the relationship impairs full consent, regardless of whether she is not mentally impaired and makes the choice freely and willingly.
I really doubt it. This is suspect on civil libertarian grounds - in so far as the state cannot establish any reason to believe that she is mentally infirm or under any duress. They can't just assume it. Using this rationale, a state can decide to refuse marriage licenses to a man and a woman who meet on the job because one was the other's superior at the office at the time they began their relationship.
It's all consent, for whatever purpose. And the difference between a family relationship and an employer-employee relationship is sufficient to bear the difference in treatment.
We will have to agree to disagree on whether a state can presume "undue influence" without investigation when it comes to incest. Personally, I think they could and it would stand up to court scrutiny.
For the time being it remains impossible for gay relationships to produce children:
Are male eggs and female sperm on the horizon?
Peter Aldhous, New Scientist, February 2, 2008Karim Nayernia, a stem cell biologist at Newcastle University in the UK, is working on lab techniques to make sperm from human stem cells. In April last year, he made headlines by taking bone marrow stem cells from adult men and making them develop into spermatogonia - cells that can give rise to immature sperm through a process called meiosis...
Male eggs might not be so hard to make, though. A Brazilian team led by Irina Kerkis of the Butantan Institute in Saõ Paulo claims to have made both sperm and eggs from cultures of male mouse embryonic stem cells.
"We are starting experiments with human embryonic stem cells," says Kerkis. If these are successful, then the next step will be to see if male eggs could be made from cells known as "induced pluripotent stem cells". These seem to behave just like embryonic stem cells, and can be made from adult skin cells using a genetic reprogramming technique pioneered by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan.
If all these experiments pan out, then the stage would be set for a gay man to donate skin cells that could be used to make eggs, which could then be fertilised by his partner's sperm and placed into the uterus of a surrogate mother. "I think it is possible," says Kerkis, "but I don't know how people will look at this ethically."
"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
So is a lot of behavior between consenting adults. Why is it any business of the state?
from? I would suggest the state. Who do homosexual couples want licenses from? Obviously the state. So, when the libertarians who advocate for homosexual marriage drag out the "why is it any business of the state?", the proper response is let's not make it any business of the state. So don't come asking for "respect" or "understanding", much less a license.
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
absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.
"With the Goodridge decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has established that the institution of marriage is all about satisfying the sexual and emotional needs of any pair of consenting adults."
Did the decision limit it to a pair? Did they shut the door against multiple marriage partners?
I recall Justice Scalia being roundly castigated for predicting that this would happen.
Did the decision limit it to a pair?
No, I shudder to say. But I'm talking about K-n polyamorous/pan-sexual marriages e.g. two men A & B and three women C, D & E all in one marriage i.e. A is married to B, C, D & E and B is married to A, C, D & E and C is married to A, B, D & E, and so on ...
Being a Muslim, I freely confess here that I'm not particularly bothered by polygamy - even though I believe it is unworkable here. But I've spent a lot of time in countries where it is practiced and you'll be surprised that in many homes, each wife is well-educated, with a high-flying career, contrary to the usual stereotype. For example, I know for a fact that the former Nigerian Minister of Finance i.e. Nigeria's Secretary of the Treasury, Nenadi Usman, is a second wife.
Either way, the former is novel and scary on the societal front, the latter is, well ... a big part of life in many different places around the world. That said, I am not saying that a state or its citizens should have to recognize these arrangements. A solution could be that as far as the state is concerned, only one marriage out of x in which one man is engaged would be recognized in the law's eyes - which would be a clear distinction from what gay marriage advocates are advocating.
I think a supporter of gay marriage, if arguing in good faith, has to recognize the vulnerability to their argument regarding multiple-partner relationships. It is fair to note that 1) same-sex marriage is placing the premium on two individuals entering the relationship that heterosexual marriage does, which makes it different from polygamy and thus distinguishable structurally and 2) polygamy, in the literal sense multiple wifes, has historically involved a power dynamic of making chattel of women.
This is not to say, as you point out with your Nigerian example, this absolutely must be the case. Most American polygamy seems to be associated with child marriages and abject subjugation of women, which makes me seriously doubt the ability of women to freely consent to it, but I can certainly envision a non-coercive polygamous relationship that would defy the stereotype.
This is not an argument for polygamy, I'm just trying to put my cards on the table. I do not think if one supports gay marriage by default one must support polygamy or polyandry, but the distinction is less crisp than incest.
... in fact, I think that incest is a lot closer to the position of being B in the situation where support of A means providing logical support for B, where A is gay marriage.
On polygyny and polyandry - the reason why I think it is unworkable in America is that both cannot exist at the same time without chaos ensuing. The only culture that allows polyandry (in Nepal/Tibet) and polygamy (by default) locks down a restriction on it so that when a woman marries a man, she's also marrying his brothers. That way, any child she bears can trace his paternal lineage to a specific family, if not a specific man. Another brother can go out and contract another marriage and all of a sudden, every brother has two wives.
This is basically their solution for managing what little area of fertile land they have.
This sort of thing won't work in America because legally, thanks to the 14th (and 19th?) Amendments, one cannot legalize polygyny without legalizing polyandry.
And unlike in Tibet, a woman is not restricted to a set of male members of the same family; so Paul and Emily could be married to each other at the same time Paul is married to Jane while Emily is free to walk down the aisle with John, with Paul, still her husband, beaming at her side by side with Jane in the pews. Note: John and Jane could marry others as well.
Chaos.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Well if unions like this ever are recognized, it's sure going to take a lot of the punch out of the plot twist in the Jack Nicholson classic "Chinatown."
This was a truly disturbing read. And I mean that in a good way. Thanks for exposing this.
-----------------------
Damn the Obama! Full speed ahead!
I agree, this is where the reasoning behind most recent court decisions on Marriage is taking us.
I personally don't think that they should face any penalty for their relationship, if they want to have sex and have whatever kind of weird "family" they want, fine with me. But don't ask me for governmental sanction of it. There's a big difference between tolerating something and sanctioning something.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
is not permitted. It doesn't make perverts feel accepted.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
eeekkkk, skin crawling eeeekkkk
n/t
I think you put that very well. I'm very impressed that people can carry on a civil and well-reasoned discussion about the legal implications of a story that makes me want to throw up.
I need it to scrape the image off my retinas of how that child was conceived.
----
I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years.
- Barack Obama, 11/04/04
Because the last thing we want is homosexuals having children.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Nobody serious is even banning various religious sects from having their own definitions of marriage.
Until you accept both of the above facts, and integrate them into your arguments, your sarcastic rhetoric just makes your own position look ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration.
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
This is why we have to mandate that homosexual couples in long-term partnerships have to fill out separate customs forms when they go to Canada! Also, they should have the same inheritance rules as any two random unmarried persons.
(snark off) To be perfectly honest, I think that the whole "consensual heterosexual incest resulted in a child and that's why we have to keep society's mores intact through legislation" is an argument that doesn't hold up under long-term scrutiny... though I sympathize with the "SOMETHING OUGHT TO BE DONE!" impluse, I don't know of too many success stories when it comes to the things that came out of any given legislative body in response to a large enough group of people yelling "SOMETHING OUGHT TO BE DONE!"
And, to change topics once more, I will now totally blow your mind:
I find the above story disgusting and think that if it were found acceptable by society at large, it would do harm to society's very foundations.
I find homosexual marriage harmless at worst and, at its best, think that society would be strengthened by it, were it made available to homosexuals who wanted to enter into life partnerships together.
Some abominations are like fratricide. Some abominations are like lobster.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"I find the above story disgusting and think that if it were found acceptable by society at large, it would do harm to society's very foundations."
You have to realize that many of us feel the same way about homosexuals getting married as you and I do about this.
Let's stregthen marriage, not tear it down by expanding the definition.
Please understand that I think that you're wrong and I wish to do what I can to get you to change your minds or, at least, see that Lawrence v. Texas was not judicial activism but a Constitutional check/balance on Government Power.
My goal is not to get you to stop saying "ew" but to stop saying "THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!"
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
It's you who insists that legislatures intervene and do new things, pass new laws, hurry hurry hurry, force everyone to treat this new class of couple the same way they treat marriages.
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'd be far happier with every single law in the country having a 5-year sunset provision.
More laws, more enforcement agencies, more government is *NOT* my suggested solution at all.
At all at all.
At all at all at all.
I, personally, don't *CARE* how you treat homosexual couples. I am 100% okay with you carrying picket signs on the sidewalks outside of their homes explaining that you don't want to have to explain to your kids why two grown men are holding hands.
What I do *NOT* want is more legislation saying that the government is vitally interested in marriage.
Now, I do understand that that is a pipe dream.
So my second choice is to say that the definition of marriage has evolved (in the hands of heterosexuals) from a "Family!" thing to a "Romantic Love!" thing and there is no reason that homosexuals cannot enjoy marriage as it is now defined.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
It's dramatically different from what you implicitly argue around here though, the way I read it, heh.
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 merely argue what I think might be achievable.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Is this a correct ranking:
1) Repeal marriage laws
2) Pass laws redefinining marriage
3) Pass no new laws
4) Pass laws reinforcing the traditional situation
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
1. Get Government Out Of The Marriage Business
2. Have the laws acknowledge what the heterosexuals have redefined marriage to mean (I assure you, if marriage meant today what it meant in 1850, homosexuals would not argue that they should have the "right" to get married).
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Well, I for one refuse to let public opinion redefine the laws on the books, heh. Strict construction is for more than just Constitutional law.
Take care,
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
Was a case of public opinion redefining the laws on the books.
And that's the lighthearted response.
The heavy-handed one is the one where one asks "if Dred Scott v. Sanford were decided differently, would that have been a case of Judicial Activism?"
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Have you read it? I have. It's an awful decision. CJ Taney basically writes his own personal 'race' prejudice into law, reading into the Constitution a rule that Negroes were not and never could be citizens of the United States.
It was a terrible ruling, and was a big part of why the Republican party grew as well as it did. It truly was the Roe of its day.
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 if you want to argue that it used legal precedent, historical precedent, read the Constitution and said that they didn't find how "The People" applied to non-citizens and said that the slaves were obviously non-citizens... you could come to the conclusion that Dred Scott, decided in such a way that said that Dred *WAS* a citizen would have been deciding The Law against The Wishes enumerated in The Laws written by The Representatives of The People.
The 14th Amendment was necessary to establish who was a Citizen. Why? Because had Dred Scott been decided differently, the case could be made, in good faith, that it would have been the act of an Activist Court, "finding" "rights" in the "emanations" from "penumbras".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Prior to the 14th amendment there was no national standard for citizenship, therefore by the 10th amendment it was up to each STATE to determine the qualifications for citizenship.
Dred Scott, having been transported onto free soil, was no longer bound by the citizenship laws of his state of origin, and therefore became eligible for the same privileges and immunities as any other native born American.
The court that ruled against him was run by a bunch of bigots so hateful, that they perverted the Constitution to get their brutal, vicious, inhuman system enshrined in it.
The Republican party of the time was right. Abe Lincoln was right. The free soil position was the correct one. Taney was wrong.
Just because we passed an amendment to prevent that error from happening ever again, an amendment which also included other post-Civil War settlement activity, it does not follow that the decision the amendment overruled was the right one.
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 original Constitution was intentionally written ambiguously on that point in order to get the South to sign on.
Slavery *WAS* the sticking point. And the Fathers deliberately kicked the can down the road with language such as the infamous "three-fifths compromise".
The Dred Scott case attempted to kick the can down the road some more and not create precedent (aka "Judicial Activism").
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The 14th is poorly worded, and should be repealed and replaced with a substitute.
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
Judicial Activism isn't determined by whether precedent is created. As I see the term usually used, and certainly how I tend to use it, it refers to the act of a judge creating his own laws by ruling based on how he thinks the law should be, rather than based on what the law is.
Just running down the syllabus of the case, since I don't feel like re-reading the whole thing itself:
Paragraphs 1-3 discuss the conditions of jurisdiction, which is the technical legal point Taney used to get his way.
Paragraph 4 is new law made from whole cloth by the Taney court. It's activism as base as that in any case we know and loathe today.
Paragraph 5 demonstrates why: they base this decision on on the Constitution itself, or any law at all, but rather on the laws as they stood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, leaving aside anything passed since, such as the bill of rights or any state law.
They then uses this activist leap to justify what the thrust of the first three paragraphs were: deny Dred Scott access to the federal courts, and thus jurisdiction for the Court to hear the case.
Paragraph 6 basically states that there are penumbras and emanations that justify paragraph 4.
Paragraph 7 states outright the implications of paragraph 4, in direct contradiction of the duly passed 10th amendment. It's so wrong as to be absurd. No wonder the Republican party from this point on went from fringe status to leading party of free parts of the country.
Paragraph 8 just makes some stuff up and has no basis at all in anything but the wishes of the men on the court.
Paragraph 9 turns the case on its head, as there is nothing in the Constitution to support what he says, and therefore the states are free to award citizenship as they see fit.
Paragraph 10 cites the facts of the case as they relate to paragraph 5.
Paragraph 11 thus helps start the Civil War by radicalizing and nationalizing what previously had been a state by state issue.
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
Congress has and had the power to make law in the territories and nothing in the Constitution supports Taney's opinion.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
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
On your last point, perhaps the solution is not slam the final nail into the coffin just yet. Maybe we SoCons are actually working towards getting it back to the "Family" thing.
I mean, unlike Hollywood stars and starlets, most people are actually not planning their next marriage as they're walking down the altar with someone else.
Gay marriage is often depicted as overcoming a historical bias. In truth this is false.
Our current marriage laws and practices can be traced back to Rome and Greece.
Gay couples were accepted as normal in the Greek world (consider the Sacred Band of Thebes). Gay relationships were common among the leaders of the Roman world.
Yet never would anybody have suggested that marriage could be between two men.
So obviously the historical understanding of marriage precludes same-sex marriage not because of bias, but for some other reason.
so I don't see it every time I check a comment? Without blocking all others, I mean.
They baby is way too normal and cute to come from those two ugly incestuous cretans.
I am skeptical that gay-marriage will lead to incestuous marriage. The reason? The left and those who tend to push gay-marriage usually don't care about "keeping the state out of the bedroom," equality, or any of that. Those were just excuses to get what they want: A redefining of society to meet their idea of what ought to be.
They will attack incestuous marriage because it is "sick" and "unnatural" -- even though those claims were used to be attacks against gays.
They will insist that it necessarily leads to child abuse -- even though those claims used to be used against gays.
They will get away with this hypocrisy as the left tends to unfortunately do. The left has already established that sexual preference/orientation is equivalent to race, and thus can't be discriminated against (aside from affirmative action of course). They have no more need of "privacy" and "equality" arguments in this regards anymore. They will say they are "protecting" marriage!
Marginal Revolution links to and American Economic Review article that gives an interesting rationale for why monogamy is associated with economic development. Go through MR
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
Sorry I didn't get to this yesterday, I should have and your post deserved a more timely response than this one. (And I'm not using "reply to this" in order to avoid skinniness)
Going through the exact same document (that you linked to)...
You say "Paragraph 4 is new law made from whole cloth by the Taney court."
I read it and see "4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States."
Yep, that's paragraph 4, in its entirety. I don't agree that it's a new law made from whole cloth. It strikes me that that is an agreed upon law using decades of precedent as well as the original intent of the writers of the original Constitution. Perhaps you're right that no one had ever come out and said it so bluntly before that moment... but they were hardly making a "new law from whole cloth". That statement was made upon decades and decades of precedent.
You go on to say: "they base this decision on on the Constitution itself, or any law at all, but rather on the laws as they stood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, leaving aside anything passed since, such as the bill of rights or any state law."
I rejoin: Let's say that the US Supreme Court says that the handgun laws in Washington DC do, in fact, infringe upon the rights protected in the 2nd Amendment.
Would this be a case where the Supreme Court bases the "decision on on the Constitution itself" while "leaving aside anything passed since, such as the bill of rights or any state law"?
If Heller finds an "individual right to own a handgun" despite the laws passed by elected representatives of The People who live in Washington DC... would that be a case of them "making a law out of whole cloth"? If not, why not?
You say "Paragraph 6 basically states that there are penumbras and emanations that justify paragraph 4."
I read Paragraph 6 and see that it says "The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves."
This is not a penumbra nor an emanation. It sits down, reads the Constitution and says "where are slaves mentioned?" and finds the answer "Oh, 'Persons held to Service or Labour'". That's not an emanation, let alone a penumbra. It's a reference to "Persons held to Service or Labour."
You say: "Paragraph 7 states outright the implications of paragraph 4, in direct contradiction of the duly passed 10th amendment. It's so wrong as to be absurd. No wonder the Republican party from this point on went from fringe status to leading party of free parts of the country."
Paragraph 7 definitely violates the 10th Amendment... but let's say that California passes a law saying that any given illegal immigrant is now a "Citizen of California". Would you accept this? If not, why not? Would you use the phrase "full faith and credit"?
You say "Paragraph 8 just makes some stuff up and has no basis at all in anything but the wishes of the men on the court."
I'm not sure I agree...
Let's say that California *DOES* say that any given illegal immigrant is now a citizen of California. Would that make the immigrant in question a United States citizen?
If not, why not?
Paragraph 9 says "The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted."
Let's do some word substitution. "The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to handguns which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted."
I disagree that this argument is "making stuff up". This is originalism in a nutshell.
I do not agree that Dred Scott was turning things on their head or making things up. It relied on precedence, originalism, and did its best to kick the can down the road.
I'd also like to point out that Dred Scott, even though it relied on precedent and originalism, was completely odious.
It's also why I am not an originalist... but a Libertarian.
Hrm. This probably deserves it's own diary.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
You keep reaching to intent, as does Taney, but I reject it. To me original intent is an illusion, because it's not the framers who count, but the ratifiers, and who can claim credibly that the intent of each ratifier is the same?
To me, the text counts. And the Dred Scott court went so far from the text it's ridiculous.
but I get the feeling you're more interested here in trying to equate this decision with others, rather than arguing it on its own merits. Probably best just to wind it down, heh.
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
Saying that gay marriage should be denied because some father and daughter, or mother and son might want to be married is like saying handguns should be banned because they might be used for crimes.
There are always a few willing to abuse a right/freedom. The appropriate response is NOT to ban everyone's access to that right or freedom, but to regulate the process.
Gay marriage does not diminish marriage. It's expansion to include gay couples re-enforces the basic premise that a strong 'family' unit is to be encouraged. The idea that because 'family' means children and gays can not 'produce' children fails on the rocks of childless or elderly couples. Society might want families to create children to extend the life of the society, but there is no requirement that EVERY family must have children. 'Society' needs children, it does not need each couple to reproduce. Gay Marriage does not redefine marriage, nor will it cause millions of couples to divorce and remarry someone of the same sex; nor will it cause hetro couples to marry someone of the same sex. If marriage is a religious institution, let it define and sanction couples as it sees fit. The secular or civil society should not have the ability to deny benefits to a gay couple. Create civil unions for any two, non-related people and let the religions sanctify 'marriage's as they see fit.
I am a conservative woman in a lesbian relationship. I want the same benefits hetro couples receive from the government sanction of marriages. Whether my relationship is accepted or not by society is irrelevant to me. I don't need people to praise, embrace, applaud, honor or even like my relationship. But if government is going to provide benefits, I want them also.
The 'couple' in the original story are pathetic. But there is no slippery slope from gay marriage to incestuous couples.
To read over breakfast.
I know, Martin. We were warned.
Yecch
"Logic refutes liberalism" - Rush Limbaugh