Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[Seeker1961]

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.

Now, now…don’t be bringing actual historical perspective to the discussion.

 

[JimG]

Now, now…don’t be bringing actual historical perspective to the discussion.

Well the historical perspective involved women’s rights, not same sex marriage, which is a different issue. I’m thinking that perhaps one of the reasons that marriage was always recognized as between men and women might have had something to do with the obvious anatomical differences, and the propensity of married couples to produce new citizens, and new families. Yes, that means that marriage was, and is, about sex. If marital relations are impossible, so is marriage.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

Two consenting adults could be two people in an incestuous relationship. Do you think they should be able to marry eachother? If not, what basis do you deny marriage to incestuous couples?

On what basis do you limit marriage to two people but not more?

 

[Seeker1961]

Two consenting adults could be two people in an incestuous relationship. Do you think they should be able to marry eachother? If not, what basis do you deny marriage to incestuous couples?

On what basis do you limit marriage to two people but not more?

Dear Lord, this is really getting tiresome. Read the definition of marriage in any state that already allows Same-Sex marriage.

And honestly, where is there any objective, actual evidence-not opinion columns from NOM or some other anti-gay marriage organization-that any of the things you are all so afraid of have ever happened in states where same sex marriage already exists??

There’s plenty of actual things we need to worry about in the world today, why create worries and borrow trouble from tomorrow when today has enough of it’s own?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Dear Lord, this is really getting tiresome. Read the definition of marriage in any state that already allows Same-Sex marriage.

And honestly, where is there any objective, actual evidence-not opinion columns from NOM or some other anti-gay marriage organization-that any of the things you are all so afraid of have ever happened in states where same sex marriage already exists??

There’s plenty of actual things we need to worry about in the world today, why create worries and borrow trouble from tomorrow when today has enough of it’s own?

You have not answered my questions

My emphases

1. 
   *]Civil unions between three people are legal in Brazil and the Netherlands. It was civil unions first for homosexual couples and then gay marriage
   
   *]300 ‘LGBT and allied’ advocates have called for legal status for relationships which have more than two people: beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html
   
   *]Richard Goldstein wrote for the village voice:
   

   The core issue is whether any intimate behavior that doesn’t cause harm should be allowed. If you say yes, you must consider the possibility that plural marriage, like gay marriage (or any gay relationship), is part of the panoply of choices free people are entitled to make. I’m not surprised that the two largest national gay groups refuse to take a position on this case; it would be a public relations nightmare if they stuck up for [Thomas] Green. But our fates are intertwined in fundamental ways

   villagevoice.com/news/0122,goldstein,25140,1.html/
   
   *]
   

   The Queer Avengers say that there should be no legal distinction between same sex and different sex couples, but also call for better recognition of family structures which do not fall within the definition of marriage.

   …

   She adds that there are many family structures which marriage and adoption law does not cover, for example polyamory and whangai adoption. “This is not the final struggle,” Sara concludes. “We’re looking ahead to the struggles beyond marriage.”

   scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00376/queer-avengers-also-call-for-a-struggle-beyond-marriage.htm
   
   *]
   

   Hammon, who’s involved in a polygamous relationship, is a founding member of the Centennial Park Action Committee, a group that lobbies for decriminalization of the practice. She’s among a new wave of polygamy activists emerging in the wake of the gay-marriage movement–just as a federal lawsuit challenging anti-polygamy laws makes its way through the courts and a new show about polygamy debuts on HBO. “Polygamy rights is the next civil-rights battle,” says Mark Henkel, who, as founder of the Christian evangelical polygamy organization TruthBearer.org, is at the forefront of the movement. His argument: if Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy. Henkel and Hammon have been joined by other activist groups like Principle Voices, a Utah-based group run by wives from polygamous marriages. Activists point to Canada, where, in January, a report commissioned by the Justice Department recommended decriminalizing polygamy.

   thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/03/19/polygamists-unite.html
   
   *]Canada justice department report calling for the decriminalisation of polygamy:
   
   wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5b157%5d=x-157-507316

 

[_Abyssinia]

Dear Lord, this is really getting tiresome. Read the definition of marriage in any state that already allows Same-Sex marriage.

And honestly, where is there any objective, actual evidence-not opinion columns from NOM or some other anti-gay marriage organization-that any of the things you are all so afraid of have ever happened in states where same sex marriage already exists??

There’s plenty of actual things we need to worry about in the world today, why create worries and borrow trouble from tomorrow when today has enough of it’s own?

1. 
   *]Opinion article in NYT by Stanford Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks calling for legal adult incestuous and polygamous marriage:
   
   nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/03/marriage-the-next-chapter/marriage-how-moral-norms-evolve
   
   *]Details magazine:
   

   …Plural love is having a moment right now. That’s thanks in no small part to the increasing acceptance of gay marriage: If two men or two women can get married, why can’t two men get married to one woman? In Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for six years, a case that’s expected to go to the Supreme Court could make our neighbor to the north the first Western country that doesn’t outlaw polygamy. Here in the U.S., Republican leaders like Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann have made ominous suggestions that legalizing gay marriage will lead to group marriage…

   …

   indeed, some in plural relationships are adopting an activist mind-set. “We’re going through right now what homosexuals went through 30 or 40 years ago,” says Matt Bullen, a 42-year-old writer and married dad in Seattle who is part of a polyamorist cluster that encompasses five people and two legal marriages. “We need to start putting photos on the desk of ourselves and our partners together. When I’m out in public with my wife and my girlfriend, I need to say, ‘These are my partners.’”

   …

   Matt Bullen is cautious about exposing his 9-year-old to the family’s lifestyle. “It gives me nightmares that our family is from some awful seventies adult movie where my son comes down a swirling staircase and sees all kinds of shenanigans going on,” he says. He and his wife, Vee, have sought to be “age-appropriately honest” with their son. When the boy saw his father kissing Terisa and asked about it, Matt explained to him, “There are ways of loving that you just can’t understand yet.”

   *]
   

   Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah’s anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That’s not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don’t want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.

   …

   The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well.

   …

   like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it’s rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples

   articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/31/opinion/la-ed-polygamy-20110731
   
   My emphases
   
   What you can note from many of the calls for legal polygamous marriage is that people are going to gay marriage to make a comparison or argument that basically, marriage has been redefined so redefine it again
   
   NOM and other traditional marriage advocates claim that polgamous marriage is next because once you open the barrier you will not be able to close it. Homosexual marriage advocates seem to recognise that polygamous marriage would be the next step

 

[Dawnia]

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.

Nothing like cherry picking history.

 

[Monkey1976]

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?

To get an idea of what the framers thought, have a look at Thomas Jefferson’s proposed 8th Amendment. Particularly this clause (emphasis added):
Thomas Jefferson:

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.

This from the man who championed the “wall of separation between Church and State”.

 

[epan]

To get an idea of what the framers thought, have a look at Thomas Jefferson’s proposed 8th Amendment. Particularly this clause (emphasis added):
This from the man who championed the “wall of separation between Church and State”.

I wouldn’t try to find justification for most arguments with Jefferson. He was brilliant, but quite a bundle of contradictions. While he advocated the abolition of slavery, he owned more than 200 slaves. He may have had a slave mistress, who would have been his wife’s half sister. He advocated the deportation of freed slaves back to Africa. One could write an encyclopedia on Jefferson’s idiosyncrasies.

In spit of that, he was a genius, and he had a vision and great clarity on how to establish and expand the country. The constitution that he essentially authored for the state of Virginia became the template for the US Constitution, etc.

 

[seakelp]

This from the man who championed the “wall of separation between Church and State”.

And also the man who owned slaves.

The opinions of the founders, though interesting, are not how we decide law in this country.

 

[epan]

And also the man who owned slaves.

The opinions of the founders, though interesting, are not how we decide law in this country.

the most interesting slave relationship he had was with Sally Hemings who, most historians agree, was his mistress, and with whom he fathered children. Jefferson inherited Hemings from his father in law. She was the child of his father in law’s mistress, who was a slave. Heming’s was Jefferson’s wife’s half sister.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

Ryan E Anderson when interviewed on CNN made a comparison about Roe and the supreme court stopping the conversation America was having about abortion and imposed a ruling on all 50 states and thus created a 40 year culture war:

youtube.com/watch?v=RBmN6A59xck

Pro abortion Justice Ginsburg has critiqued the ‘giant step’ court took in Roe v wade:

lifenews.com/2013/02/14/ginsburg-abortion-should-have-been-legalized-incrementally

 

[JimG]

And also the man who owned slaves.

The opinions of the founders, though interesting, are not how we decide law in this country.

Of course not. That’s why we have legislatures. But rather than use them, we often resort to a nine person constitutional convention to decide difficult issues. It’s so much quicker than the real thing.

 

[epan]

Of course not. That’s why we have legislatures. But rather than use them, we often resort to a nine person constitutional convention to decide difficult issues. It’s so much quicker than the real thing.

Now wait a minute. At the time of the Loving decision, only 20% of Americans supported inter-racial marriage. Would you have waited until public opinion matched the Court’s decision?

 

[seakelp]

Now wait a minute. At the time of the Loving decision, only 20% of Americans supported inter-racial marriage. Would you have waited until public opinion matched the Court’s decision?

100% correct response.

 

[JimG]

Now wait a minute. At the time of the Loving decision, only 20% of Americans supported inter-racial marriage. Would you have waited until public opinion matched the Court’s decision?

The question is, should the Court be the primary legislative body instead of the Legislature? Should the Court always impose its will because it believes it is right?

If the Court thinks that abortion is a right, must it perforce find that right, by hook or by crook, in the Constitution?

If the Court believes that same sex ‘marriage,’ is a right, is it obligated to find that right in the Constitution, whether it was there before or not? (Does it just create a right out of thin air?)

Do we have three co-equal branches or is one branch more equal than the others?

No need to answer that. The SCOTUS has already decided that it can overrule either of the other two branches. Shall we have the dictatorship of the Judiciary? Is this what the Founders had in mind?

 

[JamesCaruso]

You are mistaking this for a discussion on whether the Catholic Church should permit gay marriage under the sacrament of marriage. This thread is discussing civil gay marriage and who in the civil government supports civil gay marriage.

Discussion of the Catholic Church changing position on gay marriage within the church is a complete waste of keystrokes-never going to happen.

Since the civil government is not based on the rules of any particular religion, what the civil government does is a different topic.

As long as they insist on calling it “marriage”, it is more than just a discussion about civil gay unions. I will never accept calling gay unions marriage.

Should gay unions have equal rights with married couples? No. The states and the Federal government in laws that give benefits to married couples presumably do so because the family is the building block of the nation, and therefore, it is in the best interest of the states and the Federal government to support this most vital interest. By encouraging and supporting the family structure, the government is ensuring its own well being. From families come children, that is, growth for the state and the nation. From the stable and nurturing environment of the family come strong and loyal citizens who will become productive members of society and pay it back a hundredfold.

A gay union, OTOH, does not contribute children who will become productive members of society; it does not produce children at all. There is no good reason for government to extend any special treatment to gay unions over what it already extends to each member of a gay union individually. It is no different for any other group of individuals, say if two people form a club. Should they be able to argue that they deserve equal treatment to a married couple? After all, they might argue, they are both joined in a binding relationship, one is marriage, the other, club membership. This is what makes the whole gay marriage debate absurd. They are just two people joined in perverted sex. Why should that amount to special privileges? If anything, they are weakening society by advocating behavior that does not provide any tangible benefits to society, and which by its nature, encourages others to forgo behavior that is beneficial to society, that is, heterosexual marriage and the consequent opportunity for new life and a loving and stable relationship in which to raise children, new citizens of the state, if you will. If anyone can answer me why it is in the interest of the state to extend special privileges to gay unions, I’d like to hear it. It would make more sense for the government to take away special privileges (tax benefits) from married couples, if it cannot see the obvious benefits derived from that relationship. But to give special benefits to gay unions! That is utterly absurd!

 

[epan]

The question is, should the Court be the primary legislative body instead of the Legislature? Should the Court always impose its will because it believes it is right?

If the Court thinks that abortion is a right, must it perforce find that right, by hook or by crook, in the Constitution?

If the Court believes that same sex ‘marriage,’ is a right, is it obligated to find that right in the Constitution, whether it was there before or not? (Does it just create a right out of thin air?)

Do we have three co-equal branches or is one branch more equal than the others?

No need to answer that. The SCOTUS has already decided that it can overrule either of the other two branches. Shall we have the dictatorship of the Judiciary? Is this what the Founders had in mind?

That is a bit overboard, I think.

So, you are saying that the Loving decision was, “dictatorship of the Judiciary?” … that constitutional rights should be secondary to the will of popular opinion when you agree with it, but not if you don’t agree with it?

The reason that the courts can overturn laws (not legislate them), is because the mix of philosophies which our founders subscribed to included utilitarianism. It was well known that one danger of the will of the majority could be to trample the rights of a minority. It is well known that majority vote is not always right. Therefore, a constitution was written which describes a “bill or rights”. when rights are violated, a law can be challenged.

i can’t believe that we need to get this basic in this discussion.

just because you disagree with legal decisions, you use inflammatory and untrue statements as fact. the only power the court has is to uphold or overturn a law. and it can only do so, when a proper case is brought by someone with standing, whose rights may have been violated.

this is in no way a dictatorship of the judiciary. maybe you should live in a dictatorship for a while, before you throw such claims out into the discussion.

 

[JimG]

One of the dissenting Justices to Roe v Wade called the decision an “exercise in raw judicial power,” so maybe I’m not quite as overboard as you may think.

No, Constitutional rights are not secondary to popular opinion. I made no reference to popular opinion at all, but rather to the function of the Legislature, which is itself a Constitutional function.

The question is not whether Constitutional rights are subject to popular opinion—they are not—but whether they are found in the Constitution. How often, I wonder, has the SCOTUS made a decision essentially saying “well, the Constitution has nothing to say about this particular matter, so we defer to the Legislature.”?

Perhaps the Court might view itself not so much as a dictatorship but as a beneficent king, doing his best to provide justice for his subjects, according to his own conscience. That might be a good disposition for a king. But a Court’s function is not to bring about the good of the people, or even to ensure justice for all. It is simply to decide on the constitutionality of particular matters which may be brought before it, or to interpret laws which allow of different interpretations. There is no need for it to correct wrongs that ought to be corrected by legislatures, unless it does so within the bounds of its Constitutional function.

And you are correct, we have a bill of rights to protect the rights of all, even of the minority. And we have a method of amending the Constitution to add more rights if we think they belong in there. If a particular “right” is missing that we think should be included, like the right to abortion or the right to gay marriage, there is a way to put it in, through Constitutional amendment, rather than by judicial fiat. That would be more honest.

 

[Crude]

And you are correct, we have a bill of rights to protect the rights of all, even of the minority. And we have a method of amending the Constitution to add more rights if we think they belong in there. If a particular “right” is missing that we think should be included, like the right to abortion or the right to gay marriage, there is a way to put it in, through Constitutional amendment, rather than by judicial fiat. That would be more honest.

This is a good time to quote a portion of Scalia’s dissent in US v Virginia (regarding the then male-only Virginia Military Institute), with my emphasis added:

Much of the Court’s opinion is devoted to deprecating the closed-mindedness of our forebears with regard to women’s education, and even with regard to the treatment of women in areas that have nothing to do with education. Closed-minded they were-as every age is, including our own, with regard to matters it cannot guess, because it simply does not consider them debatable. The virtue of a democratic system with a First Amendment is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so, and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if the smug assurances of each age are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. So to counterbalance the Court’s criticism of our ancestors, let me say a word in their praise: they left us free to change. The same cannot be said of this most illiberal Court, which has embarked on a course of inscribing one after another of the current preferences of the society (and in some cases only the counter-majoritarian preferences of the society’s law-trained elite) into our Basic Law. Today it enshrines the notion that no substantial educational value is to be served by an all-men’s military academy–so that the decision by the people of Virginia to maintain such an institution denies equal protection to women who cannot attend that institution but can attend others. Since it is entirely clear that the Constitution of the United States–the old one–takes no sides in this educational debate, I dissent.

That’s why objections like these:

At the time of the Loving decision, only 20% of Americans supported inter-racial marriage. Would you have waited until public opinion matched the Court’s decision?

…miss the point.

If something is Constitutional which we do not like, we can amend the Constitution. Telling the justices to just interpret the Constitution in whatever way they need to in order to do what some groups think is best, regardless of how its parts were originally written and intended to be read, results in exactly what Jim is saying: a dictatorship of the judiciary.

The response of ‘Go live in a dictatorship and see if you agree!’ also misses the point. Do you think dictatorships are just automatic misery for everyone in them? They wouldn’t survive. Usually, quite a substantial number of people enjoy the dictatorship. Even if they’re not the absolute majority, they have power and privilege and they like the laws that are passed. Such is the case with the SCOTUS.

If we dislike the Constitution, let’s amend it.