Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[seakelp]

My SCOTUS prediction:

CA’s Prop 8 challengers will likely lose, but on narrow grounds.

DOMA will be declared unconstitutional b/c of federalism.

SCOTUS definitely picked both cases in the same term to split the baby, so to speak.

Anyway, it strikes me that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and DOMA is, as well. We’ll just have to see how they do it, though.

 

[Monkey1976]

Aren’t married couples more stable than unmarried people? Isn’t that one of the arguments that has always been made? Married people settle down, they buy houses, they buy stuff to furnish their houses, they take vacations to get away from their houses, they get jobs and work to keep their houses and vacations…in other words-married people are more stable for the economy than single people. They spend more, and they spend more consistently.

A marriage license isn’t magic. If two people are going to do the things you listed, what is preventing them from doing so? My brother and I could choose to settle down, buy a house together, etc. - None of these things requires a change to the institution that stands as the basis of civilization.

All those companies who support gay rights-you think they’re doing that because it makes them feel good? Sure, they’re going to say it’s all about equal rights, but if it wasn’t going to be economically beneficial they wouldn’t wade in on it.

Follow the money…

I seem to recall that an early bishop made some pretty good money by compromising his morals. Enough to buy a potter’s field, in fact.

Pornography is the single highest profit-margin business on the internet - should we support and applaud pornographers for their business acumen?

 

[Seeker1961]

A marriage license isn’t magic. If two people are going to do the things you listed, what is preventing them from doing so? My brother and I could choose to settle down, buy a house together, etc. - None of these things requires a change to the institution that stands as the basis of civilization.

I seem to recall that an early bishop made some pretty good money by compromising his morals. Enough to buy a potter’s field, in fact.

Pornography is the single highest profit-margin business on the internet - should we support and applaud pornographers for their business acumen?

So don’t compromise your morals…don’t support gay marriage with your business and don’t buy anything from companies that do.

I’m only pointing out the reason why companies line up to support it. It’s not about rights and it’s not because they “hate” everything that is good and pure in the world. It’s because they see a financial advantage in it. If corporations like it, government will too. The “marriage” of business and government pretty much assures that what is good for one is good for the other.

Lots of legal things don’t fit the definition of moral according to the Catholic Church, but that isn’t what this thread is about. We choose to avoid them to follow our faith. This thread is about civil laws that apply to all citizens, many of whom who don’t share our faith.

And yes, you can cohabitate without a marriage, but I think most people would agree that there is less commitment when you’re just roommates.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

EXCLUSIVE: EMails Show Prop. 8 Judge Sought Ted Olson’s Advice On Whether to Attend Supreme Court Argument on Gay Marriage

Wow, Abyssinia, your investigative ability is remarkable …

Judge Walker floated the idea to Ted Olson through an intermediary if his attendance at the US Supreme Court arguments on March 27 would be a distraction.

I attached the reply e-mail to Judge Walker from someone in Ted Olson’s law firm advising him to stay away from said hearing and reproduced the most interesting part of the e-mail below.

The part which I underlined is telling, of how Judge Walker’s personal situation was not relevant when he ruled on Prop 8. Nooooo. Who would believe or think that? How could anyone even suspect that? Ridiculous.

Riiiight.

— Original Message —
From: [blacked out]@gibsondunn.com
Sent: Monday December 10, 2012
To: JUDGE WALKER
Subject: RE:WSJ:Supreme Court to take up Gay Marriage Cases

Vaughan, Ted and I have discussed this over the weekend, and reluctantly, we do think it would be a potential distraction for you to attend the argument, now scheduled for March 27. There will be a heavy press turnout and you are very likely to be recognized and asked to comment. Even if you refuse, your attendance will likely be covered, and your personal situation, even though now not relevant, again reported on. …

[you can read the rest from the link provided by Abyssinia]

 

[Monkey1976]

So don’t compromise your morals…don’t support gay marriage with your business and don’t buy anything from companies that do.

I’m only pointing out the reason why companies line up to support it. It’s not about rights and it’s not because they “hate” everything that is good and pure in the world. It’s because they see a financial advantage in it. If corporations like it, government will too. The “marriage” of business and government pretty much assures that what is good for one is good for the other.

Lots of legal things don’t fit the definition of moral according to the Catholic Church, but that isn’t what this thread is about. We choose to avoid them to follow our faith. This thread is about civil laws that apply to all citizens, many of whom who don’t share our faith.

And yes, you can cohabitate without a marriage, but I think most people would agree that there is less commitment when you’re just roommates.

So, should we just stick our fingers in our ears, lock the doors, and sing “Kumbaya” while teaching the Catechism becomes “hate speech”? This isn’t hyperbole - this is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. In Canada, Bishop Fred Henry was slapped with a $5000 fine for stating that homosexual acts are immoral in his homily.

It’s not just the Church that sees at as immoral. Until VERY recently, every religion agreed. Even countries where religion is banned agree.

What actual, positive good does it do for a society? Even the Spartans - where boys were assigned to a mentor and expected to “service” him and where a man’s wife had to dress and appear male for their first nights together so as to ease him into having sexual intercourse with a woman - even THEY never recognized marriage as anything other than male and female. If there was ever a culture which would have celebrated it as a good and normal thing, Sparta would have been it - but they did not. Why, then, is it so suddenly deemed as utterly essential for society?

There has never been an answer to the question of “Why?” that doesn’t boil down to either an appeal to emotion which has no place in a discussion of law or a three year old throwing a tantrum because “I want it!”.

Neither has there been a coherent definition of marriage put forth that would include gay couples but still reasonably exclude incest, polygamy, polyandry, ephebophilia, or pedophilia.

 

[Seeker1961]

So, should we just stick our fingers in our ears, lock the doors, and sing “Kumbaya” while teaching the Catechism becomes “hate speech”? This isn’t hyperbole - this is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. In Canada, Bishop Fred Henry was slapped with a $5000 fine for stating that homosexual acts are immoral in his homily.

It’s not just the Church that sees at as immoral. Until VERY recently, every religion agreed. Even countries where religion is banned agree.

What actual, positive good does it do for a society? Even the Spartans - where boys were assigned to a mentor and expected to “service” him and where a man’s wife had to dress and appear male for their first nights together so as to ease him into having sexual intercourse with a woman - even THEY never recognized marriage as anything other than male and female. If there was ever a culture which would have celebrated it as a good and normal thing, Sparta would have been it - but they did not. Why, then, is it so suddenly deemed as utterly essential for society?

There has never been an answer to the question of “Why?” that doesn’t boil down to either an appeal to emotion which has no place in a discussion of law or a three year old throwing a tantrum because “I want it!”.

Neither has there been a coherent definition of marriage put forth that would include gay couples but still reasonably exclude incest, polygamy, polyandry, ephebophilia, or pedophilia.

You can go right on speaking out against it if it so moves you. There is no gun being held to your head to force you to marry a gay person, attend a gay wedding or like the fact that they exist. And yes, they already exist-and despite the crazed slippery slope fear mongering, NONE of the horrors predicted have occurred. No legitimate cries for legalizing polygamy or incest-most of that discussion comes from those who are against it. And since the definition of marriage includes the phrase “consenting adults”, the other disgusting issues some here repeatedly link with it as if they are exactly the same as a relationship between two consenting adults-there’s no need to even discuss it.

But AGAIN, we are talking about civil law that applies to citizens that are not Catholic, have no interest in Catholicism…and reading here some days I can sure see why they wouldn’t want to join a group of people that thinks they’re exactly the same as pedophiles.

It’s not the job of people who ask for equal treatment under the law to prove that there’s something useful to society about what they want. That has nothing to do with the actual requirements of the legal argument.

 

[scipio337]

You can go right on speaking out against it if it so moves you. There is no gun being held to your head to force you to marry a gay person, attend a gay wedding or like the fact that they exist. And yes, they already exist-and despite the crazed slippery slope fear mongering, NONE of the horrors predicted have occurred. No legitimate cries for legalizing polygamy or incest-most of that discussion comes from those who are against it. And since the definition of marriage includes the phrase “consenting adults”, the other disgusting issues some here repeatedly link with it as if they are exactly the same as a relationship between two consenting adults-there’s no need to even discuss it.

But AGAIN, we are talking about civil law that applies to citizens that are not Catholic, have no interest in Catholicism…and reading here some days I can sure see why they wouldn’t want to join a group of people that thinks they’re exactly the same as pedophiles.

It’s not the job of people who ask for equal treatment under the law to prove that there’s something useful to society about what they want. That has nothing to do with the actual requirements of the legal argument.

Good grief. He just pointed out where a gun IS (relatively) being placed against others heads to recognize such unions in Canada. The “No one is forcing you to do anything” reasoning is flat out wrong. Consider:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

1. What happens to Catholic churches, schools, hospitals, charities, etc, when they don’t provide same sex partner benefits, should this become federal law?
2. What happens to Cathlic lay institutions who won’t provide public accomodation for same sex activities? (let’s say a K of C hall can be rented for wedding receptions, but refuses to accomadate a same sex wedding reception).
3. What happens when the Church’s teachings are considered “hate speech”?

The legal implications are quite scary for these alone, all other things aside. Catholic Charities in D.C., Boston, and Springfield IL have either had to shut down, close adoptive services (after serving for over a century), or limit other services because of these policies! As the Canada example shows, Church teaching could (and most likely would) be considered “hate speech” (just google “homphobia, Catholic” and see what you come up with).

Throughout this thread, I have not seen a SINGLE compelling state interest to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE the institution that has stood for a millenia, predating both English common, and Western law in general.

There is NO “equal treatment under the law” argument, period. Domestic partnerships that offered THE SAME priveleges of marriage in CA were given in 1999. As the In RE Marriage Cases decision outlined, equal protection was already offered in CA. What the court sought was the same “dignity and respect”.

For the life of me, I find the “I personally believe this as a Catholic, but I wouldn’t want to force this on non-Catholics” argument repugnant. I call it “Biden’s wager”. “I accept my church’s position on X. . . . I just refuse to impose that on others.”

Of course, those who have such positions when it comes to abortion, same sex marriage, the HHS mandate, etc, have NO PROBLEM whatsoever forcing their views on Non-Catholics when it comes to issues regarding Catholic Social doctrine, taxation, or immigration.

If we take the “I believe…but I won’t impose it” position, our religiosity is not morally meaningful. If an act is moral or immoral only for us, then it is not moral or immoral. Either something is immoral for everyone (in the same circumstance) or it is not immoral.

Only when Catholicism agrees with issues like taxation, social doctrine, immigration, etc, are some prepared to impose the former’s teachings. When his Catholicism does not agree with their position, it is reduced to being a matter of personal faith, no more binding on non-Catholics than receiving the Eucharist.

Marriage has been a majority, long held position of many faiths and cultures throughout the millenia, and was so for a reason. As some has pointed out, many cultures embraced homosexual activity (the Roman Empire period, for me), but even they didn’t mingle sexual behavior with institutional marriage. The roots of “matrimony” are Latin: matrem (nominative mater) “mother”, + -monium, suffix signifying “action, state, condition.”

Even for the most gay friendly culture in the history of the entire world, matrimony was the “act of motherhood”.

I don’t find the “crazed slippery slope fear mongering” to be all that crazy, or fear mongering. Given your definition of marriage, can you come up with any LEGALLY compelling argument why marriage should be limited to “2 people”. If higher mammals can consent to sex (just google “Delphinic zoosexuality”), or that our ages of consent should be re-examined?

 

[Seeker1961]

Good grief. He just pointed out where a gun IS (relatively) being placed against others heads to recognize such unions in Canada. The “No one is forcing you to do anything” reasoning is flat out wrong. Consider:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

1. What happens to Catholic churches, schools, hospitals, charities, etc, when they don’t provide same sex partner benefits, should this become federal law?
2. What happens to Cathlic lay institutions who won’t provide public accomodation for same sex activities? (let’s say a K of C hall can be rented for wedding receptions, but refuses to accomadate a same sex wedding reception).
3. What happens when the Church’s teachings are considered “hate speech”?

The legal implications are quite scary for these alone, all other things aside. Catholic Charities in D.C., Boston, and Springfield IL have either had to shut down, close adoptive services (after serving for over a century), or limit other services because of these policies! As the Canada example shows, Church teaching could (and most likely would) be considered “hate speech” (just google “homphobia, Catholic” and see what you come up with).

Throughout this thread, I have not seen a SINGLE compelling state interest to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE the institution that has stood for a millenia, predating both English common, and Western law in general.

There is NO “equal treatment under the law” argument, period. Domestic partnerships that offered THE SAME priveleges of marriage in CA were given in 1999. As the In RE Marriage Cases decision outlined, equal protection was already offered in CA. What the court sought was the same “dignity and respect”.

For the life of me, I find the “I personally believe this as a Catholic, but I wouldn’t want to force this on non-Catholics” argument repugnant. I call it “Biden’s wager”. “I accept my church’s position on X. . . . I just refuse to impose that on others.”

Of course, those who have such positions when it comes to abortion, same sex marriage, the HHS mandate, etc, have NO PROBLEM whatsoever forcing their views on Non-Catholics when it comes to issues regarding Catholic Social doctrine, taxation, or immigration.

If we take the “I believe…but I won’t impose it” position, our religiosity is not morally meaningful. If an act is moral or immoral only for us, then it is not moral or immoral. Either something is immoral for everyone (in the same circumstance) or it is not immoral.

Only when Catholicism agrees with issues like taxation, social doctrine, immigration, etc, are some prepared to impose the former’s teachings. When his Catholicism does not agree with their position, it is reduced to being a matter of personal faith, no more binding on non-Catholics than receiving the Eucharist.

Marriage has been a majority, long held position of many faiths and cultures throughout the millenia, and was so for a reason. As some has pointed out, many cultures embraced homosexual activity (the Roman Empire period, for me), but even they didn’t mingle sexual behavior with institutional marriage. The roots of “matrimony” are Latin: matrem (nominative mater) “mother”, + -monium, suffix signifying “action, state, condition.”

Even for the most gay friendly culture in the history of the entire world, matrimony was the “act of motherhood”.

I don’t find the “crazed slippery slope fear mongering” to be all that crazy, or fear mongering. Given your definition of marriage, can you come up with any LEGALLY compelling argument why marriage should be limited to “2 people”. If higher mammals can consent to sex (just google “Delphinic zoosexuality”), or that our ages of consent should be re-examined?

The religious based organizations will have to make the same choice that I had to make personally-follow the teachings of the Church, or follow the world. And yes, it is a CHOICE. Nobody will be “forcing” them. They will have to choose to follow the civil law or follow the Church law. If the K of C hall wants to rent to other non-Catholics for the right price, then they’ll have to choose to rent to gay couples too. That was the case with Ocean Grove. It was all ok to rent to just about anyone with money, until they had a gay couple (with money), then all of a sudden it was all about religious beliefs.

Gay marriage has been legal in several states for quite some time. Would you be interested in providing me with some actual cases where church teachings have been declared “hate speech”? Or is that a hypothetical? There have been some instances in Canada-but Canada does not have the same Constitution as we have which results in different decisions.

Legal does not equal moral. Again, as happens over and over we’re talking about two different definitions. This discussion is about civil law and what is legal and not legal.

and are you really bringing dolphins into this?? Sorry, but that almost made me do a spit take with my coffee.

 

[scipio337]

The religious based organizations will have to make the same choice that I had to make personally-follow the teachings of the Church, or follow the world. And yes, it is a CHOICE. Nobody will be “forcing” them. They will have to choose to follow the civil law or follow the Church law. If the K of C hall wants to rent to other non-Catholics for the right price, then they’ll have to choose to rent to gay couples too. That was the case with Ocean Grove. It was all ok to rent to just about anyone with money, until they had a gay couple (with money), then all of a sudden it was all about religious beliefs.

But I don’t buy this argument. “Hey, you have the choice to violate your faith and accept same sex unions, or just lose your 503c status and perhaps close your doors. Sorry, Catholic hospital, or charity, I know administering to the poor is part of your faith, too, but clearly, you’re a hate mongering bigot if you don’t accept same sex marriage”.

I don’t think any of us would bat an eyelash for a 503c losing its tax exempt status for not recognizing an interracial couple, but I doubt most don’t feel the same when it comes to this issue.

Maybe because it’s not really a “civil rights” issue.

Seeker1961:

Gay marriage has been legal in several states for quite some time. Would you be interested in providing me with some actual cases where church teachings have been declared “hate speech”? Or is that a hypothetical? There have been some instances in Canada-but Canada does not have the same Constitution as we have which results in different decisions.

Legal does not equal moral. Again, as happens over and over we’re talking about two different definitions. This discussion is about civil law and what is legal and not legal.

None that I know of yet, legally

google.com/search?q=catholic+hate+speech&hl=en&gbv=2&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3…0j0i22i30l3.1484.5781.0.5921.21.18.1.2.2.0.328.2779.0j7j3j3.13.0…0.0…1c.1.YzArE_Dv6Rw&oq=catholic+hate+speech

but clearly, some have that opinon.

Seeker1961:

and are you really bringing dolphins into this?? Sorry, but that almost made me do a spit take with my coffee.

It’s not me who is making that argument, but if we are throwing out such notions as sex, sexual identity, or sexual behavior from the institution of marriage, why would we cling to the Victorian notion of “two”? Is there any legalling compelling state issue to limit marriages to “two” people? Other legal contracts can involve dozens of people, so “it would be too complicated” really doesn’t work.

And if we limit the argument to “who do you love?”, then there are those who will make the argument for “consenting” animals.

 

[Seeker1961]

But I don’t buy this argument. “Hey, you have the choice to violate your faith and accept same sex unions, or just lose your 503c status and perhaps close your doors. Sorry, Catholic hospital, or charity, I know administering to the poor is part of your faith, too, but clearly, you’re a hate mongering bigot if you don’t accept same sex marriage”.

I don’t think any of us would bat an eyelash for a 503c losing its tax exempt status for not recognizing an interracial couple, but I doubt most don’t feel the same when it comes to this issue.

Maybe because it’s not really a “civil rights” issue.

None that I know of yet, legally

google.com/search?q=catholic+hate+speech&hl=en&gbv=2&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3…0j0i22i30l3.1484.5781.0.5921.21.18.1.2.2.0.328.2779.0j7j3j3.13.0…0.0…1c.1.YzArE_Dv6Rw&oq=catholic+hate+speech

but clearly, some have that opinon.

It’s not me who is making that argument, but if we are throwing out such notions as sex, sexual identity, or sexual behavior from the institution of marriage, why would we cling to the Victorian notion of “two”? Is there any legalling compelling state issue to limit marriages to “two” people? Other legal contracts can involve dozens of people, so “it would be too complicated” really doesn’t work.

And if we limit the argument to “who do you love?”, then there are those who will make the argument for “consenting” animals.

and as soon as you go there, the discussion goes into complete absurdity and people walk away laughing.

 

[scipio337]

and as soon as you go there, the discussion goes into complete absurdity and people walk away laughing.

And you probably would have had the same reaction 20 years ago, if you told someone we were having a national debate regarding recognizing same sex “marriage”.

So let’s stick to the concept that is easier to grasp (and does have a long historical and cultural practice): if we are throwing out such notions as sex, sexual identity, or sexual behavior from the institution of marriage, why would we cling to the Victorian notion of “two”?** Is there any legalling compelling state issue to limit marriages to “two” people? Other legal contracts can involve dozens of people, so “it would be too complicated” really doesn’t work.**

 

[Seeker1961]

And you probably would have had the same reaction 20 years ago, if you told someone we were having a national debate regarding recognizing same sex “marriage”.

So let’s stick to the concept that is easier to grasp (and does have a long historical and cultural practice: if we are throwing out such notions as sex, sexual identity, or sexual behavior from the institution of marriage, why would we cling to the Victorian notion of “two”?** Is there any legalling compelling** state issue to limit marriages to “two” people? Other legal contracts can involve dozens of people, so “it would be too complicated” really doesn’t work.

Well, since I was young and living in the NYC area back then, the issue was already being discussed pretty frequently. I was in school and my little group consisted of political science majors, history majors and law students, the idea of the Equal Protection Clause being the basis for eventual court cases wasn’t so far fetched for us. Of course, back then it was just discussions over beer, and we really weren’t sure we’d live to see it.

I understand that you have to find something that scares people-"they’ll want people to marry their dogs!’- because the religious argument is just not compelling to a lot of society anymore. It doesn’t work legally at all in the US, so the next step has to be to appeal to the “think about what they’ll want NEXT!” idea.

 

[bellasbane]

And you probably would have had the same reaction 20 years ago, if you told someone we were having a national debate regarding recognizing same sex “marriage”.

So let’s stick to the concept that is easier to grasp (and does have a long historical and cultural practice: if we are throwing out such notions as sex, sexual identity, or sexual behavior from the institution of marriage, why would we cling to the Victorian notion of “two”?** Is there any legalling compelling** state issue to limit marriages to “two” people? Other legal contracts can involve dozens of people, so “it would be too complicated” really doesn’t work.

Perhaps you are correct. On the bright side, as the state definition of marriage gets more and more fuzzy, the Catholic definition may stand out more clearly. This may be better than the current situation in which divorce is a standard & accepted practice to the point where people no longer find it remarkable even at church.

I wouldn’t mind Catholicism being notable for its particular vision of marriage. We are already notable for our unwavering defense of life from birth to natural death. We get a lot of respect for that as long as we do not appear to be hypocrites and reduce pro-life to simply pro-birth. Unfortunately, many avid pro-birth activists do not understand why they have an image problem.

 

[JimG]

Well, since I was young and living in the NYC area back then, the issue was already being discussed pretty frequently. I was in school and my little group consisted of political science majors, history majors and law students, the idea of the Equal Protection Clause being the basis for eventual court cases wasn’t so far fetched for us. Of course, back then it was just discussions over beer, and we really weren’t sure we’d live to see it.

I understand that you have to find something that scares people-"they’ll want people to marry their dogs!’- because the religious argument is just not compelling to a lot of society anymore. It doesn’t work legally at all in the US, so the next step has to be to appeal to the “think about what they’ll want NEXT!” idea.

But of course you still didn’t address Scipio’s question. If the most basic aspect of marriage, the aspect of sexual complementarity, which makes marital relations possible, is decided to be not relevant, why should the number of partners be relevant? And why should same sex marriage even be limited to those with a same sex ‘orientation?’ Two business partners may wish to marry for business reasons. Or three business partners, or a mixed gender group. Sexual complementarity, number, fidelity, permanence, all irrelevant?

 

[JimG]

Perhaps you are correct. On the bright side, as the state definition of marriage gets more and more fuzzy, the Catholic definition may stand out more clearly. This may be better than the current situation in which divorce is a standard & accepted practice to the point where people no longer find it remarkable even at church.

I wouldn’t mind Catholicism being notable for its particular vision of marriage. We are already notable for our unwavering defense of life from birth to natural death. We get a lot of respect for that as long as we do not appear to be hypocrites and reduce pro-life to simply pro-birth. Unfortunately, many avid pro-birth activists do not understand why they have an image problem.

But of course, up to the present, the Catholic view of marriage, at least as to the aspect of sexual complementarity, was not much differentiated from that of everyone else. Going back thousands of years, marriage has been recognized as between men and women by the state, even in those societies where same sex activities were tolerated and accepted. There was no benefit to the state in accepting them as marriage.

 

[seakelp]

It’s not me who is making that argument, but if we are throwing out such notions as sex, sexual identity, or sexual behavior from the institution of marriage, why would we cling to the Victorian notion of “two”? Is there any legalling compelling state issue to limit marriages to “two” people? Other legal contracts can involve dozens of people, so “it would be too complicated” really doesn’t work.

And if we limit the argument to “who do you love?”, then there are those who will make the argument for “consenting” animals.

Valid questions. Currently, the state doesn’t need a “legally compelling” reason to make laws against bigamy or polygamy. It only needs to have a “legitimate purpose” under rational basis review (which is the tier of scrutiny afforded homosexuality after Romer).

But, this new litigation is arguing that 1) homosexuals should be a suspect class (and therefore, laws based on sexual preference classification would receive a higher level of scrutiny from courts) or, in the alternative, 2) that Proposition 8 fails even the very permissible rational basis review.

My guess is that both arguments will fail - and appropriately so.

But DOMA is also clearly unconstitutional. Again, SCOTUS is going to split on these issues.

Still, interesting times!

 

[JimG]

Valid questions. Currently, the state doesn’t need a “legally compelling” reason to make laws against bigamy or polygamy. It only needs to have a “legitimate purpose” under rational basis review (which is the tier of scrutiny afforded homosexuality after Romer).

But, this new litigation is arguing that 1) homosexuals should be a suspect class (and therefore, laws based on sexual preference classification would receive a higher level of scrutiny from courts) or, in the alternative, 2) that Proposition 8 fails even the very permissible rational basis review.

My guess is that both arguments will fail - and appropriately so.

But DOMA is also clearly unconstitutional. Again, SCOTUS is going to split on these issues.

Still, interesting times!

Is there anything in the Constitution or its amendments that the authors thereof would have thought prohibited states from approving marriage only between opposite sex couples?

In other words, did the authors of the Constitution or any of the amendments think that they were at least potentially approving same sex marriage, when they wrote those documents?

If not, how is it that the author of a law or constitution can unwittingly approve of something which he thought not to be in the legislation he wrote? And if same sex marriage is really in the Constitution, why did it take us so long to discover its presence?

If the Constitution is really so flexible, does it mean anything at all?

 

[seakelp]

Is there anything in the Constitution or its amendments that the authors thereof would have thought prohibited states from approving marriage only between opposite sex couples?

No…but they also would’ve thought it strange for us to have Miranda warnings, appointed state counsel for criminal defendants, the ability for the federal government to make sure medication is safe, &c. The list goes on.

In other words, did the authors of the Constitution or any of the amendments think that they were at least potentially approving same sex marriage, when they wrote those documents?

No.

If not, how is it that the author of a law or constitution can unwittingly approve of something which he thought not to be in the legislation he wrote? And if same sex marriage is really in the Constitution, why did it take us so long to discover its presence?

Good question. It’s not “in” the constitution per se.

I have to run to the store, but maybe I can make an explanatory post about this issue later?

If the Constitution is really so flexible, does it mean anything at all?

Yeah, another good question on constitutional interpretation. The short answer is, yes.

 

[Seeker1961]

But of course you still didn’t address Scipio’s question. If the most basic aspect of marriage, the aspect of sexual complementarity, which makes marital relations possible, is decided to be not relevant, why should the number of partners be relevant? And why should same sex marriage even be limited to those with a same sex ‘orientation?’ Two business partners may wish to marry for business reasons. Or three business partners, or a mixed gender group. Sexual complementarity, number, fidelity, permanence, all irrelevant?

TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Is it really that hard to understand?

You think two business partners haven’t already married for business reasons? You think two consenting adults haven’t married for immigration status?

People also marry because they don’t want to be alone, they find their “other half”, they fall in love…it’s not all about sex unless you’re Catholic. And that’s fine…it’s just that civil law is different.

 

[bellasbane]

But of course, up to the present, the Catholic view of marriage, at least as to the aspect of sexual complementarity, was not much differentiated from that of everyone else. Going back thousands of years, marriage has been recognized as between men and women by the state, even in those societies where same sex activities were tolerated and accepted. There was no benefit to the state in accepting them as marriage.

The problem with your analysis is that it ignores the fact that for most of human history, women were basically viewed as cows by the state - good only for breeding. Read Aquinas, and you will see that this was the prevailing attitude even in his time. The very concept of women as persons with value beyond breeding simply did not register for thousands of years despite the evidence of the Gospels and undisputed letters of Paul.

“men are better served by men” - says Aquinas. Men didn’t need women to be their partners in life, they needed women to give them male heirs. The purpose of marriage was to ensure that the boys a man was raising really belonged to him and not some other man. Daughters were only valuable as pawns. Too many daughters was not a blessing, but a real liability.

This doesn’t mean there hasn’t always been romantic love, true respect and real partnerships between some husbands and wives. John and Abigail Adams are a good example. However, this was never reinforced by the state.

What was reinforced was the idea of marriage I just described, one that reduces the role of a woman to that of a cow, so of course it required both sexes, and it had a real impact on society. Women were denied a place in the public sphere. They had no voice in government. Like children and slaves, they were counted as less than a man in the census. They were barred from higher education and most types of employment. Once married, a women basically became the property of her husband. She could no longer own property in her own name. If she had been working, she would be fired. She had no rights to inherit her husbands estate beyond a “widows pension”. She had no rights to her children. Her husband was allowed to physically abuse her as long as the stick he used was no wider than his thumb. She had no right to say “no” to sex, even to control her fertility.

That is how the state definition of marriage shaped society in the past. I honestly can’t see how the future could be any worse.