Redstate

To claim that Focus is some big money bully is outrageous. Many small donors give to Focus and Focus action, but neither organization are worth anywhere near a billion dollars. The combined resources of Gill, Polis and Stryker makes Focus' resources pale by comparison. Gill and Stryker are worth multi-billions and Polis multiple hundreds of millions.

Hopefully this will put a little perspective on your comment

Opinion Times




Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set. --Rev. Denny Brake

Considering the huge number of legal ramifications and tax benefits that go along with getting "married". I'm sure that 1 month of living without those benefits would pretty clearly demonstrate to straights why gays are so anxious to have them.

To have marriage under the law is so that the Government can lord its power over us.

Just remember, the first time marriage was enacted as an institution under common law was under Henry VIII, who wanted to get divorced. It was also a way of making Catholic marriages illegal and Anglican marriages legally recognized. In other words, a tyranical king usurped power and gave it to the State.

By the by, if we cut taxes, we wouldn't need those marriage tax breaks...

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

--Thomas Jefferson

>>Just remember, the first time marriage was enacted as an institution under common law was under Henry VIII, who wanted to get divorced. It was also a way of making Catholic marriages illegal and Anglican marriages legally recognized. In other words, a tyranical king usurped power and gave it to the State.

First, Henry VIII wanted his marriage annulled. He did not recognise divorce, and neither does the Anglican Church. Prince Charles recently married in a registry office because, even as the heir to the Supreme Governor of the Church of England he cannot secure a divorce for his wife, who, by the way, was married in a Catholic Church. The Church of England has no problem, in principle, with the Prince marrying for a second time, because it never recognised his divorce in the first place, and therefore regards him as a widower.

Secondly, the Act of Supremacy was not enacted under Common Law, but under statute law. It did not make Catholic marriages illegal. It had no effect on the Catholic marriages extant at the time, other than the King's which was annulled by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It nationalised the Church, so Catholic marriages simply stopped happening in England.

The word 'usurped' is quite inappropriate. The entire English Reformation was enacted by law and by the King in Parliament. The fact that King needed Parliament to push the Reformation through was actually a key step in enhancing the role of Parliament with respect to the executive.

So, while your final line make a great deal of sense, you are utterly wrong as to all your historical points.

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

but it is true that for about 1000 years marriage was under the direction of the Church not the state. Way back, under the Roman Empire, marriage was a purely civil institution governed by secular laws. This continued for quite a while under the Christian empire, but in the 9th century as part of a comprehensive series of reforms to end church-state conflict, the Byzantine Empire ceded marriage law to the Church-- though in the East there awas an insistence that divorce must still be allowed, which is why the Orthodox Churches have always had a limited toleration for it. The West cop[ied the East in some of this, andt he collpase of civil governmen thad already pretty much left the Church in charge of a lot of institutions anyway. The role of the state in marriage was simply to back up the Church's regulations with laws about adultery and so forth. Only in the 18th century when the French Revolutionaries sought to eliminate all power from the Church, were the first independent marriage laws passed taking state control of marriage again.

Church and state were by no means as separate as you seem to think. Kings, by and large, appointed the bishops within their territory.

What Henry did was to establish the sovereignty of England. This was critical, because the church had its own political agenda, and so did Charles V of Spain. The Pope found the Hapsburg views on the Tudor marriage, shall we say more pressing, than Henry's, because Charles V was in the process of conquering Italy at the time.

To put it in a modern context, how would US citizens feel if all marriage law in America was set by the UN?

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

Re: Church and state were by no means as separate as you seem to think. Kings, by and large, appointed the bishops within their territory.

Are you adressing me? If so, I'm not sure how your point follows from I wrote. Yes, kings often appointed bishops (although this became a point of serious conflict whenever strong popes wished to reform the Church and had to start by getting rid of corrupt royal cronies in bishops' mitres).

Re: To put it in a modern context, how would US citizens feel if all marriage law in America was set by the UN?

The Roman Catholic Church was not the UN. It was an institution to which the peoples of (Western) Europe owed their spiritual allegiance and it was no more bizarre for the Church to set marriage laws than for it to set laws on baptism, Communion and the other sacraments. To turn your question around, how would we feel in this country if Congress passed a law setting a minimum age for Baptism?

My point about the lack of separation between church and state was to you. Your point about the Church setting rules for marriage and people having 'spiritual allegiance' seems to depend on the modern notion of seeing church and state as separate. They were not, they frequently overlapped, and were frequently in conflict (as you mention).

The Church was not simply some voluntary organisation like those of today, or like the boy scouts, that you could belong to or not. It was an organisation with its own power, and its own politics.

That's why I feel the analogy with the UN has some validity. Obviously, it has weaknesses too. It is actually a better analogy than thinking of the medieval church as being, politically, like churches of today.

And why should the King of England's ability to marry (and sire a legitimate male heir) be set according to the political convenience of the King of Spain? That was the key issue in terms of English sovereignty.

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

Re: ...the modern notion of seeing church and state as separate. They were not.

Um, yes they were-- except in a few places like the Papal States which were ruled, rather accidently, by bishops. But these were the exceptions not the rule. And even in those bishopric states the church and state institutions were still separate and distinct and functioned by their own laws. You are actually the one using "separation" in a very modern sense, not in its normal meaning of "distinct" or "different". If you want to tell me that Church and State meddled often and sometimes ruinosuly in each others' affairs, you'll get no argument from me. But if you tell me there was no distinction between them, then, no, that was never true in Christendom.

Re: The Church was not simply some voluntary organisation like those of today

I never said it was.

Re: That's why I feel the analogy with the UN has some validity.

The UN is seen as alien, incompetent, remote and corrupt. While the Church was occasionally seen as the last one of those (in the early 1500s it certainly was) it was never alien. It was always and everywhere as much a local institution staffed by and serving the local community, as it was a distant edifice in a foreign city. A modern-day American can go their whole life and never encounter a UN offiial. How likely was it that anyone in Christendom (even today) could go for very long at all without encountering a clergyman or monastic?

Re: And why should the King of England's ability to marry (and sire a legitimate male heir) be set according to the political convenience of the King of Spain?

The King was married and he had a legitimate heir, one who might have been as capable as her more famous sister if her father's ill-usage of her and her mother had not left her bitter and alone. Let's not be sexist here. Poor Mary Tudor turned out to be bloody bad apple in the royal barrel, but most of England's queens regnant have served her quite well.

Glad we have clarified the important differences between the medieval church and the churches of today. These differences are very important to understanding the motivation for English sovereignty.

I stand by my analogy with the UN: " alien, incompetent, remote and corrupt" seems a pretty fair description in both cases. Sure, there were English priests in every village and Englishmen rose to senior ranks in the Church. There was even one English Pope. But, equally, there are many Americans which hold senior office in the UN and the country has a permanent veto-wielding place on the Security Council. The point is that the law of marriage was fundamental to the state. Why did it have to be controlled by foreigners for their own politcal convenience.

You may be right about Mary Tudor. Not only have England's (and the UK's) Queens Regnant been of higher average quality than the Kings, the Tudors were our finest dynasty. I wasn't trying to sexist, by the way, just to understand the motivations of the times. And I rather doubt that the Pope would have tried to justify Henry's marriage on the grounds that women are capable of doing any job that men are, as that does not seem to be the position of the Vatican even today.

But, ultimately, you point is irrelevant.

Why was the question of Mary's legitimacy in English law a matter for the Pope and something to be held hostage by the King of Spain? For the King and Parliament to say "English law will now be settled in England" does not seem utterly unreasonable.

You are, I am sure, aware that your statement that the King was married and had a legitimate heir is one which was (and remains) controversial to Christian thinkers. It was widely debated by theologians and a majority of those outside the direct control of either Henry VIII or Charles V came down on Henry's side. Of course, both Henry and Charles were offering stupendous bribes, so this is only indicative of the fact that it was a legitimate debate, not an attempt to justify any particular resolution to it. (On balance, I would have gone the other way).

And for all your assertion that the Hapsburg position on this was correct, and your speculation that Mary might have been a good Queen under other circumstances, there is a question you avoided addressing: "why should the King of England's ability to marry (and sire a legitimate male heir) be set according to the political convenience of the King of Spain?"

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

1. Your link doesn't say anything to back up your absurd claims.
2. A Catholic encyclopedia might be a reasonable place to *start* researching the reasons for the English Reformation, but you would be wise to read more widely to get a fuller picture.

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

Considering the huge number of legal ramifications and tax benefits that go along with getting "married". I'm sure that 1 month of living without those benefits would pretty clearly demonstrate to straights why gays are so anxious to have them.

You mean like the benefit that allows my wife's meager part-time income to be taxed at my own marginal rate? Or the idea of "joint" income that means that two people just starting out get taxed as if they were each making twice as much?

Or are we more talking about the legal benefit of having to ask a court for permission to separate an abusive husband from his wife and young children? Or subject her to years of further abuse, much of it inflicted BY the courts, at the hands of the rapist and thug with whom she unwisely signed a marriage license?

"Family law" is too often evil to both families and the law. Family tax law is just an extra tax that the government gets to exact on those people honest enough to fully describe their relationships.

I am married because I fell in love with an absolutely wonderful woman. I am legally married because it's the right thing for our children, and because I'm too honest to play the "just shacking up for 20 years" game. Being married has cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years, and the government has never given me any sort of benefit that I could not have arranged without being married.

In marriage, as in so many other things, the government is not here to help us.

Sorry, I was mostly speaking of inheritance law, where a gay couple would run into a significant tax penalty compared to a married couple. I would generally agree with you income tax does not favor married people.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I don't understand the definition of "conservative" that allows for "I care whether gay people two towns over receive tax breaks similar to those that I receive."

I can understand saying "I don't want those guys marrying in my church."

I can understand saying "I don't want those guys teaching my children or scoutmastering in my son's boy scout troup."

I can even understand saying "If those people move in next door to me, I'm going to move because I don't want my kids exposed to People Like That."

But I can't understand saying "I don't want those guys receiving tax breaks."

Where do you get that much energy? I can barely have people over on the weekends without getting exhausted. Where do you get the energy to care about the tax status of people two towns over?

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

But you're mistaking relatively issue-specific libertarianism or libertinism for conservatism.

It isn't the tax status; it's two concerns at once: (1) The danger of sudden change (and the law of unintended consequences); and (2) the fact that private acts have public consequences.

I'm not certain whether I think sodomy laws are good policy; I am certain that changing a foundational institution of our society at the demand of 4% of the population is at best a shaky idea.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

That's why my general response to the taxation rates of other people is something approaching complete and total apathy.

My marriage to my wife is probably the best thing that has ever happened to me. She saves my life on a daily basis. Even when we fight and it's 2AM and please honey go to sleep we can talk about this tomorrow, I can't imagine my life without her.

My marriage to her is something that has absolutely nothing to do with my taxes. The only time I really think about my relationship to her and taxes at the same time is around February and, of course, when I write posts like this one.

My marriage to my wife involves stuff like: bagels w/ jalapeno cream cheese, chopping grilled chicken breasts while she makes the salad, discussions of religion (or philosophy or politics or cartoons or Durant or nuances of the French language or or or), horseplay when we're both up for it, and sleeping really close when it's under 50 degrees outside and not touching when it's over 80.

I did not marry her for tax reasons. She did not marry me for tax reasons. When we fight, we do not fight about taxes. When we horse around, we do not horse around about taxes.

When we hang out with our couple friends on Friday or Saturday nights and sit and gossip and laugh and bicker... they don't seem to be having a particularly tax-related relationship. (Though, I will grant, I tend to not think about the taxes my wife is costing/saving me so I tend to not talk about it with our couple friends.)

If the State Constitution comes out and says "Marriage is defined as a Man and a Woman", why does it matter if gays get tax breaks after registering for tax breaks in the local city hall? Is it because it's likely that they had a lifepartnership ceremony in the basement of the Unitarian Church?

For the life of me, I honestly do not understand why this would matter to anybody. What is the sudden change you mentioned? Suddenly, the government starts getting 26% of the household's combined income when, before, it got 26.5% of the household's separately taxed income?

Is it that the couple might secretly start referring to themselves as "married" even though it's written in the state constitution that they aren't? I've got bad news for you, I know gay people who call themselves married already. The fact that the state doesn't recognize it is a point of pride with them. They talk about how marriage is between them and God, not them and Colorado. But, of course, they would, wouldn't they?

I don't understand the opposition to the tax changes. I can understand not wanting your church to recognize their relationship. I can understand not wanting the state to use the same name for their relationship that is used for your relationship.

I can't understand wanting them to pay more taxes. (or, if they're in one of the too-many places where marriage would result in them paying more, fewer taxes.)

I'm thinking that the changes in society whose unintended consequences we're worrying about already happened and gay marriage is a symptom of the changes, rather than yet another cause of them.

But I ramble.

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

Chick says to GC and Hen: Hey Mom, Dad, look, there's my school teacher Red Rooster with his partner Orange Rooster

They're married JUST LIKE YOU.

That is the problem.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

And how is that the problem?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Well, the biggest aspect of this issue for me is not whether we should grant public recogntion to homosexual unions, but rather WHO DECIDES the issue.

I don't take issue so much with Republicans/conservatives who think we should have gay marriage/civil unions. I don't really understand it, but I'm not really interested in debating that. But what I can't understand is how any conservative could support the claim that if the state recognizes traditional marriage, then the Constitution requires the recognition of same-sex unions also. I can't understand how any conservative could believe that, because as I said earlier, the ONLY way to reach that conclusion is if you believe in the ridiculous 'living Constitution' method of interpretation; the same method that says the Establishment Clause forbids the saying of a prayer before a highshool football game and the placment of Nativity scenes outside city hall, and that says a right to abortion exists amidst the penumbras and emanations, and that says illegal aliens and foreign combatants must be granted status akin to citizens, and so on and so on with numerous other judicial abuses and usurpations of power. In other words, the ONLY way to reach that conclusion is if you believe that it is for judges to apply the Constitution in ways never envisioned or intended by the framers of whatever provision the judges choose to pervert, and in ways never given consent to by the people.

So for me, victory is making it so that the courts have no say whatsoever in setting policy. Having rejected the idea that the Constitution in any way requires the recogntion of gay unions, the issue is then left to the proper and legitimate authorities -- the people and/or their elected legislators.

That's not to say that I don't have an opinion as to what the policy should be. I do oppose granting state recogntion to same-sex unions. Without getting into the whole thing about taxes, I think that once the state recognizes them in the same or similar way that it recognizes traditional marriage, then it is endorsing homosexual unions in the same way. Some immediate effects would probably be that public schools begin pushing a view of family completely at odds with most parents. We can't even really imgaine what the long-term effects of this would be, but it seems the conservative thing to do is to oppose such unneeded change. So that is my own personal opinion, and its the way I'd vote given the chance, and its the position I prefer in candidates I vote for.

But again, the main issue for me is to keep the Courts out of it. If we can achieve that, then even if my side loses, then at least it would be because the people have deliberately and voluntarily decided to make such a fundamental change, and not because as few as five people decided to impose their will on society, dressed up in some bogus constitutional reasoning.

So where do you come down on the question of who should decide, of who has the legitimate authority in this matter? Do you buy the living constitution argument that says the Constition requires recognition of homosexual unions? Do you support a Sup Court imposition of gay marriage/civil unions?

abhorrent to our values that we had to abolish it nationwide. I believe that unless we can prohibit gay marriage nationwide, our days as a great power are numbered. See Abe's house divided speech.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

I agree that allowing gay marriage is a bad thing, and an even worst sign of where the nation is headed. I agree that over the long run, allowing it in a few states would make it hard to prohibit in all the others.

But at this point, I doubt a Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage could pass even if the Sup Court throws out DOMA and imposes gay marriage nationwide. I know many disagree with this, but I'm a pessimist on all things Court-related. So to me -- and I admit it is a sign of how far the Left has come on this issue -- simply keeping the Courts out of it represents a victory. Then at least, we must lose the people to lose marriage, and if that happens, then what else is there to say?

So I didn't mean to sound like I was minimizing the importance of the ultimate outcome; its just that I like our chances if the courts are kept out of it, and I despise judicial activism with a passion no matter what the issue is.

throw out DOMA. The imminent danger is that Massachusetts fails to amend its constitution to overturn their court's creation of the right. SCOTUS could not overturn that. At that point, the only way to stop gay marriage would be by constitutional amendment. i agree it couldn't pass now, but, given the number of states that do oppose it, even dem grass roots voters, I do think that it could pass if all else fails and the public sees that. It may take some elections to have test votes and have the libs thrown out. I think the libs call this a wedge issue!!!

Bring on the wedge!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Have you ever noticed how issues are only 'wedge' issues, or 'divisive' when its conservatives (representing mainstream values for the most part) fighting back against the leftwing judicial assault on the Judeo-Christian heritage and traditional values of the nation? When the Left picks these fights, and tries to go around the people by having the Courts do their dirty work, then the media never describes that as purusing 'wedge' politics, or of being 'divisive.'

...between extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples (I'm for it) as opposed to unilaterally declaring that same-sex couples have the right to get married (they don't). And I agree: this is an issue for the legislative branch, not the judiciary.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

but I would have aproblem with society specifically acknowledging and rewarding sex outside of marriage, whether it be pre-marital hetero, adultery or homosexual.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

aside from the IRS and Social Security, I've been trying to identify some "benefit" of marriage that is not obtainable to "partners" through other means.

Some of the "benefits" proponents of "gay marriage" claim they are excluded from:
- inheritance; but you can leave your money to anyone you want, you don't have to be married to them. If you have any kind of assets you really shouldn't die intestate regardless.
- hospital visitation; but you can declare anyone you want as your health care surrogate, doesn't have to be a family member. I can't image a hospital denying visitation to the surrogate.
- health insurance; this may still be a problem but employer provided health care eligibility has changed significantly in the past decade or so and continues to move to a more transparent basis.

But I agree in any event it is a legislative matter in any case.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

>> inheritance; but you can leave your money to anyone you want, you don't have to be married to them. If you have any kind of assets you really shouldn't die intestate regardless.

This is where tax and inheritance overlap. In the UK, inheritance within marriage is not taxed, so you don't have to sell your house when you inherit 50% of it from your spouse.

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

The smart ones are coming out.. the ones who wait for a GOOD moment to go and get banned.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I actually advised the first openly gay state legislator in the south on legislative alternatives based on individual rights rather than "orientation" partly based on how the system could be abused by any two individuals declaring orientation for pecuniary purposes (especially if there is no consummation requirement). One case in Atlanta involving a golf country club balked at an Atlanta city law requiring equal benefits fir same sex couples as for married couples. One reason that doesn't work is that a person could have a new partner each week that can play golf for free!!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan