‘Minnesota malicious’: Papers statewide pan GOP anti–gay marriage effort

Anywhere you look in the internet and in the MSM today, you get the impression that gay marriage is becoming more and more popular, with each new hourly poll showing impressive gains since the last poll was taken. That’s not reality, though.

The reality is that traditional marriage (I can remember when it was just “marriage”) is still very popular with the people, regardless of the fantasy being fed by the SSM activists and their useful idiot allies in the media. 31 States thus far have turned down gay marriage by about a 68% margin. Judges agree with the public, ruling that there is no Constitutional right to gay marriage in 21 out of 28 cases, a 3:1 ratio.

However, our betters (the Hollywood celebs, the self-appointed Cultural Elites and the Media Snobs) have been presenting a distorted picture.

Meanwhile, the Public has a mind of its own, and is getting very fed up with all the pscycho-sexual activism and its attendant histrionics.

this will do NOTHING but cause HARD FEELINGS….Pit neighbor against Neighbor……3 almost 4yrs later after Prop 8 in CA…and there are enighbors who still won’t speak to one another who used to be friends…..MILLIONS $$$ Spent to Harm families…..and What good did it do??? NONE! Is this what you want MN? ….to be relegated in the History books on the WRONG side of History! …I think all the money being injected into this HATE,and BIGOTRY could go to HELP the Poor, homeless, soup kitchens or Food Banks????

The silliest aspect of this after all the effort, angst, and expense, if this amendment passes, it won’t be all that long before the state will likely turn around and begin a similar process to repeal the thing. Trends in public opinion make it pretty clear that this ban, even if it eventually goes through, will have a very limited lifetime.

Americans are fair and decent people. The are now seeing the hurtful results of these types of laws and are now starting the conversation about same-sex equality. The harmful effects of DOMAs, such as forced deportations of a long term partners, denial of basic human dignity to our friend and families, and the legal aspects that hurt children and families are no longer being ignored. Supporters of such hurtful actions must be held accountable now and at election time.

[...] Birkey at the Minnesota Independent rounds up the responses from editorial boards across the state to the constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage. From Winona to Albert Lea to the Star [...]

Mike Cullinan wrote “the reality is that traditional marriage… is still very popular with the people.” The thing about same-sex marriage is that people are still free to enter into a “traditional” marriage, if they are so inclined. Why do we even need the term “same-sex marriage?” Why can’t we call the legal union of any two consenting adults just a “marriage?”

GreekAaron – you’re Right….Marriage is Marriage…I for one am sick of the term “Same Sex Marriage” …..it’s Marriage Equality – period……we don’t call heteros marrying “Heterosexual Marriage”……….the Haters & Bigots like to USE the words ((same Sex)) so people’s minds go RIGHT TOO the SEX …..ohh the scarey sex, the Ick Factor……

Amending our state constitution to erase firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are a sub-class. To deny them the right to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice is to require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. Shame on the bigoted legislators who authored this fundamentally wrong-headed effort. Equality, by definition, cannot be applied selectively.

@Mike C. — Public opinion polls have been showing a strong shift in favor of same-gender marriage over the past decade or so, indicating that there would come a time when those in favor of SSM would begin to outnumber those against. That time appears to be here. Pointing to past referendum results, etc. as some sort of indicator of where things stand now or will stand in the future makes no sense when such shifts in opinion are going on.

Regarding the courts, the SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental human right subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It found that laws against interracial marriage were accordingly unconstitutional, based on arguments that strongly parallel those regarding SSM. The only reasons that case hasn’t yet been used more successfully in regards to SSM have been political … judges are not yet prepared to say that discrimination based on orientation is the same as discrimination based on race while so many people disagree. But both science and evolving public opinion are working to dismiss such faulty reasoning.

And as for your focus on the media and elites, the real reason public opinion has been shifting has much more to do with the fact that more and more people are getting to know same-gender couples and their families personally, they see what normal, productive lives they live, what great parents they make, and how deserving they are of the rights, benefits, and protections of marriage. Arguments against SSM just don’t carry much weight when they fly in the face of what people see first-hand.

Hey Mike: I don’t feel like making a long-winded argument today, so I’ll just say this.

Go tell my Iron Range relatives who came to my wedding that they’re “elites.” I dare you.

So when are the voters going to hold their representatives accountable? When are people going to demand that the Legislature settle down and do its important work?

Thanks Andy for doing this piece.

I’ve been following as many publications across the state as possible and noticed exactly the same as what you report here. When this proposed amendment first popped onto the scene, I was very curious as to what small town MN was saying. To say I was shocked was an understatement. Overwhelmingly, what was being written in editorials and citizen comments to editorials was disgust for what our Taliban is doing. For some reason, I didn’t expect that.

I still have a feeling this amendment will pass if brought to a vote, but at least I know there are reasonable people across this state – small towns and big cities.

My question is….who cares? The media has always been wacky and out of sync with the people of this country.

I am gay and I SUPPORT this amendment. I encourage all Minnesotans to ignore the loony liberals with their hateful, dishonest rhetoric and vote for it in 2012.

Mike the last state to repeal a Gay marriage law was Maine two years ago and the repeal was 53% in favor. Nowhere near the 68% average you are claiming. This was a repeal of an existing law not a constitutional amendment banning it. All of the other Gay marriage bans were passed many years ago. You are pretending that no one ever changes their mind on this issue. Quite to the contrary their has been a huge shift in people attitudes across all age groups and all ends of the political spectrum. Conservative Christians now favor equal marriage rights at the levels that liberals did twenty years ago. Polls show that more people now favor granting Gay people equal marriage rights than don’t. You can pretend that it is only a distorted picture given out by those who you disagree with but that does not make it reality.

Nice try Ron but no one is going to believe that your Gay. If you are looking for the hateful, dishonest rhetoric around this amendment your going to find it coming from the right.

The History of Social Conservatism

By Ron Hill

1860: Social Conservatives claim that slavery is supported by the Bible. Churches even split to create the Southern Baptist and the Methodist Church, South; completely separate denominations from Northern churches. Social Conservatives claim that tradition, history and religion are on their side.

Social conservatives lose. Society doesn’t devolve into race wars as predicted by social conservatives.

1919: Social Conservatives use the Bible, morality, and family, to argue for prohibition. Social Conservatives win.Violence ensues in many large American cities as gangs fight to bring alcohol to people. Moonshining takes off, creating more crime and unsafe unregulated alcohol poisons many Americans.

1920: Social Conservatives use the Bible, history and tradition to justify why women should be denied the right to vote.

Social conservatives lose. Women get the right to vote. Society doesn’t fall apart as predicted by social conservatives.

1933: After seeing the results of prohibition, the country votes to legalize alcohol. Social Conservatives lose. Violence and accidental poisoning drops off as America becomes a safer and freer country.

1955: Social Conservatives claim Elvis and Rock and Roll are evil and will lead to mayhem and a breakdown in the social order. Movies are evil, and playing cards are a sin. Social Conservatives lose; Rock and Roll is still around, Elvis Presley didn’t lead young people into Satan Worship. Society continues to function.

1964: Social Conservatives argue that the Bible, tradition, and history justify Jim Crow in the South. They warn that society will fall apart if blacks are given equal rights with white Americans.

Social Conservatives lose, society doesn’t fall apart but becomes stronger.

1980′s – present: Social Conservatives take over school boards in the South, and insist that “abstinence only” sex education be taught, despite overwhelming research that “abstinence only” sex ed is a huge failure.

Society loses, especially Southern families, as Southerners lead the nation in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and unwed mothers. Nonetheless, social conservatives claim to be “pro-family”.

2000- present: The Family “Research” Council, The American Family Association, and Americans For “Truth” About Homosexuality are used as “expert” witnesses by reputable media despite lacking any academic or scientific credentials that would qualify them as experts on gay issues. Like their predecessors, they use the Bible, history and tradition to defend their positions, along with a healthy dose of lies, distortions and fake research. Eventually, these groups are labeled as “hate groups” by the KKK and Aryan-Nation busting Southern Poverty Law Center because of their repeated lies and distortions of truth. Nonetheless, the media continue to use them as “expert” witnesses and many Republican presidential candidates continue to associate with, and defend them.

Society loses, as social conservatives twist facts to support their own private religious beliefs. American families are directly harmed by these “pro-family” groups who teach Americans lies about their own family members. Fortunately, the history of social conservatism is one of repeated losses – and each time social conservatives lose America became a stronger, more free society. Of course, as they claimed with ending slavery, allowing women to vote, and abolishing segregation, social conservatives now claim that allowing gay Americans to have equal rights will somehow lead to society falling apart. Their is no logical reason to believe this is true, but they like to claim it nonetheless. Fortunately, polls show that Americans – even Republicans, increasingly see through the lies. It’s only a matter of time before gay equality is the law of the land and social conservatives are proven wrong once again.

Robert – Ron actually might be serious. I know Republican gay men who are openly gay and who strongly believe that they are living in sin and strongly oppose all gay rights. (One’s catholicism might have something to do with it.) It may be hard to believe, but there still is a lot of self-loathing going on out there. It might take another generation before this anomoly fades out.

One of the horrors of the modern conservative dialogue is that truth is no longer important in politics – all that matters to the conservative base is that their bigotries and fears be stroked. We are in a political position where 30% of the electorate literally does not care if what their politicians say is true or even supportable, so long as they believe it.

@Katie: Thus why a conservative invented the phrase “not intended to be a factual statement.”

I also know quite a number of straight Republicans who are completely for marriage equality. They believe in limited government for ALL Americans, not just them, and believe ALL families deserve the strength and endurance that comes through the social and legal commitment that comes with marriage, and with that all communities benefit. Even such staunch Republicans such as Dick Cheney who famously quipped “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” After all, a true conservative doesn’t believe the government has any right to regulate personal relationships.

“One of the horrors of the modern conservative dialogue is that truth is no longer important in politics – all that matters to the conservative base is that their bigotries and fears be stroked. We are in a political position where 30% of the electorate literally does not care if what their politicians say is true or even supportable, so long as they believe it.”

Adding to this…

The Republican Party is a majority birther party. It’s anyone’s guess what Obama’s release of his long form birth certificate will mean for this madness. However, within a day its release, right-wing blogs were on fire with cries of ‘forgery.’

The Republican Party is a majority (as of 2008 anyway) young earth creationist party, believing that a creator god put all the birds and bees on earth within the past 10,000 years. if you’re wondering what this means for democracy to have this level of rabid anti-intellectualism running amuck, you’re not the only one.

A majority of Republicans in Mississippi are opposed to interracial marriage. The Old Miss is also the most conservative state in the country, with 50% of adults identifying as conservative.

According to a Daily Kos poll from last year, 31% of Republicans want to ban birth control. 31% believe Obama is a racist who hates white people and 33% aren’t sure. 73% believe openly gay and lesbian teachers shouldn’t be allowed to teach in the public schools.

Take an inventory of the abject mistakes of history, its ugly prejudices, dysfunctional sexual repression, its legacy of racism, and it’ll find a comfortable home in the Republican Party.

the complete libertine, morally relativistic stupidity in the combox ( I could not find one post worth reading) as well as Minnesota in general is astounding.

Marriage is a chaste, monogamous, non-contraceptive, life long union between a man and a woman. Anything else, and I mean anything, is a perversion.

Two men sodomizing one another is just the latest version. And it won’t stop there.

@Jason quite simply, you are wrong. There are so many variations of marriage, INCLUDING same-sex unions, going back over time that it is quite possible – and indeed probable – that the “perversion” is the modern insistence that marriage be defined as you demand.

It is nothing but an arrogant modernity that demands that the world be only as we now conceive it.

The world goes in cycles, and this cycle is nearing its winter…

It’s important to know how amendments to Minnesota’s constitution get passed. They must get a majority of voters. Not a majority of those that vote on the issue, a majority of votes in the election. So, if someone leaves that question blank it’s a “no” vote. The Legacy Amendment left us with the misconception that it’s easy to pass an amendment. In Minnesota it’s very difficult. I would rather not see this on the ballot at all, but in our state, thankfully, it’s at least more difficult to pass amendments. I can’t see this passing if it is on the ballot, but the last ten years have proved, that I can be wrong many, many times.

GeekAron wrote: ” Why can’t we call the legal union of any two consenting adults just a “marriage?”

Because the word has a certain meaning built up over the centuries, and we are not served well at all by collapsing the definition and replacing ith with an ambiguous

in the words of some Justices who have ruled recently:

” The operative distinction lies in the relationship which is described by the term “marriage” itself, and that relationship is the legal union of one man and one woman”
Singer v. Hera

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined. . . .A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity
Jones v. Hallihan.

Black’s Law Dictionary furnishes three definitions of marriage, all of which recognize that it is a union or contract between a man and a woman. As was stated in Mirizio v. Mirizio (242 N.Y. 74, 81): “The mere fact that the law provides that physical incapacity for sexual relationship shall be ground for annulling a marriage is of itself sufficient indication of the public policy that such relationship shall exist with the result and for the purpose of begetting offspring.”
Anonymous v. Anonymous

To remove from “marriage” a definitional component of that institution (i.e., one woman, one man) which long predates the constitutions of this country and State (see e.g. Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 [1965])[6] would, to a certain extent, extract some of the “deep[ ] root[s]” that support its elevation to a fundamental right.
Samuels v. State Health Dpmt.

There’s just a little bit of what’s out there in case law regarding what marriage is and is not.

In other words, the word “marriage” with its definition is already taken. Get your own word.

Mike Cullinan,

You wrote,

1) “Because the word has a certain meaning built up over the centuries…” The fact that X existed in the past, no matter for how long gives us no reason on its own to think that in light of current understanding and changing values that X is still valid. Slavery existed for centuries; marital rape was fully accepted for a very long time; birth control was illegal, etc.

2) The Singer v. Hera (also the Jones v. Hallihan, and Griswold v Connecticut) quote is what you might call the “circular dictionary argument” against same sex marriage. It goes like this: What is marriage? A heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other, with the relationship recognize by law. Why is a heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other with the relationship recognize by law, considered marriage? Because marriage is a heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other with the relationship recognize by law. Ad infinitum.

This “argument” doesn’t address any of the challenges mounted against it: that marriage as often understood is discriminatory on the basis of an irrelevant condition (same sex attraction), that prohibiting same sex marriage violates the US Constitution, that prohibiting gay marriage perpetuates bigotry. In fact, it’s not really an argument at all. It merely draws attention to the very assumption in question–that marriage is exclusively the domain of heterosexual couples.

3) The Black’s Law Dictionary argument fails for the reason that it’s nowhere accepted in practice, and never has been, and were marriage law to fashioned according to the strict letter of its text, many infertile couples or couples not wanting children would be prohibited from getting married.

4) The Samuels v. State Health Dpmt language that was quoted is nebulous. How would same sex marriage “to a certain extent, extract some of the “deep[ ] root[s]” that support its elevation to a fundamental right”? This gives every appearance of being a trivial consideration, and certainly outweighed by the greater significance of eliminating an institutionalized prejudice against a class of people.

@Dave N.
“Public opinion polls have been showing a strong shift in favor of same-gender marriage over the past decade or so, indicating that there would come a time when those in favor of SSM would begin to outnumber those against. That time appears to be here. Pointing to past referendum results, etc. as some sort of indicator of where things stand now or will stand in the future makes no sense when such shifts in opinion are going on.”

You keep saying that. If public opinion is swinging so heavily to your side, then why are you trying to fight off another state DOMA? Shouldn’t you be passing an amendment by referendum to the effect of “a marriage is any two people in a loving relationship?”

“Regarding the courts, the SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental human right subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. ”

In Baker v. Nelson, most of the SCOTUS justices that previously ruled on Loving unanimously ruled that two homosexuals could not marry each other based on Loving, dismissing the appeal to them in a tersely worded, one sentence decision on the merits: “for want of a federal question.” In other words it was a judicial no-brainer if there ever was one.

“It found that laws against interracial marriage were accordingly unconstitutional, based on arguments that strongly parallel those regarding SSM. ”

Um, no.

. . .But the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries—at first by a few people, and later by many more—as a revolting moral evil.
.
But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.
Hernandez v. Robles

Although appellants suggest an analogy between the racial classification involved in Loving and Perez and the alleged sexual classification involved in the case at bar, we do not find such an analogy. The operative distinction lies in the relationship which is described by the term “marriage” itself, and that relationship is the legal union of one man and one woman.
Singer v. Hara

No parallel at all. Furthermore, Loving was just one case, going from initial filing to unanimous SCOTUS decision in about 4 years. The vast majority of people do not have a problem with interracial marriage today.

In contrast to that, the first SSM cases was appealed to SCOTUS a few years after Loving and had a unanimous ruling AGAINST it. Since then, dozens of cases have been filed in a strategic assault on the legal system (legislation by litigation). Even a poor argument will eventually find an occasional sympathetic ear on the bench if you use a shotgun approach.

Forty years after that first case you are still trying to pound the square peg into the round hole, saying at some future time it will inevitably happen, regardless of the backlash of 31 state DOMAs and two dozen rulings against SSM (two more rulings came out against SSM in the last few weeks, in Minnesota and Montana) to show for your efforts.

If SSM is such a straightforward, clear-cut case of discrimination and social justice like Loving, then why did it not go through the court system cleanly like Loving and become the accepted norm by today?

“The only reasons that case hasn’t yet been used more successfully in regards to SSM have been political … judges are not yet prepared to say that discrimination based on orientation is the same as discrimination based on race while so many people disagree. But both science and evolving public opinion are working to dismiss such faulty reasoning.”

It is your reason that is flawed, not that of 99.9% of humanity throughout generations and across cultures. I am on the right side of history, the same side that history has been on for millennia.

Again, I will let a justice speak for me:

The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
Hernandez v. Robles

Oh, but don’t dare tell the Minnesota MSM that! If you hold same opinion that this judge does, you are to them a filthy, despicable insect-bigot that needs to be destroyed.

“And as for your focus on the media and elites, the real reason public opinion has been shifting has much more to do with the fact that more and more people are getting to know same-gender couples and their families personally,”

As the Minnesota media joins a vicious, scorched-earth culture war, the true colors of this movement are becoming all too obvious. If it is only about “love and marriage” then why the intense effort to shut down lawful political discourse with smearing, intimidation, and harassment?

Why do people in California who gave as little as $100 to pass Prop 8 still have their names and addresses overlaid on a Google map, something that says “we know where you are.”

This is for “love and marriage?”

” they see what normal, productive lives they live, what great parents they make, and how deserving they are of the rights, benefits, and protections of marriage. Arguments against SSM just don’t carry much weight when they fly in the face of what people see first-hand.”

I’m sorry, but I and others have already seen plenty Your side doesn’t look very good at all right now to most people for reasons I’ve just given, and it is certainly not improving as the bullying increases towards those who have a contrary opinion.

@Eric
“1) “Because the word has a certain meaning built up over the centuries…” The fact that X existed in the past, no matter for how long gives us no reason on its own to think that in light of current understanding and changing values that X is still valid. Slavery existed for centuries; marital rape was fully accepted for a very long time; birth control was illegal, etc.”

I fully understand that Progressives think that life was not worth living until they came along, but marriage has been a constant across generations and cultures. Of course, things change and evolve, but what is happening with marriage at this time is not evolution, but revolution; radical change being forced by a few. I firmly believe that the core of the SSM movement consists of a bunch of disgruntled freaks with a grudge against society. For example:

“We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there.”
–The Gay Manifesto

Isn’t that cute. Before the activist gays wanted to embrace marriage, they wanted to destroy it.

“2) The Singer v. Hera (also the Jones v. Hallihan, and Griswold v Connecticut) quote is what you might call the “circular dictionary argument” against same sex marriage. It goes like this: What is marriage? A heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other, with the relationship recognize by law. Why is a heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other with the relationship recognize by law, considered marriage? Because marriage is a heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other with the relationship recognize by law. Ad infinitum.”

Unlike your opinion, which has absolutely no weight or consequence in this world, these are examples of controlling precedent, case law. I only posted the parts that were relevant. If you were to take the time to read these cases in their entirety, you would find that your drive-by analysis is as shallow as it is ill-informed.

“3) The Black’s Law Dictionary argument fails for the reason that it’s nowhere accepted in practice, and never has been,”

Then I guess you had better go tell those people over at Wikipedia:

Black’s Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.

“and were marriage law to fashioned according to the strict letter of its text, many infertile couples or couples not wanting children would be prohibited from getting married.”

That’s another bad argument which justices have already knocked down thusly:

“In arguing that the definition is overinclusive, plaintiffs point out
that many opposite-sex couples cannot have or do not want to have
children. How can it be rational, they ask, to permit these couples,
but not same-sex couples, to marry? The question is not a difficult
one to answer. While same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are
easily distinguished, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples likely
to have children would require grossly intrusive inquiries, and
arbitrary and unreliable line-drawing. A legislature that regarded
marriage primarily or solely as an institution for the benefit of
children could rationally find that an attempt to exclude childless
opposite-sex couples from the institution would be a very bad idea.”
Hernandez v. Robles

“The state has chosen to allow legal marriage as between all couples
of opposite sex. The alternative would be to inquire of each couple,
before issuing a marriage license, as to their plans for children and
to give sterility tests to all applicants, 1125*1125 refusing licenses
to those found sterile or unwilling to raise a family. Such tests and
inquiries would themselves raise serious constitutional questions. See
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1682, 14
L.Ed.2d 510 (1965).”
Adams v. Howerton

“4) The Samuels v. State Health Dpmt language that was quoted is nebulous. How would same sex marriage “to a certain extent, extract some of the “deep[ ] root[s]” that support its elevation to a fundamental right”? This gives every appearance of being a trivial consideration, and certainly outweighed by the greater significance of eliminating an institutionalized prejudice against a class of people.”

Far from being trivial, he was referring to an extremely important principle of Constitutional interpretation .

“One of the primary safeguards in maintaining a cautious and principled substantive due process analysis is the requirement that an asserted right or liberty generally be “`deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’”"

The institution of marriage as we know it was present at our nation’s founding, and is therefore deeply rooted. Same sex “marriage” was brought up when gay couples started asserting it as their right in 1971.

What it amounts to is this: Same sex “marriage” is not a Constitutional right just because you want it and say that it is.

Actually it was the PROPONENTS of Proposition 8 who first threatened to publish the names of anyone who contributed to the opposition, and before it ever passed. Contributor received a letter stating very clearly: “The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7505187/Prop-8-Threat-Letter

So what Mike is saying is that because an injustice is historically rooted, that makes it unassailable.

I sense a lot of cherry-picking and not enough context in Mr. Cullinan’s long posts.

> The institution of marriage as we know it was present at our nation’s founding, and is therefore deeply rooted. Same sex “marriage” was brought up when gay couples started asserting it as their right in 1971.

All I can say is that the institution of slavery was also present at our nation’s founding, and is therefore deeply rooted. It took a bloody civil war to finally abolish it. I’d rather we engage in a vigorous “pscycho-sexual activism and its attendant histrionics” to equitably resolve this issue of civil marriage for ALL loving couples who want to commit to each other than for me to have to go out and shoot on sight and burn down churches and …

@Mike

Slavery was deeply rooted at the founding our country.

Womens lack of vote was deeply rooted at the founding of our country.

Spouse rape was allowed at the founding of our country.

Gun’s in the street was allowed at the founding of our country.

There was no telephone, or electricity at the founding of our country.

We have evolved as a country, its time to evolve from the bigotry of all kind.

@Katie B.- Exactly! Fundamentalists worship ‘tradition’ so change, however just, represents a kind of blasphemy. Social stasis becomes normalized and improvements evil. This, I think, is the tension between social progressives seeking justice and conservatives demanding continuity and familiarity.

“Should I stay or should I go now?” the Clash

Praise Jebus, God hates learning new lines, Amen.

@Mike–how long were the miscegenation laws on the books before they were struck down? Aren’t those laws rooted in Old Testament commands?

Or are you arguing for their revival?

@Carl if you see your little blurb you just spurted out cut and pasted in other forums, do take it as a compliment! :)

Why are “same-sex marriage” advocates opposed to letting the People determine their social policy? Because, when put to a vote in the U.S., the score is: Traditional marriage 30, same-sex marriage 0. When elitists in black robes usurp the role of the legislature and disguise their contempt for the People in their carefully-worded judicial opinions, the People have both the right and the duty to respond. The issue is not miscegenation or equality. It is preserving the historic relationship that is designed to protect the procreative potential of opposite-sex couples.

Why are “same-sex marriage” advocates opposed to letting the People determine their social policy?

Well, for one thing, same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Minnesota, and we’ve got economic problems that could use serious attention before taking up the legislature’s time and money on redundant measures. Not sure where these evil black-robed judges fit in, as the legislature already passed the same-sex marriage ban. Also, altering the state constitution to include discrimination against one class of people is a problem, as the constitution is supposed to preserve, not remove, rights.

Mike,

You wrote,

—–”I fully understand that Progressives[sic] think that life was not worth living until they came along, but marriage has been a constant across generations and cultures. Of course, things change and evolve, but what is happening with marriage at this time is not evolution, but revolution; radical change being forced by a few. I firmly believe that the core of the SSM movement consists of a bunch of disgruntled freaks with a grudge against society. For example:

—–“We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there.”
–The Gay Manifesto

—–Isn’t that cute. Before the activist gays wanted to embrace marriage, they wanted to destroy it.”

First, I note that you didn’t (couldn’t?) respond to my point about the highly questionable value of historical precedent for its own sake.

Radical change isn’t being “forced” by a few. SSM has majority support in the last several national polls. If you disagree with the methodology of those polls, I’m sure we’d all like to hear your critique. And I’m guessing you don’t have the rational consistently to equally apply your use of the word “force” when it comes to the opponents of SSM.

“Revolution”? There can be nothing revolutionary about two people wanting to commit themselves to a lifetime relationship. There’s nothing revolutionary in store for heterosexual marriage, since absolutely nothing about it will change for those who want it. In those countries and states where SSM has become legal, nothing revolutionary has happened across society–you simply have a few more people getting married on a Saturday afternoon. Your hyperbole may be somehow convincing to the hordes of semi-literate knuckle-draggers that support your view, but not to thoughtful reflection.

Regarding The Gay Manifesto, it’s interesting how you didn’t quote all the other sources that were *for* SSM. I get the routine–pick out the most inflammatory quotes, not matter how unrepresentative, and pass them off as part of some sinister, revolutionary force. It’s all part of the psychology of fear of change, the familiar pattern of demonization of the Other.

—–“2) The Singer v. Hera (also the Jones v. Hallihan, and Griswold v Connecticut) quote is what you might call the “circular dictionary argument” against same sex marriage. It goes like this: What is marriage? A heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other, with the relationship recognize by law. Why is a heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other with the relationship recognize by law, considered marriage? Because marriage is a heterosexual couple committing themselves to each other with the relationship recognize by law. Ad infinitum.”

—–Unlike your opinion, which has absolutely no weight or consequence in this world, these are examples of controlling precedent, case law. I only posted the parts that were relevant. If you were to take the time to read these cases in their entirety, you would find that your drive-by analysis is as shallow as it is ill-informed.”

Brilliant! (Or, rather, not.) So, you accuse me of a superficial analysis of the very quotes YOU thought were most relevant, and then you fail, again, to directly address my argument! And, to top it all off, you say that my opinion has no weight on account of the fact that I wasn’t the one writing the legal opinion (I wasn’t aware that public discourse in a democratic society had no value), and yet somehow yours DOES have weight because you didn’t write these legal opinions?

—–”“3) The Black’s Law Dictionary argument fails for the reason that it’s nowhere accepted in practice, and never has been,”

—–Then I guess you had better go tell those people over at Wikipedia:

—–Black’s Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.”

You treat textual sources like a religious fundamentalist–authoritative sources as if from on high that simply require quoting to handily dispatch any disagreement. You may or may not have noticed, but the whole assumption behind this debate is that definitions are in conflict. The arguments for SSM should make it obvious that simply quoting historical authorities is inadequate. Rational argument and evidence will resolve this conflict, not law text treated like holy scripture.

—–”That’s another bad argument which justices have already knocked down thusly:

—–“In arguing that the definition is overinclusive, plaintiffs point out
that many opposite-sex couples cannot have or do not want to have
children. How can it be rational, they ask, to permit these couples,
but not same-sex couples, to marry? The question is not a difficult
one to answer. While same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are
easily distinguished, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples likely
to have children would require grossly intrusive inquiries, and
arbitrary and unreliable line-drawing. A legislature that regarded
marriage primarily or solely as an institution for the benefit of
children could rationally find that an attempt to exclude childless
opposite-sex couples from the institution would be a very bad idea.”
Hernandez v. Robles”

Perhaps you intended to quote another part of this ruling? This quote can best be read as offering support for SSM. And, before you fall into a predictable trap, it’s entirely possible in any extended argument that due to errors in reasoning one may actually make arguments that work better for the opposition than for one’s own position.

You also (amazingly) misread the Adams v. Howerton quote. And again, in order to head off a red herring–regardless of the ultimate ruling of the decision, the quote you offered actually gives support to SSM.

—–”What it amounts to is this: Same sex “marriage” is not a Constitutional right just because you want it and say that it is.”

Equality is a Constitutional right. For decades now there’s been a deepening understanding of the perfect normalcy and morality of homosexuality. This is what brings us to this moment–change has been happening, undeniable change. When opponents can offer virtually no rational arguments against SSM, revealing their view to be a quickly crumbling sandcastle of unexamined prejudice and pseudo-rational defenses, we know that gay marriage is inevitable.

@ Mark

The majority shall not vote on the rights of the Minority.

if so we could invite slavery back to some states!

Mark,
What rights of yours shall we put up to a vote? Where you can live, choice of religion, clubs you can join, places you can work?

Sorry but no one’s civil right should be determined by popular vote.

@Mike Cullinan: The progs here do not believe in objective truth. I presented the same argument in some respects in another thread. They just don’t care. It doesn’t exist for them, apparently.

You won’t convince the progs. It is important, however, to show visitors to this site there is a legitimate argument opposing the SSM farce.

Historically rooted injustice is still injustice.

@Nachman Yes, thank you. All we can do is put the truth out there and let others know that they are not alone in their sanity.

@Katie B.

“Historically rooted injustice is still injustice.”

You don’t have a problem with injustice, you have a problem with the world, with life, with human existence.

Mike and Nachman,

So just what is “objective truth”? Is it the rapid approach of peak oil? Or the violent and deadly weather changes happening because of climate change? Both of those things are “objective facts” about what is going on in the world. Religion does NOT provide “objective truth” anywhere.

The gay marriage issue is merely making civil rights available to all human beings in Minnesota. Enshrining a discriminatory definition in the constitution does not add anything to improve anyone’s life.

Can you tell me how many marriages will be “saved” by adding the marriage amendment to the state constitution? Will having the definition of marriage as one man and one woman stop anyone from having an affair? Voting on marriage will not solve anyone’s job problem or marriage problem. Counselors will not see a decrease in troubled marriages if this amendment is approved.

This is merely an attempt by people icked out by gay people to get their opinion turned into law.

So now the Christian and Hebrew Bibles represent objective truth? Is this some sort of new, and sadly mistaken, Orwellian religiospeak? Religious zealotry will be the death of Democracy.

“Reality, what a concept.” Robin Williams.

Praise Jebus, God hates knowledge, Amen.

The American Taliban Since 1981 reagan era……Keep Your VooDoo OUT of OUR Secular Gov’t.

[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885).

Changing the definition of a word just so an organized horde of miscreants can feel better about their depravity is a crime.

In God We Trust – Official Naional Motto of the United States

How can a moral wrong be considered a civil right?

Must you folks pervert the world around you just to lend the appearance of acceptability to your deprevity?

Carl: straw man counter-argument.

I assert the following.

I assert that marriage is civil society’s recognition of the biological imperative between a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species, and to form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage and can never procreate. Same sex “marriage” will never be equal to opposite sex marriage.

I further assert that in our civil society, which is based upon a Judeo-Christian cultural and moral hybrid, marriage between a man and a woman has always been defined and recognized as the only legitimate form of marriage. The “same sex marriage” movement is an attempt at the complete repudiation of Jewish and Christian moral teachings. Aside from attempting to perpetrate a fraud, it is an expression of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian hatred.

Scott wrote: “The gay marriage issue is merely making civil rights available to all human beings in Minnesota.”

No it isn’t, Scott. Polygamy is illegal in Minnesota (MN Stat. 609.355). A person must be over 18 years old or 16 years old to contract marriage (MN Stat. 517.02). A person must be competent to contract marriage in Minnesota (MN Stat. 517.02).

Correction to above:

Polygamy is illegal in Minnesota (MN Stat. 609.355). A person must be over 18 years old or 16 years old to contract marriage*with the consent of the *person’s legal custodial parents, guardian, or the court* (MN Stat. 517.02). A person must be competent to contract marriage in Minnesota (MN Stat. 517.02).

@Eric (snip replying in bits & pieces)

–First, I note that you didn’t (couldn’t?) respond to my point about the highly questionable value of historical precedent for its own sake.

Do you mean this?

“The fact that X existed in the past, no matter for how long gives us no reason on its own to think that in light of current understanding and changing values that X is still valid. Slavery existed for centuries; marital rape was fully accepted for a very long time; birth control was illegal, etc.”"

You wrote that in response to me saying this: “Because the word has a certain meaning built up over the centuries . . .

To repeat, marriage has been a constant across generations and cultures. Slavery has not always existed in all cultures. Marriage has. For all the changes humanity has experienced and wrought throughout the millennia, marriage has been remarkably constant: Hindu, Greek, Roman, Chinese, ancient, medieval, modern, etc.

My point was that while many things have changed, marriage, not so much — man, woman, and children become the cell for the culture, i.e. the family. The children are nurtured, corrected, raised, and taught socially acceptable behavior to become (hopefully) self-responsible, independent, functional adults. The next generation gets up and running.

But you say that all of that is completely irrelevant. Marriage is the X, the constant, and you say that just because that is the way it has been in the past, there is no reason for it to be that way in the future.

Well, why is it absolutely imperative that marriage should now be changed, according to you?

Because about 195 years after the Declaration was signed, about 182 years after the Constitution was ratified, in the aftermath of the 60s counterculture with its sexual revolution, homosexuals suddenly and inexplicably, out of the blue, became interested in marrying one another.

That homosexuals want to marry each other now is the only thing that has any validity whatsoever, according to you. What marriage has been for so long has absolutely no validity, according to you. If I say, “Marriage has had a certain meaning for centuries . . .” You say, “Marriage’s history doesn’t matter. Gays want to marry now. That’s all that matters.”

Have I sufficiently addressed your point “about the highly questionable value of historical precedent for its own sake?”

Would you like to return the favor now and explain the highly questionable value of sudden change for its own sake?

well MN…add that to the LONG list of states to NEVER go too in this Hateful,Bigoted,discriminatory country……..what a disgrace america is…….Liberty & Justice for all my ass…EMPTY Words that make america sown better that itactually is, in reality…….LIES and Blatant Hypocracy…….F U america.

@Nachmann- Your logic is flawed and biased.

By your definition infertile heterosexual couples would not qualify for marriage unless you allow for the same medical interventions that permit same sex couples to have children. And consummation refers to the sex act that “seals the deal” not it’s potential reproductive consequences. You might want to catch up on the marvels of modern science. Or are these options available only for the holy few?

The extent to which our culture is influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition should not require laws which reflect those ancient and misplaced faiths. Scientific advances and knowledge have long since proved the Judeo-Christian Tradition archaic and moot. It is their believers and proponents perpetrating the fraud.

I, for one, will not stand by and allow this country to be forcibly converted into a Christian version of Iran. Tyranny is more easily prevented than overthrown.

Praise Jebus, God hates the enlightenment, Amen.

@MikeC
A long diatribe for nothing. The reason same sex want to be married is flawed American laws.

Throughout history it wasn’t an issue because LGBT people could live as they pleased. Laws put on the books since the early 1900′s are restraining their rights as they used to restrain women and other minorities.

History is not an accurate measure to your argument because society’s laws in history are entirely different.

Nachman,

Guess what, the discussion is about GLBT people getting married in a one on one relationship. No one is currently bringing in other types of marital relationships except you guys in the marriage is only defined by p-in-v sex world.

And I would still like to know how many divorces will be stopped because of this amendment being added to the constitution.

@Mike: “Well, why is it absolutely imperative that marriage should now be changed, according to you? Because about 195 years after the Declaration was signed, about 182 years after the Constitution was ratified, in the aftermath of the 60s counterculture with its sexual revolution, homosexuals suddenly and inexplicably, out of the blue, became interested in marrying one another.”

You’ve honestly got to be kidding me.

You’re right: the public effort to encourage marriage equality is relatively new, all things considered. Our bad for not shouting our desire for that equality from the rooftops earlier; I guess we were too afraid of getting arrested or institutionalized or fired or beaten or killed.

What a stunningly ignorant and unbelievably galling statement.

And leaving aside the warm-fuzzy stuff about wanting recognition of the life you’re building with the one you love, here’s some explanation as to why “the homosexuals” might “suddenly” want to get married: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

@Mike: By the same logic, blacks must have wanted to be slaves, otherwise they’d have objected more.

Who I am is not defined by my gender and sexuality alone; there is much more to me. My gender does not make me better or worse than that other gender, or the various stages in between (such as transgender, hermaphrodites, etc). My sexuality does not make me any better or worse than that other sexuality or the various stages in between (bisexual, asexual). My gender and my sexuality do not make me more equal or less equal. Because it’s not the genitalia hanging off/ stuffed up in my body that matter. I am not defined by genitals – mine or my beloved’s.

How then can my gender and sexuality be used to deny or grant me rights? How can I be denied legal rights if my genitals are the same as my beloved’s, and have my rights defended my rights if my genitals do not match? Clearly, physical compatibility of parts is not the issue; we have lots of parts that will work just fine in all sorts of combinations for sexual stimulation, whether we’re gay or straight. Sex can be had. Babies can be made, in the same manner for gay couples as for straight couples facing reproductive issues. Reproductive issues do not make marriages null and void, so clearly that cannot be it.

It seems to boil down to an arbitrary emphasis on genitals. I don’t choose whom I shall love. Why should anyone else feel they have the right to choose for me to whom I may express my love, based on whether we’re a nice “normal” straight pair of one innie/ one outie, but 2 innies or 2 outies are straight out? To force me to defend my right to equality under the law if I am an innie who likes innies, or an outie who likes outies, but grant me unquestioned rights if I’m an outie who likes innies, is to say that what matters is the genitals. You might as well label me a Star-bellied Sneech, and assign or refuse rights based on that purely cosmetic distinction.

I suppose for some people, they are defined by their genitals; so they demand everyone else be similarly constricted, and then none of us can be free. Perhaps they need to get over that misconception. To them I would say, you’re more than just the physical features of your body. So stop being such a (insert genital choice here).

Scott wrote: “The gay marriage issue is merely making civil rights available to all human beings in Minnesota.”

No it isn’t, Scott. Polygamy is illegal in Minnesota (MN Stat. 609.355). A person must be over 18 years old or 16 years old to contract marriage (MN Stat. 517.02). A person must be competent to contract marriage in Minnesota (MN Stat. 517.02).

NOTE: I was refuted Scott’s assertion.

Next.

Scott wrote: “The gay marriage issue is merely making civil rights available to all human beings in Minnesota.”

No it isn’t, Scott. Polygamy is illegal in Minnesota (MN Stat. 609.355). A person must be over 18 years old or 16 years old to contract marriage (MN Stat. 517.02). A person must be competent to contract marriage in Minnesota (MN Stat. 517.02).

NOTE: I refuted Scott’s assertion.

Next.

@Eric (2nd reply)
–Radical change isn’t being “forced” by a few. SSM has majority support in the last several national polls. If you disagree with the methodology of those polls, I’m sure we’d all like to hear your critique.

Here it is. These polls all came out within the last week or two.

national
Pew research poll, 48% against SSM, 42% for
ABC News/WA Post: 44% against, 53% for
Democracy Corp: 42% against, 35% for
CNN: 51% for

New York:
Sienna Poll: 35% against, 58% for
Marist Poll: 53% against, 46% for

Which one is the most accurate? Pick one. Your guess is as good as mine.

Also, if popular support for SSM is growing all the time, why are you fighting off another DOMA? Shouldn’t SSM advocates be on the offensive, repealing the DOMAS already passed in 31 states by popular vote?

Why don’t SSM advocates put their money where their mouths are and convert that supposed surge in support for gay marriage to signatures on petitions in those states which have DOMA s and start repealing them?

Can you muster up enough support to repeal even one DOMA?

Can you even so much as find enough people in just ONE state to get the minimum number of signatures on just ONE petition to clear the first hurdle towards repealing a DOMA?

One petition with the minimum number of signatures would be worth about a billion of those polls.

Can you muster up enough support to repeal even one DOMA????????????

Same exact responses we got in the 40-70′s for civil rights.

Same response we got from the extremest against women’s rights.

same response that we got for right for spouse rape, and many other civil and emotional civil right equality of the past.

I hope you Mike are proud of your position.

@brainmist

“By the same logic, blacks must have wanted to be slaves, otherwise they’d have objected more.”

I hear that a lot, brainmist Gays say that they are wretchedly oppressed, living as they do in a horribly evil, hateful, bigoted system, just as bad as what the blacks lived under as slaves in the antebellum South.

If that is how you truly feel, if the system is completely irredeemable and your opponents will not convert to your way of thinking, then it appears the only way you will get your rights is to do what they did back then

Go to war.

Hello Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

You’re still committing the same fallacy, but seem to believe that making a refinement in it absolves it of its essential irrationality.

Restating the fallacy:

1) X happened in the past for Y amount of time. Therefore X is (pick one) true, moral, correct, beautiful, bad, ugly, necessary, not necessary.

Your version doesn’t differ in the fundamentals:

1.1) X happened in the past for Y amount of time in Z places. Therefore…”"

The problem with this argument is that it’s impossible to deduce any of the normative or value-laden descriptions from the first clause any logically compelling way. Given X, it’s possible for person A to argue for X and person B against and there’d be no way to judge whether A or B was correct (or true or some other normative quality) simply on the basis of X (and Y and Z). You’d have to import other considerations.

Take the specific example of slavery, again. Supporters of slavery in the US, let’s say in 1850, would justify slavery (irrationally) in part by claiming it had a long history.

From a moral point of view, of course, this strikes us as beside the point, indeed irrelevant. Slavery could have gone on for weeks or thousands of years and this would be immaterial to anyone who had the moral capacity to understand that slavery was wrong regardless of its duration.

The analogy with marriage should, hopefully, be clear by now. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that heterosexual marriage as we now know it had prevailed in every single human culture, without exception, dating back, oh, 10,000 years. This “fact” alone would be absolutely immaterial. What actually matters is WHY marriage should be kept this way. What are the moral reasons for it? This is terrain on which the debate has to take place.

If, for whatever reason, you still disagree with the description of this fallacy, then I would expect that you would automatically AGREE the following propositions as legitimate rationales for decision-making:

a) If X happened in the past, then only X can happen in the future.
b) If X has not happened in the past, then not-X must obtain in the future.

This is insanity of course and is no more intelligible than the idea that marriage can’t admit same sex couples simply on account of marriage being restricted to heterosexuals in the past (assuming that was the case for argument’s sake).

—————
You mischaracterize a few things in the rest of your comments.

1) You have no evidential basis to claim that gays suddenly, “out of the blue, became interested in marrying each other.” It’s it so difficult to imagine two same sex couples wanting the benefits of marriage? But this is besides the point. If, let’s say suddenly in 1995 was heard the first ever push for same sex marriage, why would that matter? Would it matter if the push were made starting in 1965? 1920? No. What matters are the actual moral arguments FOR (or against) same sex marriage.

2) You wrote,

“You say, “That homosexuals want to marry each other now is the only thing that has any validity whatsoever, according to you. …”Marriage’s history doesn’t matter. Gays want to marry now. That’s all that matters.””

I never wrote that, and further it mischaracterizes my stance. I’ve never argued that same sex marriage should be allowed simply because gays and lesbians want it.

You also wrote, “Would you like to return the favor now and explain the highly questionable value of sudden change for its own sake?”

Again, this doesn’t accurately reflect my view. I’ve never argued for change for its own sake.

Why same sex marriage? Because there are no good moral reasons to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage, and excluding gays and lesbians from marriage does them objective harm.

There are no sound or rational moral arguments against same sex marriage. If you think you can produce one, I’d like to hear it.

Mike (2nd reply),

The significance of the recent polls is two things. First, is that for the first time several polls have found majorities in support of gay marriage. Second, the poll numbers over time show increasing support for gay marriage.

Also, it’s very significant, as I’m sure you’ll admit, that Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell has been scuttled and now gays are openly serving in one of the country’s most conservative institutions. This will be next to impossible to turn back.

What to make of all the polls and conflicting information? It’s clear that the country is divided, but the demographics are trending in favor of same sex marriage. Support for same sex marriage has solid majority support among 20-somethings.

Repeals of DOMA will be coming, I’m confident.

” It’s clear that the country is divided, but the demographics are trending in favor of same sex marriage.”

Orthodox Jews with large families, Hispanic Catholics with large families, Somali Muslim families with large families, and Evangelical Protestants with large families have the demographics. Same sex couples cannot procreate and the secular don’t reproduce at any respectable rate in comparison with the aforementioned.

If the courts follow the prog dictum that people should be allowed to marry those they love regardless – the “discriminatory” laws against polygamists will eventually be struck down as the “discriminatory” laws were struck down in favor of homosexuals.

Whether this occurs on a state by state or a nationwide basis, you’ll see orthodox Muslims taking full advantage of a new freedom to marry, marriage equality, call it what you will. And in a not to0 distant future after that, homosexuals and their prog enablers will fully realize what was meant by “the law of unintended consequences”.

See Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and the Maghreb for details.

Caution, gentle readers! I am sensing a presence of the dark side of the Force …

*whipping out my neon pink light saber while bleating yet another exasperated UFF DA!*

Limmer looks like Montgomery Burns from the “Simpsons” ..he looks like the typical evil GOP ….wipe he is. …..and as others have posted – someone should have asked/and said…1000′s upon 1000′s of Gay cpls ARE Already MARRIED, YES – ((MARRIED))) in the few states that have them…..sooo, HOW has ALL of THOSE Marriages affected yours…? They haven’t…….. heck, I married my partner of 12yrs last yr in Vermont….we took Our $2000 vacation money and spent it THERE, in an Affirming state…..and will be more then happy to spend Our money there again…….are all LGBT people rich..hell Nooooo, do alot of more disposable income, if they have no kids,….sure some do……together (we) make 160k a yr…and We’ll make sure We SPEND OUR MOney in Places that Deserve it.

Well I am sorry that my gay friends up in Minnesota have to have their lives put up for a popular vote of approval because of the bigots that constitute the republican party, not only at the state level. It’s ridiculous. Minnesotans I hope, will see through this nonsense and instead focus on other issues, allowing gay couples to go on with their lives instead of turning neighbor on neighbor. Iowa nice is clearly nicer.

Could you imagine being married to two women? I think I might cry a little bit.

I fail to see what’s wrong with letting three consenting adults marry each other (note, I stated CONSENTING ADULTS).

Iowagrad2010: Iowa *had* a Chief Justice who exceeded his constitutional authority. Along with two other colleagues, he went looking for a new job. Hopefully, he ended up doing estates and trusts, where said lawyer will do less damage to civil society.

@Nachman

And Iran is full of people who wish they had stood up to religious fundamentalists before they seized control. I, and many other freedom loving Americans, don’t plan to make that mistake. You see, Theocracy imposed through popular vote still destroys Democracy and any attempt to do so will have consequences as well. Let the Christian Taliban be warned.

Praise Jebus, God hates a free people, Amen.

Nachman,

You wrote,

—–”Orthodox Jews with large families, Hispanic Catholics with large families, Somali Muslim families with large families, and Evangelical Protestants with large families have the demographics. Same sex couples cannot procreate and the secular don’t reproduce at any respectable rate in comparison with the aforementioned.”

Yes, they are reproducing faster, but they’re children are falling away from faith at very high levels. Religious believers as a percent of the population are not gaining relative to population.

—–” If the courts follow the prog dictum that people should be allowed to marry those they love regardless – the “discriminatory” laws against polygamists will eventually be struck down as the “discriminatory” laws were struck down in favor of homosexuals.

—–Whether this occurs on a state by state or a nationwide basis, you’ll see orthodox Muslims taking full advantage of a new freedom to marry, marriage equality, call it what you will. And in a not to0 distant future after that, homosexuals and their prog enablers will fully realize what was meant by “the law of unintended consequences”.

—–See Europe, Iran, the Middle East, and the Maghreb for details.”

This isn’t an argument against gay marriage, since polygamists could equally well demand the right to marry without a prior legalization of same sex marriage.

The rest of your comments are simply a species of anti-Muslim paranoia.

It is well-known that for upholding the Iowa Constitution, those three justices were voted out as a result of a concerted, less-than-honest campaign by anti-gay marriage and so-called family values organizations, most of whom are out of state, and all who confuse the long-established and accepted principle of judicial review with so-called “judicial activism.”

As for polygamy/polyandry, I have no particularly strong opinion except that I recall a sobering PBS documentary a few years ago about the harmful effects of fundamentalist Mormon polygamy practices on older women and children – many of whom are forced to go on public assistance due to the inability of the horny but impoverished husbands fixated on young child-brides while pushing unwanted, maturing boys out of the households.

… due to the inability/unwillingness of the horny but impoverished husbands … to own up to their responsibilities to provide for everyone in their households. This is but another instance of the law of unintended consequences of this particular faith. Meh.

Lane, actually FDLS wives are told to go on public assistance as a method of governmental protest, i.e. bleeding the beast. Many FDLS members are virulently anti-government and view taking advantage of social programs as a way of sticking it to the man.

Eric – I’m laughing too hard to reply to your delusional counterarguments, ignorance and ad hominem.

There’s no hope for you or the progs.

None.

@Eric (3rd piecemeal response)

–And I’m guessing you don’t have the rational consistently to equally apply your use of the word “force” when it comes to the opponents of SSM.

Such as?

–“Revolution”? There can be nothing revolutionary about two people wanting to commit themselves to a lifetime relationship. There’s nothing revolutionary in store for heterosexual marriage, since absolutely nothing about it will change for those who want it. In those countries and states where SSM has become legal, nothing revolutionary has happened across society–you simply have a few more people getting married on a Saturday afternoon.

SSM is still very much a novelty and an experiment in the scant handful of countries where it has been adopted just 10 years ago. Against the backdrop of the whole sweep and scope of human history, that’s a blink of an eye, but I have already seen enough.

Freedom of conscience and belief is being restricted. Pastors have been jailed or sued for what they taught in their own churches. Family law is being rewritten from top to bottom. Also, gay marriage is just a trojan horse for even more litigation and legislation. Massachusetts is becoming a bizzaro world.

–Regarding The Gay Manifesto, it’s interesting how you didn’t quote all the other sources that were *for* SSM.

Do you mean this?

“COMPULSIVE MONOGAMY. We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one ‘right’ partner. This is the blueprint of the straight world which gay people have taken over. It is inevitably a parody, since they haven’t even the justification of straight couples-the need to provide a stable environment for their children (though in any case we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children.”

You see, marriage, being an institution of the straights, is evil because it reinforces those insidious, oppressive gender-roles, which must be done away with.

–I get the routine–pick out the most inflammatory quotes, not matter how unrepresentative, and pass them off as part of some sinister, revolutionary force.

Well, let me pick out another part, then. This is right at the very beginning:

“HOW We Are Oppressed
FAMILY
The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”

–It’s all part of the psychology of fear of change, the familiar pattern of demonization of the Other.

Here’s the website. Why don’t go try to pick out something that is NOT inflammatory? I dare you.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.html

@Eric (4th piecemeal response)

“Brilliant! (Or, rather, not.) So, you accuse me of a superficial analysis of the very quotes YOU thought were most relevant, and then you fail, again, to directly address my argument! ”

To provide some context here, I was responding to GeekAaron’s post ” Why can’t we call the legal union of any two consenting adults just a “marriage?” But to address your argument about “circular reasoning” I’m willing to show how the judges in one of about 22 cases arrived at the conclusion that the gay and/or lesbian couples suing for marriage licenses had no valid Equal Protection claim.

——
We consider first plaintiffs’ contention that substantive due process is violated by this State’s statutes limiting marriage to one woman and one man. New York’s Due Process Clause provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” (NY Const, art I, § 6).[4]
.
.
Courts use great caution when urged to recognize a new fundamental right or significantly expand an established one. The compelling reason for such caution was explained by the United States Supreme Court as follows:

“[W]e ha[ve] always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended. By extending constitutional protection to an asserted right or liberty interest, we, to a great extent, place the matter outside the arena of public debate and legislative action. We must therefore exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process 14*14 Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court” (Washington v Glucksberg,521 US 702, 720 [1997] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

One of the primary safeguards in maintaining a cautious and principled substantive due process analysis is the requirement that an asserted right or liberty generally be “`deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” (id. at 721, quoting Moore v East Cleveland, 431 US 494, 503 [1977]). The Court of Appeals has explained that “[d]ue process of law guarantees respect for personal immunities `so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental’” (People v Isaacson, 44 NY2d 511, 520 [1978],quoting Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 105 [1934] [Cardozo, J.]). When, as here, the NY Constitution is asserted, it is appropriate to consider whether the history and traditions unique to this state point clearly to the need for additional protection beyond that afforded by the US Constitution (see People v P.J. Video, 68 NY2d 296, 303 [1986], cert denied 479 US 1091 [1987]).

Plaintiffs seek to bring the right to marry the person of their choosing regardless of gender within the protection of the well-recognized fundamental right to marry (see Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374 [1978], supra; Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 [1967], supra; Skinner v Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 US 535, 541 [1942]). However, we find merit in defendants’ assertion that this case is not simply about the right to marry the person of one’s choice, but represents a significant expansion into new territory which is, in reality, a redefinition of marriage.
—–
Samuels v. STATE HEALTH DEPT

In short, the right to SSM is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and is “in reality, a redefinition of marriage.”

If you could prove that SSM was recognized in colonial times, you might have a case. Otherwise, you do not have the right to redefine marriage. Simply asserting an Equal Protection claim is not enough, it has to have some merit. The Fourteenth cannot be stretched to infinity for any “right” one might one day conceive.

Before this business even started, states did not even have laws on the books disallowing SSM, it was so inconceivable (this much is apparent in Jones v. Hallihan). It makes one wonder what the next “right” is that is going to be produced out of thin air one day and clamored for.

I read an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning, “Religious Freedom and Bloodless Liver Transplants.” It discussed how Jehovah’s Witnesses, a despised religious minority, used the courts to protect their First Amendment rights. Jehovah’s Witnesses were very unpopular back in the 30s and 40s. They didn’t salute the flag and had lots of weird ideas. They spread their literature telling everyone that their religion was false, that only Jehovah’s Witnesses had the truth. They went around and knocked on people’s doors to tell them this, arousing their ire.

Some communities passed laws to prevent their door-to-door campaigns. In response, Jehovah’s Witnesses filed dozens of lawsuits that went to the Supreme Court. The First Amendment rights of this very unpopular minority were upheld. Basically, if you don’t like Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching on your doorstep, you could shut the door in their face, but you couldn’t pass laws preventing them from doing their thing, because they were acting within their First Amendment rights.

To me that says it all. That is the acid test for our judicial system. I firmly believe that if the gays and lesbians had a valid claim in their case for same-sex marriage, the same court system that upheld Jehovah’s Witnesses right to free speech would also uphold the rights of gays and lesbians to choose same-sex marriage partners for themselves, regardless of how unpopular that decision might be.

The only difference is that Jehovah’s Witneses had a valid claim in their free-speech rights, gays and lesbians are simply not asserting a valid Equal Protection claim. The justices did say that if gays want to marry, the legislature is the way to go, not the courts.

@Eric (5th piecemeal response)

—–”“3) The Black’s Law Dictionary argument fails for the reason that it’s nowhere accepted in practice, and never has been,”

—–Then I guess you had better go tell those people over at Wikipedia:

—–Black’s Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.”

You treat textual sources like a religious fundamentalist–authoritative sources as if from on high that simply require quoting to handily dispatch any disagreement.

Is that supposed to distract me from the egg you got all over your face from when I caught you bald?

What exactly did you mean when you blurted out that Black’s Law Dictionary is “nowhere accepted in practice, and never has been.” What practice were you talking about, if not the practice of law? The practice of having debates over the internet?

Mike,

Just how many divorces will adding this amendment to the constitution save?

What problem does denying GLBT people legal rights solve?

@MikeC:
I’m noticing, in your discussion of cases dealing with same-sex marriage, you repeatedly emphasize just a few of the dozens of decisions that courts have made. Most of the decisions you bring up are relatively old decisions (Singer v. Hara and Jones v. Hallahan are both pushing forty). The only relatively recent decision that you cite is Hernandez v. Robles, from New York. Why don’t you discuss the tide of more recent decisions, holding that there is a constitutional right to have one’s same-sex marriage recognized by the government? For example, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Mass. 2003); In re Marriage Cases (Cal. 2008); Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (Conn. 2008); Varnum v. Brien (Iowa 2009); or Perry v. Schwarzenegger (C.D. Cal. 2010). All of those decisions recognized a constitutional right to have same-sex marriages recognized by the government, and all based their decisions on equal protection or due process provisions. Or look at Baker v. State (Vt. 1999) and Lewis v. Harris (N.J. 2006) – cases in which state supreme courts found that there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to have all the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Even Baehr v. Lewin (Haw. 1993) recognized the possibility that there is a constitutional right to have same-sex marriages recognized.
So your comments so far seem to bring up only those decisions that support your opinion. They don’t discuss how nearly every court decision made in the last five years rejects your opinion. How do you respond to the recent trend of cases disagreeing with you?

@Patrick
–I’m noticing, in your discussion of cases dealing with same-sex marriage, you repeatedly emphasize just a few of the dozens of decisions that courts have made. Most of the decisions you bring up are relatively old decisions (Singer v. Hara and Jones v. Hallahan are both pushing forty). The only relatively recent decision that you cite is Hernandez v. Robles, from New York.

With court decisions, it does not matter how recent or how old. It becomes precedent and is part of the body of law unless overturned. Just this last March, a Minnesota judge referred to a 40 year old Minnesota Supreme Court decision:

“Unless and until” the state Supreme Court overrules a 1971 decision limiting marriage to a man or a woman or repeals DOMA, Dufresne wrote, “Same-sex marriage will not exist in this state.”

Of course, she was referring to the 1971 Baker v. Nelson, upheld on the merits when appealed to the USSC.

–Why don’t you discuss the tide of more recent decisions, holding that there is a constitutional right to have one’s same-sex marriage recognized by the government? For example, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Mass. 2003); In re Marriage Cases (Cal. 2008); Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (Conn. 2008); Varnum v. Brien (Iowa 2009); or Perry v. Schwarzenegger (C.D. Cal. 2010). All of those decisions recognized a constitutional right to have same-sex marriages recognized by the government, and all based their decisions on equal protection or due process provisions. Or look at Baker v. State (Vt. 1999) and Lewis v. Harris (N.J. 2006) – cases in which state supreme courts found that there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to have all the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Even Baehr v. Lewin (Haw. 1993) recognized the possibility that there is a constitutional right to have same-sex marriages recognized.

Yes, I know about those cases. I’ve read some of them. These are the SSM cases I am aware of:

Finding for the defendant(s):

Conaway v. Deane 2007
Andersen v. King County 2006
Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning 2006
Hernandez v. Robles 2006
Langan v. St. Vincent’s Hospital 2006
Lewis v. Harris 2006
Morrison v. Sadler 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa 2003
Burns v. Burns 2002
Frandsen v. County of Brevard 2002
In re Estate of Gardiner 2002
Rosengarten v. Downes 2002
In re Estate of Hall 1998
Storrs v. Holcomb 1996
Dean v. District of Columbia 1995
In re Estate of Cooper 1990
De Santo v. Barnsley 1984
Adams v. Howerton 1982
Singer v. Hara 1974
Jones v. Hallahan 1973
Baker v. Nelson 1971

Finding for the plaintiffs:

Perry v. Schwarzenegger 2010
Varnum v. Brien 2009
Martinez v. County of Monroe 2008
In re Marriage Cases 2008
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health 2003
Baker v. State 1999
Baehr v. Lewin 1993

It should be noted that In re Marriage Cases was later overturned by the California Supreme Court (the same court that had previously issued it) subsequent to the passing of Prop 8. Baehr v. Lewin was effectively nullified by the voters in Hawaii, putting a DOMA in their constitution.

The federal case, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning parallels Prop 8 in that the voters passed a DOMA in Nebraska after which a group succeeded in having it overturned at the district level, but then lost when the 8th Circuit overruled the district judge, re-instating the DOMA.

As for Perry v. Schwarzenneger, it has been appealed and is currently under review, and may well have the same fate as Citizens.

–So your comments so far seem to bring up only those decisions that support your opinion. They don’t discuss how nearly every court decision made in the last five years rejects your opinion. How do you respond to the recent trend of cases disagreeing with you?

Please refer to the list above. I really don’t think that is the trend. When you add the two cases that went against the plaintiffs just recently — in Minnesota and Montana, opinions favoring the plaintiffs are even more in the minority than before.

@Mike:
Most of the cases you bring up reference the issue only in dicta (i.e., it addresses the issue only in passing, and it is not the main thrust of the court’s holding). And most of the cases you emphasize are older than the cases I have brought up. This goes to show that more recent cases favor the plaintiffs, not the defendant states. So there is a trend, which is why you are unable to come up with many cases favorable to the defendants in recent years. And is Lewis v. Harris really favorable to the defendants? I think that’s a stretch, especially because it is under review again in New Jersey.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is under review, but the mere fact that it was appealed is no reason to think that it won’t be upheld.

Baker v. Nelson was simply a Supreme Court decision not to review the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1971 decision. It does not have the same precedential weight as a Supreme Court opinion.

I think it is difficult to make an argument based on Benson v. Alverson, which is an opinion by a state trial court judge in Minnesota (i.e., the lowest level of court, that which has the least precedential weight). Benson v. Alverson may, of course, be appealed, and overturned.

@Mike:

I forgot about the Montana case you mentioned. Donaldson v. Montana is a case dealing with the state constitution in a state where there is a constitutional amendment specifically banning recognition of same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs asked the court to require the legislature to enact a law giving them the same rights as married couples. The court dismissed on the grounds of separation of powers: because it is the judicial branch, it cannot direct the legislature to enact particular laws. This is quite distinct from a constitutional challenge in a state where there is no constitutional amendment, and of course distinct from a federal constitutional challenge.

And, like Benson v. Alverson, this is simply a dismissal of a case by a state trial court. Such courts have the least precendential weight of any courts. The whole purpose of the two or three levels of appellate courts in each state is to reverse the errors made by the trial courts. So it’s a huge stretch to argue that these cases show a trend, when neither is likely to be the final word in either state.

Mike, (3rd reply)

On the question of SSM being a revolution,

—–”SSM is still very much a novelty and an experiment in the scant handful of countries where it has been adopted just 10 years ago. Against the backdrop of the whole sweep and scope of human history, that’s a blink of an eye, but I have already seen enough.”

Certainly there’s novelty in law, but only trivial experimentation. Same sex couples have been around for centuries, sometimes with kids, just not married. It’s not as though we have no knowledge about romantic love, human sexual desire and the progression of paired relationships. The addition of a same sex orientation to these variables hardly invites any sense of an experiment with uncertain outcomes.

—–”Freedom of conscience and belief is being restricted. Pastors have been jailed or sued for what they taught in their own churches. Family law is being rewritten from top to bottom. Also, gay marriage is just a trojan horse for even more litigation and legislation. Massachusetts is becoming a bizzaro world.”

If you were a restaurant owner who refused to seat blacks and then faced legal sanction for it, your freedom of conscience and belief wouldn’t be affected, but your right to discriminate would. If you consider this to be an impingement on conscience and belief, than there’s no reason to hold that it’s anything other than bigotry that’s being impinged, and for this we shouldn’t be troubled. …Family law–of course SSM marriage will have ramifications, but this on its face is neutral in effect, merely reflecting the new reality of SSM.

And what is this Trojan horse of which you speak?

—–” Do you mean this?

—–“COMPULSIVE MONOGAMY. We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together….[etc.]”

1) You’re engaging in cherry-picking of evidence.
2) This is a red herring. If you forget, we’re discussing the reasons why SSM marriage should be legal or not.

@Mike,

So, in summary, a faulty and fictional faith which has been, in violation of the first amendment, incorporated into our legal tradition must, also in violation of the first amendment, be imposed in perpetuity by people who don’t even obey the religious tenets and upon those that don’t accept them. Hmmm. Straw person or Achilles Heel.

It’s time to shore up the First Amendment and get religion out of human law. It’s the only way to save Democracy.

Praise Jebus, God hates the secular state, Amen.

Mike, (4th reply)

You wrote,

—–”To provide some context here, I was responding to GeekAaron’s post ” Why can’t we call the legal union of any two consenting adults just a “marriage?” But to address your argument about “circular reasoning” I’m willing to show how the judges in one of about 22 cases arrived at the conclusion that the gay and/or lesbian couples suing for marriage licenses had no valid Equal Protection claim.”

Before I get on to my comments on your legal argument, let’s be clear on some distinctions so we’re not talking past each other. Arguments for or against SSM can and must deal with various fields of discourse, including moral philosophy and argument, sociology, psychology, history, and law.

Your citation of the Washington v Glucksberg, etc., cases in the first half of your reply leave more questions than answers.

You seem to think that by citing text from cases with which you agree, usually motivated it seems by a desire to find one choice quote that you believes definitively refutes the opposition, analogous to the intellectually abject practice of the Biblical ‘prooftext’, or the impulse to open a dictionary to adequately describe the definition of an atom–some supposed authority existing outside of rational examination–that this settles the argument. The weakness of this approach should be apparent. Take the quote,

“However, we find merit in defendants’ assertion that this case is not simply about the right to marry the person of one’s choice, but represents a significant expansion into new territory which is, in reality, a redefinition of marriage.’”

To which any reasoning person should reply–so? This only gets the ball rolling. The whole debate hinges on whether this proposed definitional change is morally defensible or not–all the background data and argument used to support either view. The same applies to equal protection questions. We can cite due process or equal protection quotes from case law all day, but these are meaningless unless backed up by further argument to determine where the preponderance of reason lies.

—–” In short, the right to SSM is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and is “in reality, a redefinition of marriage.”

—–If you could prove that SSM was recognized in colonial times, you might have a case. Otherwise, you do not have the right to redefine marriage. Simply asserting an Equal Protection claim is not enough, it has to have some merit. The Fourteenth cannot be stretched to infinity for any “right” one might one day conceive.”

If you were even TRYING to make a rationally coherent case based on *your own reasons*, one that anticipated rational rejoinder, you’d realize the weakness of the above quotes.

1) Of course SSM marriage is not present in American history. But, there’s no reason to think that this is a relevant criterion (certainly you’ve presented none) for why SSM shouldn’t be legal now. A distinction: stare decisis has precedent in law and therefore some conservatism is to be expected in legal reasoning about SSM. But in the context of moral reasoning outside of law the fact that SSM has not been traditional is trivial on its own.
2) However, same sex relationships acting like marriages DO indeed have a long American history. How SSM marriage then becomes a radical departure from precedent is not addressed in your comments, or in your quotes. No doubt, was this point to be addressed honestly and fully by judges (who no doubt reflect pervasive bias) that their declarative certainty about lack of historical tradition would be substantially or fatally weakened.
3) On the reasoning that interracial marriage had no deep tradition in American society (but interracial relationships like marriage certainly did), on your own reasoning and the reasoning in the citations, we should still have restrictions on interracial marriage. If you’re not willing to maintain restrictions on interracial marriage based on their lack of historical precedent, then it’s not clear why restrictions on SSM should still apply.

—–”It makes one wonder what the next “right” is that is going to be produced out of thin air one day and clamored for.”

What does this have to do with the argument at hand? (Hint: nothing.)

—–”The only difference is that Jehovah’s Witneses had a valid claim in their free-speech rights, gays and lesbians are simply not asserting a valid Equal Protection claim.”

There’s a wide swath of legal territory you might not realize you haven’t addressed, which gives the impression of a trivial analysis. What of the analogy with interracial marriage? What of equal protection arguments in every other case having to do with GLBT people? What of the legal arguments and policies used in institutions like the US military, federal government, corporations, and states that do have legal SSM? You haven’t dealt with Judge Walker’s opinion. If you’re attempting to make a legal case against same sex marriage, it’s almost accurate to say you haven’t even begun.

Mike, (5th reply)

Regarding Black’s Law Dictionary.

My point, which I admit wasn’t as precisely articulated as it could have been, is this. Black’s is irrelevant (I have no reason to doubt Black’s status as a legal reference) because it doesn’t deal with the full reasons–moral, historical, sociological, etc.–for SSM. That’s not its purpose. Pointing to a dictionary to explore let alone settle a complex issue is not a form of serious argument. The common dictionary editorial standard regarding changes in definition is not to advocate but reflect. Interestingly, Black’s does this with regard to SSM. But, so what? You would no sooner consult Webster’s dictionary to, e.g., examine the validity of various theories of intelligence than you would to figure out which side has the better case in the SSM debate.

Nachman,

You wrote,

—–”Eric – I’m laughing too hard to reply to your delusional counterarguments, ignorance and ad hominem.

There’s no hope for you or the progs.

None.”

Give me examples of my failed arguments and maybe I’ll laugh with you. Ironically, you cite me for using ad hominem, yet this is the entire substance of your post. Do you know what the word irony means, or is it just the case you have difficulty spotting your internal contradictions?

If there’s no hope for [me] “or the progs”, then why is it when it comes to SSM that we’re winning and the forces of “traditional values” are slouching away in retreat?

The current edition of Black’s law dictionary (the ninth edition) actually does not define “marriage” as “between a man and a woman”. It defines it as “the legal union of a couple as spouses.” The couple must simply be “legally capable of contracting to marry”. Nowhere in that definition does it say that the marriage requires opposite sexes.

And the entry in Black’s Law Dictionary for “same-sex marriage” includes a definition as “marriage between two women or two men”.

The point of this is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the meaning of “marriage” depends on the law in a particular place and time. Black’s Law Dictionary recognizes that “marriage” has not had a fixed meaning. This is because Black’s Law Dictionary is not a primary source of law: it is a list of the meanings assigned to legal terms by lawmakers in the English-speaking world.

“Marriage” has the meaning that a society gives it. It does not have a legal meaning ordained by God (unless, of course, you’re a natural law theorist). The dispute in courts is two-fold. The first question is whether marriage is historically defined as a union between a man and a woman, or as a relationship with and responsibility towards one person by another person. Under the first version, same-sex marriage changes the definition of marriage. Under the second version, it does not. The second question is whether it is constitutionally permissible, given equal protection and due process requirements, for the government to legally recognize the marriages of opposite-sex couples and not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

@Patrick
–Most of the cases you bring up reference the issue only in dicta (i.e., it addresses the issue only in passing, and it is not the main thrust of the court’s holding). And most of the cases you emphasize are older than the cases I have brought up.

You’ve lost me. Each of these decisions is the result of a challenge to marriage laws in various states, the part of the law that says only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid. Likewise, the decision reached in each of these 21 cases is for the defendants, rejecting the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection and/or Due Process claims. Rather than “dicta”, the applicable term would be “persuasive precedent.”

–This goes to show that more recent cases favor the plaintiffs, not the defendant states. So there is a trend, which is why you are unable to come up with many cases favorable to the defendants in recent years.

I count 6 cases that went for the defendants in the last 5 years, 4 for the plaintiffs (In re Marriage Cases being overturned later with Strauss v. Horton). So that is only 3 cases still sanding since 2008. Altogether, there are 21 to 7, or a ratio of 3 to 1.

If the number of rulings for the plaintiffs in SSM cases ever exceeds those for the defendants, then talk to me about a trend.

–And is Lewis v. Harris really favorable to the defendants? I think that’s a stretch, especially because it is under review again in New Jersey.

The majority ruling was that there was no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage in the NJ state constitution. I understand the part about directing the legislature to grant them the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, but 99% of what they wanted, of course, was to be told that they were married in the exact same way that heterosexual couples were married. As far as the NJSC being asked to revisit it, the state is supposed have its response filed late this month, so maybe we will soon find out. But I wonder how the court can direct a legislature to legislate in a specific way, given the separation of powers.

–Perry v. Schwarzenegger is under review, but the mere fact that it was appealed is no reason to think that it won’t be upheld.

I read Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The attitude and tone of this outlier decision as about the most adolescent I have ever come across in any judicial writing, the very opposite of judicial restraint. From the analysis I’ve read, it has some problems, and there are actually plenty of reasons to think that it won’t be upheld.

–Baker v. Nelson was simply a Supreme Court decision not to review the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1971 decision. It does not have the same precedential weight as a Supreme Court opinion.

For certain, it is a summary ruling and not a full opinion. Regardless, it is a ruling on the merits of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision and therefore binding.

–I think it is difficult to make an argument based on Benson v. Alverson, which is an opinion by a state trial court judge in Minnesota (i.e., the lowest level of court, that which has the least precedential weight). Benson v. Alverson may, of course, be appealed, and overturned.

Judge Dufresne’s ruling should not be the least bit surprising, given that the Baker v. Nelson precedent came from a court directly superior to hers, the original case that precipitated Baker being filed in the exact same county. I hope the lawyer who took this case had enough ethics to advise the plaintiffs beforehand that they were throwing their money away on a Quixotic endeavor.

@Patrick

–I forgot about the Montana case you mentioned. Donaldson v. Montana is a case dealing with the state constitution in a state where there is a constitutional amendment specifically banning recognition of same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs asked the court to require the legislature to enact a law giving them the same rights as married couples. The court dismissed on the grounds of separation of powers: because it is the judicial branch, it cannot direct the legislature to enact particular laws. This is quite distinct from a constitutional challenge in a state where there is no constitutional amendment, and of course distinct from a federal constitutional challenge.

–And, like Benson v. Alverson, this is simply a dismissal of a case by a state trial court. Such courts have the least precendential weight of any courts. The whole purpose of the two or three levels of appellate courts in each state is to reverse the errors made by the trial courts. So it’s a huge stretch to argue that these cases show a trend, when neither is likely to be the final word in either state.

I’m going to quote some more of what Eric calls “Holy Scripture” (i.e. case law):

” . . .the Legislature is the better forum for sorting through this type of conflicting data on an important social issue. We agree with the opinion of the First Department (see Hernandez v Robles, supra; see also Langan v St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y., 25 AD3d 90 [2d Dept 2005]) and the majority of jurisdictions, which have found a rational basis for the historic definition of marriage”"
Samuels v. STATE HEALTH DEPT

Again:
“We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.”
Hernandez v Robles

And again:
“As a result, the question posed by the appellants must be resolved in a different arena, i.e., by the General Assembly and the people of this State.”
Morrison v Sadler

As the courts have said, repeatedly, if you want to make or remake the law, then quit trying to do it through the court system. Take it to the proper venue, the legislative bodies.

Eric sez:

“If there’s no hope for [me] “or the progs”, then why is it when it comes to SSM that we’re winning and the forces of “traditional values” are slouching away in retreat?”

Didn’t we already cover that fallacy? State constitutional amendments? Laws? Demographics?

You’re really funny. :-)

Patrick: Interesting note about Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Mass. 2003). If anyone bothered to read the Massachusetts Constitution, it states that

“All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (Chapter III, Article 5)

In other words, the Superior Justice Court acted extrajudicially.

Mike Cullinan wrote: “I wonder how the court can direct a legislature to legislate in a specific way, given the separation of powers.”

They can’t. The three branches of government are co-equal. In view of the ahistorical edict from the lawyers in robes, the Vermont legislature could have told their Supreme Court to piss off.

I believe that the court did NOT “direct [the legislature] to legislate in a specific way.”

Rather, the court ruled that the unconstitutional inequality cannot be permitted to continue, that the proper remedy lay in legislative action even as the court did not specify what that legislative action is as long as whatever that legislative action effectively addressed that unconstitutional inequality. Thus the balance of power is maintained.

I suggest that Mike Cullinan and Nachman be much more careful before jumping to childish conclusions. We are NOT that uninformed. Sheesh.

Nachman,

In a normal debate people reply to the presentation of new arguments and evidence. In your version, when new arguments and evidence are presented you run home to mom and declare victory.

Nachman,

In a previous post you claimed that ‘demographics’ was on the side of the religious conservatives in the SSM debate. I then agreed that though they are reproducing at higher numbers, this doesn’t translate into more religious believers.

And then you ran home.

So, in case you’re actually serious about having a discussion, I include these two articles for your consideration. If you keep repeating your claim about demographics in the future, it will then be for one of the following reasons: a) you ignored evidence that might have contradicted your beliefs; b) you found fault with some aspect of the following articles but failed to mention anything about it; c) you’re so dogmatic that reason nor evidence can penetrate the foggy darkness.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/150900/good_without_god%3A_why_%22non-religious%22_is_the_fastest-growing_preference_in_america/

“Authors Phil Goldberg and Greg Epstein share their provocative views on why a quarter of Americans now call themselves agnostic, atheist or nonreligious.”

A slightly more technical article: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

Why the Gods are not Winning

” Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief, or faced a hazard as powerful as that posed by modernity. How is organized religion going to regain the true, choice-based initiative when only one of them is growing, and it is doing so with reproductive activity rather than by convincing the masses to join in, when no major faith is proving able to grow as they break out of their ancestral lands via mass conversion, and when securely prosperous democracies appear immune to mass devotion? The religious industry simply lacks a reliable stratagem for defeating disbelief in the 21st century.”

@Mike:

Most of your cases mention the issue only in passing. Courts routinely make narrow decisions based on particular sets of facts. This is the essence of a common-law system, which is what we have in the U.S. You can’t just pluck out a few words from a court’s opinion as announcing a rule of constitutional law unless the court specifically identifies a particular statement as being its holding. And if something is not a court’s holding, then it is not persuasive precedent until a court says that it is. So the cases you mention do not all address the constitutional issues that you say they do.

Your counts on cases going for plaintiffs or defendants are misleading. For starters, you’re misrepresenting what happened in Strauss v. Horton. That case did not overrule Marriage Cases. It simply held that Proposition 8 did not violate the California Constitution. Andersen v. King County is not representative because the Arizona courts had already dealt with the issue. It was a failed attempt to extend the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. So the last four cases of note on this issue, In re Marriage Cases, Kerrigan v. Commissioner, Varnum v. Brien, and Perry v. Schwarzenegger, all went for the plaintiffs, and are all currently good law. So yes, I call that a trend.

The majority ruling in Lewis v. Harris was that Equal Protection requires the state to provide all the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples. The court allowed the legislature to decide how to do that, but left open the door to a future finding that the only way to provide the same rights as civil marriage was to allow same-sex couples to have civil marriages. It’s not a difficult argument to make, that no other institution can reproduce all of the benefits of marriage. After all, “separate but equal” went out of style with Brown v. Board of Education.

Is Perry v. Schwarzenegger controversial? Sure, it is. It’s also difficult to overturn. First we have to figure out whether anyone has standing to appeal it. Then, to overturn it, the appellate court would have to overturn at least four of Judge Walker’s findings: that homosexuals are a discrete and insular minority with a history of discrimination and therefore are a suspect class, that a ban on same-sex marriage is sex discrimination as well as sexual orientation discrimination, that a same-sex marriage ban has no rational basis, and that it violates due process to ban same-sex marriage. I’ll admit, I find Judge Walker’s due process analysis less than persuasive, but his equal protection analysis is both compelling and extremely difficult to overrule. I don’t think Judge Walker’s opinion was “adolescent” in any way.

Courts are very reluctant to rely on summary rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when later rulings of the Supreme Court cast the summary rulings into question. In this case, both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas cast the summary ruling of Baker v. Nelson into question.

The problem with Judge Dufresne’s ruling is that it ignores the distinction between the federal and Minnesota constitutions. Baker v. Nelson, although a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court, was a challenge based entirely on the federal constitution. Benson v. Alverson was a challenge based on the Minnesota constitution. The Minnesota constitution extends greater rights to its citizens than the federal constitution does. So even after Baker v. Nelson, Judge Dufresne was free to find that the Minnesota constitution included a right to same-sex marriage. What is very surprising is that Judge Dufresne did not explain why she relied on a federal constitutional precedent when interpreting the Minnesota state constitution – the two constitutions are entirely separate. It wasn’t Quixotic to bring the suit – and keep in mind that the attorneys’ fees were largely paid by donations from members of the public.

The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Federal Constitution were deliberately written in an open-ended way. This is so that courts can interpret the requirements of equal protection and due process flexibly in light of changing times. If the people of the United States had wanted to limit the ability of courts to recognize new equal protection and due process rights, they’ve had well over a century to amend the constitution. They’ve chosen not to.

Making and remaking laws is primarily a function for the legislature. But courts exist to protect individuals by preventing the legislature from exceeding the bounds of its authority. Some courts have held that banning same-sex marriage is outside the bounds of a legislature’s authority. Some legislatures have decided to recognize same-sex marriage, without being compelled to by courts.

*plonk*

My issue, not only at the Minnesota state governement level but nationally as well, is this concept of party loyalty. I equate this to cronyism dating back to the days of “W” and Karl Rove. This is the same thing they did in Ohio for the 2004 presidential vote. If you voted in favor of this ammendment, you need to validate that vote and give me any non-religious justification. I have grown quite tired of the Republitards using the LGBT community as a scare-tactic tool for trying to get votes.

@ Patrick,

With respect to the Perry case, it defied binding Ninth Circuit precedent with respect to the issue of whether homosexuals are a suspect class. See High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office,
895 F.2d 563 at 573-74 (9th Cir. 1990), Witt v. Department of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 at 821 (9th Cir. 2008). And the Perry decision is incongruous with EVERY appellate court decision on this issue, including one decided AFTER Perry. See In re
Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeal 2010)

The closest analogous federal case was Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D.Neb. 2005), which struck down Nebraska’s Initiative 416 as a violation of the First Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder. The decision was, of course, overruled. Citizens for Equal Protection, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)

As for Judge Dufresne’s ruling in Benson v. Alverson , she pointed out that there is no case law that suggests that discrimination against homosexuals is afforded greater scrutiny under the state constitution than the United States Constitution, and that there is no indication the Minnesota Supreme Court would have been sympathetic to the Baker appellants’ claims had they raised claims under the state constitution.

@ Mike

Four justices who sat in the Loving case also sat in the Baker case, including Justices Blackmum and Brennan, who are renowned fgr their judicial activism.

And there was this dude in Colorado who tried to get a pro-SSM initiative on the Colorado ballot. For some reason, he was not backed by major gay rights groups.