My admittedly non-lawyer thoughts, based on what I’ve been reading and hearing not from the invested Left narrators …
The essence of the DOMA ruling was that the Fed has no business telling states how they should define marriage, but accept for federal benefits what is legal marriage per each individual state. Just how it will effect a same-sex couple from, say, Alabama who goes and gets married in Massachusetts then returns to Alabama is, frankly, unknown. SCOTUS’s decision precisely leaves the states to decide, but some lawmakers seem to believe differently.
And SCOTUS’ decision to find that the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case have no standing has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It does not “free up” same-sex marriage to start again, regardless of the lawlessness of Governor Jerry Brown and CA Attorney General who refused to defend the constitutional amendment and who are demanding same-sex licenses be issued state-wide.
Lastly, I don’t know how this got printed in the Sunday NYTimes, but seeing some honesty about same-sex relationships and the children effected is pretty startling …
SOMETIMES when my daughter, who is 7, is nicely cuddled up in her bed and I snuggle her, she calls me Mommy. I am a stay-at-home dad. My male partner and I adopted both of our children at birth in open domestic adoptions. We could fill our home with nannies, sisters, grandmothers, female friends, but no mothers.
My daughter says “Mommy” in a funny way, in a high-pitched voice. Although I refer the honors immediately to her birth mom, I am flattered. But saddened as well, because she expresses herself in a voice that is not her own. It is her stuffed-animal voice. She expresses not only love; she also expresses alienation. She can role-play the mother-daughter relationship, but she cannot use her real voice, nor have the real thing. […]
What is not expressed in both arguments, which I consider valid, is the voice of the adoptee — my daughter’s voice, that is. Her awareness of being a motherless child is not addressed. I don’t want to appropriate our child’s voice, but I want to speak up for her, and her older brother, and I want to acknowledge their feelings.
I guess the majority in DOMA would find this man operating from “animus” too since he’s not adhering to the New Standard Of Change — that the sexes are fungible and “mothers” and “fathers” are irrelevant. Burn the H8tr!!11!1!
Yesterday, the collection of headlines I looked at, from the climate/energy fakery to Mrs. Pelosi’s spooky near-hysterics in support of a late-term abortion filibuster rang like this in my head:
Lies = Truth. We laugh at opposition, because there really isn’t any; not from the political side, not from the church side. We own the media; we own the academy and labor; we own the White House. Soon will own the courts. Half the country isn’t paying attention and the other half has been successfully demagogued and discredited. They’re only talking to themselves.
Even dull old, spiteful, I-can’t-believe-I-voted-for-him Jimmy Carter knows it; The Party has become untouchable. he’s letting his hateful freak flag fly by raising it against the easiest, most-permissible target — the one entity that The Party, now having insured its control over everything else — will soon turn every cannon toward:
Just as that fuss [about Obama’s remarks in Ireland] was dying down, though, with a few “But I still say he was anti-Catholic”s sputtering over the interwebz like the last kernels of corn popping in a microwave, along comes the dark horse to show ‘em what anti-Catholic sounds like. Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.
In a TIME Magazine interview with Elizabeth Dias published Sunday. . .former President Jimmy Carter blithely blamed the Catholic Church for the abuse and oppression of women throughout history and across cultures. No veiled hints here…
And it is going to get worse.
In the words of Dennis Prager, Leftism is the most dynamic religion of the last 100 years.
And it is an oppressive and jealous religion.
it’s nice that gay people can get married in california i think
microwave popcorn causes lung cancer though
also I like that doma is gone and it’s good news for Team R that’s for sure (unless they look this particularly gifty horse in the piehole)
I think california should still have a vote for to put the gay marriage in the state constitution nice and proper
also i’m a watch The Killing now I’m in the middle of season 2
hf
They can’t yet. Prop 8 is still valid per CA’s constitution, no matter what Moonbeam blathers and what the precious ones in West Hollywood or the Castro district are clinking their Cosmos over.
“it’s nice that gay people can get married”
why?
” gay people ”
that’s so gay
oh
well they need to fix it then
it doesn’t have to be a today thing but it’s not something you want to keep putting off
but it’s not something you want to keep putting off
– You betcha. The sooner America abandons all pretense of morality, the sooner we can do the Sodom and Gamorrah deal.
– Pikachu’s will probably look good as pillars of salt.
there’s nothing immoral about married gay people Mr. Hunter you’re probably getting it mixed up with something else
– Marraige is a sacred religious institution between one man and one woman. Anything else is fun behind the picnic table because they can.
“immoral about married gay people”
says the flat earther anti darwin
“it’s nice that gay people can get married” why?
So they can call anyone who disagrees a h8r.
Which makes one doubt the original purpose was to let gays get married and instead was nothing more than creating a weapon with which one could attack people with.
” Marraige is a sacred religious institution between one man and one woman.”
the muslim in chief say no.
– BTW, the cartoon doesn’t cover the half of where we’re headed. First target: Marriage as an institution. Next target: Ageist unconstitutional age of consent laws and inter-family members anti-marraige laws.
– Coming soon to a neiborhood near you.
– Neighborhood too.
you don’t like “fundamental change” h8ter
link
Yup and yup and yup and yup.
Marriage is a sacrament.
This is a sacrilege.
– Nancy laughs past the cemetery. Apparently the letter from her Cardinal didn’t impress her. She’s really daring the church to act.
>She’s really daring the church to act.<
@8:23
"is almost a secularized religion. "
the effin’ h8ters
Orders for Paula Deen cookbook surge
If the battle is over and the gayz can marry, I guess they can start to care about other [more important] issues and stop voting like sheeple.
I look forward to that.
Whether it’s a sin, etc, that’s between them and God. I’d prefer the government would get out of endorsing marriage, gay or otherwise. It’s a commitment to each other before GOD, not the state. Fuck them.
BBH,
Does the Catholic Church still do official “excommunications”, or is it now just a “deny communion” thing?
Or are they the same thing, just the latter sounds less threatening?
Laff, Nancy Botox. Laff…
– It’s not about sex Car, it’s about money. If Winslow didn’t get charged that $375,000 estate tax when her gay “partner” died there wouldn’t have been a SCOTUS hearing, or it would have required some other money conflict of similar situation to have a hearing at all.
– The Left is just using this like so many of their faux-causes to inflame passions and ridicule anyone who opposes them.
– The church has backed way off from its former agressiveness when it comes to ex-communicating. Denial of communion is only effective if its universal, which its a bit spotty at best. So she’s playing dice with her position in the church, but thats really not the point. She’s betraying her faith by even being involved in so many of the things the Left “preaches”. So the failure is hers in the eyes of the holy trinity, completely aside from the Papal veils actions or lack there-of, and shes not kidding anybody. She knows it, but she wants the perks, so shes just another garden variety politicak cynic, as well as a hertic to her religion.
” The Left is just using this like so many of their faux-causes to inflame passions and ridicule anyone who opposes them. ”
so a flat tax and a small gov’t is the win
“, as well as a hertic to her religion.”
i like limestone but granite works go ax allan he’s 10′ tall
I’d prefer the government would get out of endorsing marriage, gay or otherwise. It’s a commitment to each other before GOD, not the state.
Nope and nope. If it were just a God thing, atheists and pagans would find no reason to marry. Studying scriptures and saying prayers and attending services are God things, because atheists find absolutely no reason to do so, being atheist and all.
The committment is not just between the spouses but also between the couple on the one hand and the rest of society on the other. The couple agrees to behave like a married couple and society grants their household legitimacy.
Otherwise, you have the short-lived “secret marriage” from the Middle Ages wherein the pair agrees between themselves that they’re married, consummate the union, and then the young man bolts the scene, leaving the girl pregnant or disgraced or both.
Marriage has to be official to function properly. In small tribal societies, the ceremony is performed in front of the entire tribe, so everyone knows it happened. In our society, there are too many of us to witness every wedding, so we create a certificate that is signed by witnesses to attest that the thing was done correctly and legitimately.
The state—as the servant of the people—is merely the record-keeper and the granter of officialdom, and it’s supposed to take its cues from the desires of the people.
If you get gubmint out of marriage, how do we know who is married and who is not? Do we go back to he-said-she-said when it comes to the commitment? If you say that churches should do marriage, then what do non-believers do? What constitutes a church?
And if you say churches should do marriage and the gubmint should do civil unions, uh, how is that different from what we have NOW?
I understand the desire to get the gubmint out of every damn thing it’s got its tentacles into, but in this case, we’d be burning down our house to spite the arsonists.
This Gordian Knot doesn’t cut. Like slavery, there just isn’t a compromise position on this matter.
– Record keeping does not require any laws except the fact of keeping the records lawfully and correctly. Birth certificates do not require any laws outside the proper maintainance of birth records.
The same is true of marraige certificates, so that “gov involvement” argument is invalid when its extended to interfer with religious based institutions themselves.
“if you say that churches should do marriage, then what do non-believers :?
um non believers churches
– The problem arises from “property and wealth” questions, not sex or religion.
this be about “a belief” no? or faith?
– Well the conflict is certainly a “faith” issue for one side, and a “defiance of the man” issue for the other side, but from the gov’s standpoint its about money.
ax a kennedy or a bush or a clinton
power mostly
– Like I said earlier, if Windsor (Got the name wrong before) vs the US Government wasn’t brought, or something just like it, the SCOTUS would not have heard the case.
– The real crime here is the gov keeps passing laws and enforcing them in area’s they not only have no jurisdiction, but are explicitly forbidden too interfer in by the ninth and tenth articles, but they do it anyway, and no one seems able to challenge them or stop it.
– I think Jeff is right about the ruling class. If a Republic notices that its Constitution needs some updating for changing societal issues and times, it can call a Contenental Congress and enact the neccessary changes so that any actions of the three powers of the FED are lawful. We don’t seem to do thst. We just go ahead and enact things that are clearly illegal and outside the designated powers.
– Apparently the ruling elite would rather eat their arm off rather than wake up the ugly sleeping Constitution.
– And BTW. That is why you’ll have to have a civil war if you ever hope to see a flat or fair tax passed, and the IRS reduced to a simple operation at 1/10000 its present size and influence.
– They won’t ever voluntarily call for a CC because the first thing that would come up is the illegal lack of any clear voter supported national tax laws. A dirty little situation under which the FED has been collecting taxes since the 30’s. So that right there is conflict number uno, and there are others, all illegal actions the FED has been engaged in for many decades in direct defiance of the ninth and tenth.
“Just how it will effect a same-sex couple from, say, Alabama who goes and gets married in Massachusetts then returns to Alabama is, frankly, unknown.”
I’ve got this hunch that a SCOTUS which decided a federal DOMA was a product of bigotry would find the same animus in a state DOMA, too.
“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
FTFY.
Religion(s) have striven for centuries to connect mortal mankind to higher planes of existence, to strengthen our link to the spiritual, to drag us, kicking and screaming, out of the animal kingdom. Leftists are dead set on destroying any connection we have to spiritualism, by attacking and denouncing religion, so as to better treat us like animals.
When Leftists have succeeded in destroying any ‘formal’ religious links we have to spiritual God, then it’ll be easier to control their fellow man. We’ll have only the Left’s Animal Husbandry, CONTROL with a vengeance. Not only will abortion be encouraged, but we’ll see the return of full-blown eugenics (abortion is but a file in that cabinet). With ObamaCare, we’ve caught a whiff of the Left’s death panels.
As they see us, as animals, we can, and must, be treated as animals. Animal husbandry.
we only deserve what’s coming I think
. If it were just a God thing, atheists and pagans would find no reason to marry. – :
But increasingly, people are opting out of marriage.
Otherwise, you have the short-lived “secret marriage” from the Middle Ages wherein the pair agrees between themselves that they’re married, consummate the union, and then the young man bolts the scene, leaving the girl pregnant or disgraced or both
Which, again – we have today.
This Gordian Knot doesn’t cut. Like slavery, there just isn’t a compromise position on this matter. –
Yes. No compromise position. We’ve lost.
– The Left is just using this like so many of their faux-causes to inflame passions and ridicule anyone who opposes the –
Yes, this. Which is why we’re going to see the new “gay cause” in a week or two. Like civil rights for blacks and women, the war is never won.
Too much is at stake. Political power.
They prefer the term “courthouses.” Because that’s what they worship: government.
For those like Ezra Klein who might not be able to put it all together for themselves.
What the hamstertron refuses to recognize is that the court’s decision is tyranny. The court’s rationale (judging motivations) for the DOMA case is tyrannical. The existence of an institution that can arbitrarily nullify, enervate, or amplify portions of law (including our founding law) through precedent is tyranny.
It really doesn’t matter if we agree with them on a particular case or not.
The courts are acting outside the boundaries of the Constitution. One cannot respect the Constitution while approving the behavior of this lawless court.
I actually don’t give a flying fuck whether gay people can get married or not. It doesn’t do anything at all to lessen my marriage, if they can.
Have at it, people. Do what you think is right. God will sort it all out in the end.
Unfortunately Mon, the 14th Amendment explicitly establishes the rationale for what SCOTUS did. It was added to the Constitution by the process prescribed in the original document.
Talk about repealing the 16th or 17th might get a fair hearing; talk of repealing the 14th, not so much.
*well they need to fix it then*’
Well the citizens of California already made that call. If you’re a gay citizen of California, the beautiful thing is you have the option to move to a state that allows you to get married, if its that important to you. I didn’t have as much of a problem with the DOMA decision (let the states deal with social issues is my take on it) other than the fact that the majority pathetically called every supporter of DOMA a hater and a bigot, but the Prop 8 decision is incredibly bad, poorly reasoned and leaves no recourse for citizens who pass a law that the “enlightened” politicians of their state do not like and won’t enforce. This ruling shows that liberals can violate the law and/or not enforce a law they don’t like and there are no consequences.
It doesn’t do anything at all to lessen my marriage, if they can.
Slart, with all do respect, it has nothing to do with your marriage.
Don’t buy into that Leftist schtick.
Carin – yes, people are opting out of marriage, and it will get worse. SSM does affect real marriage — society gets less of it.
And society suffers for it.
Then why should I care at all? If we want government out of the personal affairs of people, why should the government be in the business of legitimizing people’s relationships?
Every child a welfare-dependent child!
For teh human rightzz!
Or to be less circumspect about it: the absence of marriage and, hence, of stable family environments, has done … what, exactly, for the black and LIV communities in America?
I hate to disagree, but even with a broad interpretation of “equal protection” applying to concepts as broad as redefining marriage, the limitation is upon state laws. DOMA was a federal law. The entire justification of the court’s decision resides in assuming bad faith on the part of DOMA’s authors, and striking it based upon some concept of fairness that needs to be seen somewhere besides an oft-tortured clause in a perpetually misused amendment.
The government may not have a legitimate stake in recognizing marriage, but as a taxpayer I sure as hell do — and excuse me all to hell if I think that GIVES the government a legitimate stake in it.
Mon, I’m not sure I like the implications of letting Congress pass laws for reasons prohibited to the states. Kind of turns the 9th on its head — not that the 14th hadn’t already, but…
Why is that, McGehee?
See my 7:21 and 7:23, and engage your thinking gear.
“Unfortunately Mon, the 14th Amendment explicitly establishes the rationale for what SCOTUS did”
And what’s more is Michael Belliseles is working on a new book showing how the 14th was written by Congressmen meeting in a 19th century bathhouse located somewhere off Dupont Circle. So there’s that.
If you think your best argument is one that’s made almost entirely of snark, one of us has indeed not engaged their thinking gear.
Some unpacking is in order, I say. You might disagree, but then we’d be at impasse. Which is fine.
…or possibly your point is that the presence of gay marriage will further increase illegitimacy and single parentage in e.g. African-American communities?
I’d say that needs some evidencing.
Well, you know that the 2nd Amendment became fetishized as a way to keep the Black Man down, right?
I wonder if California will be the last state where gay marriage is legal
will the anti-gay marriage firewalls hold?
it is hard to say
probably they will I think
but I’ve been wrong before
That’s true, Slart. Especially the ones with the English accents.
Then why should I care at all?
Well, then, if you are living on an isolated island and never deign to mix in society, and don’t have children/grandchildren that will ever mix in that society and don’t care about whether the members of said society behave in a civilized manner, than alrighty then
good freakin lord
Note that I am not in solidarity with hf, here. I don’t really care all that much whether gay people get married or not. I just don’t think it’s really the government’s business to decide who can and can’t get married. Nor is it the government’s business to encourage or discourage marriage, presumably for the greater good.
IMO, of course.
pikachu
it isn’t “anti-gay marriage”. It is anti-radical redefinition of marriage.
Same-sex marriage isn’t marriage.
Cats and tables both have four legs, but cats are not going to stand still when you try to put your dinner plate on them.
Darleen’s outrage manages to answer no questions.
Different people are weird. If some people are too weird for you, don’t associate with them. It’s pretty much what you’re doing already.
I just don’t think it’s really the government’s business to decide who can and can’t get married.
See Ramirez’s cartoon above.
Mon, I’m not sure I like the implications of letting Congress pass laws for reasons prohibited to the states.
I’m just pointing out what was written. I don’t dispute that there are issues with the amendment, but like it or not, the DC sentiment after the war was decidedly one of keeping southern states in line, which is why federal law is not included in the “equal protection” clause. The fact that it is used that way today (and has been for some time) is merely because it has been more convenient to do so, than not.
It’s all pointless anyway. The ruling class will always do what it wants. If it can find or create a legal justification, great. If not, it will just ignore the law and proceed.
Ramirez’ cartoon is making an amusing strawman argument. Combined with an implicit slippery-slope argument, I think.
Argument by cartoon: not the best way to sort things out, IMO.
Not sure, hf. My congressman and several others have assured me Hispanics are very family oriented and religious and will make wonderful citizens. Add that to the macho element in Latin cultures and we may start seeing Ricky Martin pinatas.
Slart
It has nothing to do with weird and flapping your hands at how a society works as if its basic principles and institutions are disconnected from its success doesn’t make it so.
Slartibartfast wrote:
I think Dicentra answered why you should care in her brilliant comment on 26 June at 10:15 PM.
You Utilitarians really amuse me with your raging selfishness. The Founding Fathers understood that the Republic they created would not survive unless people understood that with freedom and liberty comes responsibility, and that part of their duty was to conduct themselves in a Virtuous rather than a selfish manner.
In a constitutional republic, one has an obligation to one’s community. This a Moral and not a legal one.
It would be useful, Darleen, if you would just make a counterargument, rather than declaring what your position isn’t.
Slart
How is it a strawman argument? Do you seriously think that polygamy will NOT be legalized within 5-10 years?
Based on what?
*The entire justification of the court’s decision resides in assuming bad faith on the part of DOMA’s authors, and striking it based upon some concept of fairness that needs to be seen somewhere besides an oft-tortured clause in a perpetually misused amendment*
This is very true. As you would expect from the liberal justices, who don’t really apply the law but seem to think that “fairness” is the law of the land, their reasoning is pathetic and downright mean spirited (surprise surprise). The next fight, imho, is going to be that at some point, a liberal Congress (god forbid) tries to pass some kind of law that forces states to either allow gay marriage or recognize gay marriages from other states. Its certainly going to be the next thing on the radical gay agenda. Its amazing to me how willing a vast number of people in this country are willing to change laws and social norms to acommodate a very small number of citizens.
It’s just the opposite, actually. Why tell people how they should live, with the force of government behind that command?
Codifying virtue will work how, exactly? How many people do you think will elect to have gay relationships now that there might be gay marriage, who weren’t having them before?
If government gets out of the business of legitimizing certain kinds of relationships above others, then where is the hazard? Do you think that we are children, who will stray without the master’s guiding hand? This guiding hand being our Government, which is a collection of the worst and most corrupt of us?
I am not seeing it, really.
“good freakin lord!” exclaimed Darleen. “You must not have you no grandbabbies else you be on an island somewheres. But don’t be coming round here giving me none of that why should I care. If you don’t care about whether members of society behave in a civilized manner you ain’t nuttin but a damn nihilist and I don’t hold no truck with damn nihilists.”
She continued on in this manner at some length. Long enough for the pikachu to decide that it was time to push down the tamper thinger on his french press and enjoy a robust cup of coffee.
“Cats and tables both have four legs!”
“Polygamy in 5 years mark my word!”
“My goodness she does carry on,” thought the pikachu. “I wonder… does she like butter tarts?”
Because polygamous relationships are only in the conversation because people are using that possibility as a slippery-slope argument against gay marriage.
It doesn’t matter what I think. It’s not on the table. This is a slippery-slope argument.
This ruling shows that liberals can violate the law and/or not enforce a law they don’t like and there are no consequences.
– As stated earlier, the decision leaves prop 8 as the law of the land in Cal until such time that a state court/state supreme court rules it unconstitutional at the state level, which can/will take years to work its way through the circuits.
– The celebration is entirely unwarrented for the queer eyes.
– Moonbeam has been advised of same and has moved to try to force the issue as soon as possible by issuing orders to break the law intentionally, and thereby cause a quick showdown, but it won’t work. The courts when challenged, will have no choice but to set aside any “illegal” marraiges until it gets tested in a full hearing at all the various levels. So the fight has just begun.
– Yay us.
“…who don’t really apply the law but seem to think that “fairness” is the law of the land…”
Bingo, Matt. The nut of the case is that these decisions are against the will of the people. All three branches of our government have gone rogue on the people in the last 4 years — the Legislative with ObamaCare, the Executive with spying and suppressing speech and others, and the Judiciary by overturning referendums and tradition. There is no Republic now. There are no body of laws which guide policy. Only an oligarchy that decides what’s “fair.”
Prager —
Mothers and fathers are not only irrelevant, but to refer to them AS moms or dads is hatey hatiness of the Patriarchy!
And be assured, the next lawsuits will be against any church/synagogue that refuses to marry same-sex couples.
This is no longer about live-and-let-live, but thought crime.
Just to add a bit of advice on what not to do: At your dinner party, when your gay friends excitedly talk about planning their upcoming nuptials, you probably shouldn’t ask the question, “If your cat crawled into the oven and had a litter of kittens, would you call ’em biscuits?”
It doesn’t end well. Trust me on this one.
Now, I have shit to do. I’ll be back later to sort through the vituperation in search of something rational.
Dicentra’s comment I am still considering, but I basically disagree that it’s government that needs to emplace some intrinsic specialness on marriage. People will be moral with or without governmental approval.
Again: IMO.
It’s not on the table
Yeah, and same-sex marriage was not on the table when Scalia predicted laws against it would fall in his dissent in Lawrence in 2003.
So a 10 year prediction about polygamy is just about right.
The other side of the dinner-party argument involves asking your gay friends to have a bit of sympathy for their Catholic neighbors, who have suffered terribly at the hands of the State since the new millennium started. One of their most important sacraments has been redefined by the State to include partnerships they consider sinful; their charitable organizations are being forced to pay for contraception and abortifacients against their beliefs and conscience; and Notre Dame got absolutely killed in the championship game by a State school.
Surely, as members of a recognized victim class, they can sympathize with the plight of their neighbors, and maybe take a break from their relentless campaign to force Catholics to install lesbian priests and give up their non-aborted babies for gay couples.
Yeah, dinner at Squid’s house gets a little interesting after the wine starts flowing.
People will be moral with or without governmental approval.
– Or: “People will be amoral with or without governmental approval.”
– Notice gov doesn’t really lend anything to the conflict accept biased (read special interest) illegal partiality. The question comes down too: Does society have the right to discriminate in some instances. The Left says no, the Right says yes. Pick your poison.
You Utilitarians really amuse me with your raging selfishness. The Founding Fathers understood that the Republic they created would not survive unless people understood that with freedom and liberty comes responsibility, and that part of their duty was to conduct themselves in a Virtuous rather than a selfish manner.
Huh. We have our politicians lying and stealing and behaving in an entirely non-honorable manner, but it’s the gay immorality that’s going to be our undoing?
I dun’t think so.
I have gay friends, and if they want to get gay married, I really don’t much care. I just don’t. Every other woman I work with has a child out of wedlock, etc etc. But gay immorality is going to be our undoing?
Let’s put this into perspective – it is a TINY fraction of gays that even want to get married. For every ten guys knocking up different women they’re not married to, you’re going to find a gay dude who wants to marry the love of his life.
Please don’t interpret this to mean I support gay marriage. I don’t think them getting married is any more or less harmful then the households they’ve set up through the years.
This has been a political movement, for political power.
The main thing that bothers me about this entire debate has been the lies inherent in their [pro-gay marriage] argument.
This has been about being a victim – the gays can’t inherit/ adopt/ etc. Civil unions (which would have solved it) wasn’t “good enough.”
They want society to endorse them. Tell them they’re normal. They’re sheep, who will support whatever their leaders tell them to support.
This has been about being a victim – the gays can’t inherit/ adopt/ etc. Civil unions (which would have solved it) wasn’t “good enough.”
They want society to endorse them. Tell them they’re normal. They’re sheep, who will support whatever their leaders tell them to support.
This.
It isn’t anymore about individuals who are gay then it is about Slart’s marriage.
– The Left has been manuevering to align the SSM agitprop with civil rights for a long time now. Every time they try it the Black community goes batshit. Thus the thrust through the courts as an alternative looking for legitimacy.
“The Left says no, the Right says yes. Pick your poison.”
Ah, no. The Left does this as well, (if not better than), the Right.
“But gay immorality is going to be our undoing? ”
How is that SIDA thing going for you?
Sorry, AIDS. It’s called SIDA here.
“Tell them they’re normal.”
Do you support delusory ideation?
“But gay immorality is going to be our undoing? ”
How is that SIDA thing going for you?
AIDS is doing more damage, I believe, in Africa.
But in so far as danger to our democracy, I think the immorality in DC – in our leaders – is a far bigger threat than Thad and Erich’s wedding.
Our leaders lie to us. They behave in unethical manners, and the press looks the other way. They are beholden to power.
THIS is the crises of our time. Not the two dude figurines on the wedding cake.
I remember a time when gay marriage was only in the conversation because people were using that possiblility as a slippery-slope argument against the repeal of sodomy laws.
“AIDS is doing more damage, I believe, in Africa.”
One issue for you to consider. Cost of research, (and allocation of funding dollars), for AIDS vis a vis cancer. Without the AIDS research, where do you think the majority of funding would, (or should, for that matter), have been spent?
“THIS is the crises of our time. Not the two dude figurines on the wedding cake.”
Minimize what you must, but the last analysis I was aware of, placed an eight fold expenditure of public grants and funds for AIDS research.
“public grants and funds for AIDS research.”
When compared to all forms of cancer research.
It doesn’t do anything at all to lessen my marriage, if they can.
BEAT that strawman with a bigger stick, willya? It refuses to die.
If we want government out of the personal affairs of people, why should the government be in the business of legitimizing people’s relationships?
Thanks for reading my last.
The government may not have a legitimate stake in recognizing marriage,
Zeus on a Zamboni, people: SOCIETY has the dog in this fight. The GUBMINT isn’t supposed to be a separate entity, with interests apart from ours, but we’ve been trained to think it should.
or possibly your point is that the presence of gay marriage will further increase illegitimacy and single parentage
Fatherlessness and motherlessness. By design.
Ramirez’ cartoon is making an amusing strawman argument. Combined with an implicit slippery-slope argument, I think.
Given that the Left wants to destroy marriage by redefining it to mean anything and therefore nothing, it’s not a slippery-slope argument but rather an OBSERVATION OF THE MACHINATIONS OF A HIGHLY ORGANIZED MOVEMENT.
It’s not on the table.
Bull SHIT. The fundie LDS have already been filing lawsuits, and the Muslims—why they’ll just sit home and read the Quran with their hands folded in their laps. They will absolutely NOT attempt to bend our law to their will.
People will be moral with or without governmental approval.
Wrong.
The legality of certain acts is society’s way of saying: “this is no big deal.” If we repeal the murder laws, what then? You and I won’t suddenly start hacking people to death, but the homicide rate would definitely explode. There’s a reason we have rule of law, and it’s not to make work for cops and judges.
Every other woman I work with has a child out of wedlock, etc etc. But gay immorality is going to be our undoing?
It’s the cumulative effect of all these undoings and decouplings and redefinings and the general descent from order into chaos. Societal entropy is not our friend. And the fact that ONE of these undoings won’t totally destroy society by its lonesome self doesn’t mean that we should sanction it.
There’s a damned good reason why all human societies have marriage which is heterosexual and OFFICIAL: millennia of trial and error (mostly error) shows that when a society doesn’t insist that children be raised by their married parents, those children turn out to be rotten parents, who in turn produce rotten kids who are unable to sustain civil society.
None of us wants to be mean to all those nice gay people. But sometimes society really DOES need to say no, and to draw a line, and to insist that legitimacy be given only to those family arrangements that produce healthy people.
THIS is the crises of our time. Not the two dude figurines on the wedding cake.
They can all be crises at the same time, and they can all be a mouldering brick in the once-great edifice of the Republic.
I’m waiting for Gay Divorce Court on teevee. It’ll be awesome.
“None of us wants to be mean to SOME of those nice gay people.”
FIFY
And in another 10 years, you’ll be able to marry that end table set you’ve been eyeing.
If California becomes one of the few states to allow SSM and by using the DOMA decision reasoning allows getting married in CA to be valid in all states, Jerry Brown can set up a new tourist industry to help pay for his choo choo train to nowhere.
I don’t know how popular SSM will actually be in CA but, it seems funny few mention an impact on family courts (good news for divorce lawyers). As long as the marriage contract is protected by family law, you can’t argue that SSM has zero impact on others or the state has zero interest.
i could be a gay marriage tour guide on the weekend for extra monies!
and we’re walking and we’re walking and we’re walking and STOP
ok here is where the gay people get married sometimes (to each other)
and we’re walking and we’re walking and we’re walking and STOP
ok this is where a lot of people like to get their reception cupcakes – not necessarily just gay people but they’re very “gay friendly” cupcakes as they say
and we’re walking and we’re walking and we’re walking and STOP
ok this place has these really fun martinis I can’t remember what they’re called but you can google it
and we’re walking and we’re walking and we’re walking and STOP
ok thanks a lot for stopping by! Tips are appreciated!
Also, can we please please please remember that SSM is not about gays and it’s not about marriage: it’s a WEAPON against opponents of Statism—the teary-eyed couples pleading to have their love recognized are being exploited just as surely as racial minorities have been exploited to further the totalitarian agenda.
THIS is what they’re after: the marginalization and persecution and humiliation and castigation and ruination of those whom they despise.
SSM was not on the table until the Left figured out that it was the perfect way to cull the god-botherers from the mainstream and put us irretrievably beyond the pale.
I beg you libertarians: don’t give them rhetorical cover for this cynical and malicious cudgel. That’s like defending the general use of birth control in the face of Obamacare’s insurance mandate to Catholic institutions. Your acceptance of birth control CANNOT translate into acceptance of the mandate.
Perspective, people. We’re dealing with a determined enemy who knows how to couple your sympathies with their agenda.
And I need to backtrack everything I’ve said in response to you so far in this thread, since the principle is the 9th, not the 14th.
In my defense, there are so many different arguments that I lost track of which was involved in the DOMA ruling.
SOCIETY being composed of course of a lot of people who agree with you.
Which “ours” are you referring to? Is it the “us” that really cares about gay marriage, or is it the “us” that doesn’t? I think you’re throwing your rope around a lot more people than would agree with you on this point.
Sorry, I had forgotten about the Gay Mafia.
Sure, and there are really good reasons to have laws against e.g. murder, because people tend to get dead more often if there aren’t. But you are comparing consensual relationships that you don’t like to murder, which is fairly silly.
I get this has you upset, dicentra, but I appear to be immune.
They can all be crises at the same time, and they can all be a mouldering brick in the once-great edifice of the Republic.
Yes, but gay marriage has been the shiny penny that has focused liberals, like a laser beam, to vote for HOpe And Change.
bastards in office are OK if they support gay legislation.
The further devaluation of marriage will achieve this. You say yours won’t be devalued — well, neither will mine. But there are millions of young people not yet married, who will see marriage increasingly as pointless because it’s no longer a legal institution founded both in tradition and in the social benefits it used to create.
I’ve argued repeatedly that you can’t separate marriage from the law because without the law it has no purpose. Arguing that it should be left to the church is like arguing that protecting freedom of speech should be left solely to the speaker.
This site needs more Jeff.
But you are comparing consensual relationships that you don’t like to murder, which is fairly silly.
“that I don’t like”
That’s what you’re taking from this? That I’ve got my magic undies in a wad because I DON’T LIKE the idea of two dudes getting married? At what point during my many years at PW did you conclude that I, Dicentra spectabilis, operate on the basis of personal preference and not principle.
SOCIETY being composed of course of a lot of people who agree with you.
Ima give you a chance to rethink your retooling of my signifiers to mean what you want them to say.
I’ll wait.
Ok, so: your evidence exists in the future. Ok, then. For my money, marriage has already been so thoroughly devalued by society that the only people who DO value it to a degree I consider appropriate are people who are in committed, long-term relationships. In other words: people who don’t NEED the force of law behind the institution to prop it up.
Without a law defining marriage, marriage has no purpose? I can’t imagine what you mean by this. I would still be married, with or without the law.
But you are comparing consensual relationships that you don’t like to murder, which is fairly silly.
You flunked the analogy portion of the test, didn’t you? I refuted this, “People will be moral with or without governmental approval” by presenting an example of people not being moral in the absence of law.
The way that analogies work is A is to B as C is to D.
The IS TO portions are being compared, not A with C or B to D.
Ergo, “Laws against murder enforce morality just as laws against gay marriage enforce morality.”
The LEFT has taught people to maliciously misinterpret the analogy as murder = gay marriage.
What the hell is wrong with you that you do the same?
and ‘feets if you get a wheel chair, your clients can hop ahead in line.
You’re free to have your signifiers speak for themselves, but they are all busy being snarky and caps-locked ANGRY right now, by appearances.
What principles? Why should your principles guide the actions of others who don’t agree with them?
I would still be married, with or without the law.
Without the law, you’re just shacking up. There’s a reason why all societies perform official HETEROSEXUAL marriages: as with remodeling, don’t remove a wall until you know why it’s there.
For my money, marriage has already been so thoroughly devalued by society that the only people who DO value it to a degree I consider appropriate are people who are in committed, long-term relationships.
You don’t need a piece of paper to prove your love? Seriously? That old hippie argument is as shallow now as ever it was.
Oh, but I didn’t. Whose signifiers are being retooled, again?
but they are all busy being snarky and caps-locked ANGRY right now, by appearances.
So what if I’m being snarky and ANGRY? How does that prevent you from properly interpreting my language?
Why should your principles guide the actions of others who don’t agree with them?
You accused me of being against SSM because of my personal preferences. I insist that I’m opposed on PRINCIPLE. That has nothing to do with anyone else.
Screw this. You’re being a freaking pissant today.
Ok, that’s about enough of that.
I’ll rejoin this when you’re not off your fucking rocker angry. Until then, take your anger, fold it until it’s all sharp corners, and stick it.
My old man
He’s a singer in the park
He’s a walker in the rain
He’s a dancer in the dark
We don’t need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
My old man
Keeping away my blues
He’s my sunshine in the morning
He’s my fireworks at the end of the day
He’s the warmest chord I ever heard
Play that warm chord, play and stay baby
We don’t need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
My old man
Keeping away my blues
But when he’s gone
Me and them lonesome blues collide
The bed’s too big
The frying pan’s too wide
Then he comes home
And he takes me in his loving arms
And he tells me all his troubles
And he tells me all my charms
We don’t need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
No, my old man
Keeping away my blues
But when he’s gone
Me and them lonesome blues collide
The bed’s too big
The frying pan’s too wide
My old man
He’s a singer in the park
He’s a walker in the rain
He’s a dancer in the dark
We don’t need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true
No, my old man
Keeping away my lonesome blues
© 1970; Joni Mitchell
As puerile as the “we don’t need no piece of paper, man” line is, that song is one that keeps me coming back to Joni’s Blue album, along with the A Case Of You. Beautiful chord structure and great singing.
Scribe of Slog (McGehee) says June 27, 2013 at 10:02 am
the principle is the 9th, not the 14th.
Has a Constitutional “right to marry” been established? I seriously don’t know. In any case Jeff has posted new stuff that makes my argument better than I do.
My bottom line: there is no serious Constitutional defense for this stuff, but I notice some of the libertarians can’t see that forest for the trees.
I don’t want to win or lose by tyrannical court decisions.
This is for Slart who, in my opinion, would be too quick to dismiss Senator Moynihan as having made nothing more than a “slippery-slope argument” if this thread is anything to go by.
(via Glenn Reynolds)
Slippery-slope is a logical fallacy, but it is not an irrational concept. Neither (just for example) is “follow the money” which strictly speaking is a form of Ad hominem. The courts are not simply forensic societies, so why the constant reference to rigorous rhetorical codes?
“Combined with an implicit slippery-slope argument, I think.”
The same phenomena as seen via opposed rhetorical polarities:
Apologetics version:
Slippery slope -> process of escalation is deemed not credible by speaker
What just happened is okay or even good.
Polemics version:
Foot in the door/camel’s nose in the tent -> process of of escalation deepd inevitable by speaker.
What just happened is bad and must be reversed or opposed.
deepd –> is deemed
And I probably should have said ‘a repugnant, hostile, and improper imposition’ instead of inevitable.
One man’s hippy philosophy is another man’s don’t give a shit; I am married as far as my church is concerned.
If there’s a religious basis for marriage, isn’t that all that really counts? I ask, rhetorically. “Society” (or, alternatively: “SOCIETY”) can go fornicate itself, as far as I am concerned. I don’t need or want its blessing.
[…] had forgotten about these fitting remarks made by Serr8d a couple of weeks […]