NOM BLOG

With Gay Marriage Advocates Filing a SSM Initiative in Maine...

 

...will other gay marriage activists renounce their mantra that "civil rights should never be voted on by the people"?

They've been saying that, oh, in every state where NOM has been working to allow the people to vote to decide the issue.

Or was that argument of theirs just a canard?

32 Comments

  1. Posted January 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Their argument was just a canard.

    Whenever they are asked for proof that same-sex "marriage" is a civil right, they point to Supreme Court rulings holding that marriage is a right, and then we tell them about Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct 37 (1972)

  2. Randy E King
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    They did not refuse to hear the case; they saw no reason to hear the case by dismissing it for want of a constitutional question; in doing so SCOTUS codified Baker in such a way as to make it even stronger than it would have been if they would have troubled themselves to have a full hearing on the topic – i.e. it exhausted all possible avenues for appeal.

    Your sociopath is showing Bill.

    Your sociopath is showing Bill.

  3. Mr. Incredible
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Silence is acquiescence.

  4. Son of Adam
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    The case of Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, which was a case where the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972 the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent.

  5. Publius
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Baker v. Nelson is on point and established precedent.

    The Supreme Court also lauded marriage as consisting of union of one man and one woman in Murphy v. Ramsey.

    You may disagree with the opinion of the SCOTUS, but you shouldn't pretend that this opinion doesn't exist or that court rulings are written in disappearing ink.

  6. Fitz
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Loving v. Virginia & Skinner v. Oklohoma

    "Marriage is one of the basic rights of man fundemental to our very existance and survival"

    In both cases it was the man woman criterea that became the very basis on which the right itself was founded.

  7. james2
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    But it is the man/woman criteria that is under scrutiny. If courts have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, and states have started to grant same-sex couples marriage rights, then those couples have a fundamental right to marry. That's why the religionists are so keen on keeping the word "marriage" away from same-sex couples, even where they have the exact same rights as different-sex couples (see Prop 8, California).

  8. Fitz
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Sorry James.

    Its not like you can run out the clock in a basketball game. Marriage has been ruled a Federal constiutional right. Federal courts have yet to rule on this issue post Goodridge.

    Federal courts routinley overule state supreme courts on fundemental rights like marriage.

  9. Randy E King
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    "Norma McCorvey will play a character who tries to talk her neighbor out of an abortion in an upcoming film:

    No stranger to controversy, McCorvey, 64, has had a colorful life since being the focal point of one of the most controversial decisions in American history. After living for many years as a lesbian, McCorvey in 1994 reversed her opinion on abortion and became an activist to overturn Roe v. Wade. She later converted to Catholicism and says she is no longer a lesbian.“I wasn’t seeking out an acting role, but after I read the script I knew I had to play Nancy because it seemed to have been written especially for me,” said McCorvey in a press release, “I understand the role that I’ve played in history in my first act and this is my second act. The message of the film is something we can all agree on: every human life has value, promise and meaning.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front

    Somebody needs to contact the LGBT Gestapo and get them to put an end to this ASAP. This woman does not have the right to change her "identity."

  10. Publius
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Words do matter. This is a question of hijacking a word and an institution to grant the old benefits to a fundamentally redefined institution as if nothing had changed. Marriage was considered a right and lauded by the courts and people precisely because of its man/woman nature and procreative potential. Gut that definition and marriage is something fundamentally different.

    Consider veteran’s benefits. Society grants benefits to military veterans. We do so to reward those serving to defend our country. We do so even though some veterans were never in harm’s way and non-veterans may be patriotic and contributing citizens, and even though granting veteran’s benefits can be seen as discriminatory by those not eligible for veteran’s benefits. Redefining “veteran” to mean all citizens would fundamentally alter the nature of veteran’s benefits.

    Traditional marriage provides benefits to society in connecting biological parents to their children and protecting women in their asymmetric relationships with men (men can impregnate women, but not vice versa). Redefining marriage weakens or destroys the ability of the law to reward traditionally married couples and to provide those benefits. Redefining marriage would lead to a further decline in the status of the procreative family and a continued increase in the feminization of poverty.

    The Goodridge ruling was based on the constitution of Massachusetts. Massachusetts, unlike the federal government, passed an ERA. It has no legal effect on other states or on the federal government.

  11. Son of Adam
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    There is a difference between a right to marriage and the right to have marriage redefined to suit your sexual preference.

  12. John
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Sure, it's okay for same sex marriage proponents to vote. But not anyone else. Is it about their hypocritical view of equality, after all.

  13. M. Jones
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    SS"m" extremists try to say that Romer v. Evans and Lawrence undercut Baker v. Evans, rendering the ruling no longer on "all fours".

    How twisted the mind of an SS"m" extremist can contort themselves. Precedent undercut? Yeah right....

  14. jasonjack
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    To quote wikipedia "However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case"

  15. M. Jones
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    This is a trap supporters of real marriage don't want to get into:

    "Traditional marriage provides benefits to society in connecting biological parents to their children and protecting women in their asymmetric relationships with men (men can impregnate women, but not vice versa)."

    The reason is that we have to show how biological children are NO LONGER connected and women no longer protected, when homosexuals marry each other. Otherwise its just a statement of fact that does not change no matter which way the wind blows.

  16. Publius
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court in Jackson deferred to the local jurisdiction (courts, council, and Congressional oversight) in a ruling on narrow grounds. Their action, or rather inaction, in the case was a model of judicial restraint. Marriage has historically defined by the states. A conservative Supreme Court that defers to the local jurisdiction or to the states would be loath to overturn the DOMA's in so many state constitutions or to overturn the federal DOMA.

    At any rate, we shall see what happens when several marriage cases reach a conservative Supreme Court. Until then Baker v. Nelson is the federal case that is on point.

  17. M. Jones
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    A trap supporters of real marriage may not want to get into:

    "Traditional marriage provides benefits to society in connecting biological parents to their children and protecting women in their asymmetric relationships with men (men can impregnate women, but not vice versa)."

    The reason is that we have to show how biological children are NO LONGER connected and women no longer protected, when homosexuals marry each other. Otherwise its just a statement of fact that does not change no matter which way the wind blows.

  18. Chairm
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    I see what you mean M. Jones. SSMers alwyas clip meanings and set up impossible standards for marriage defenders but suddenly lower standards when it comes to defending their own SSM idea.

    However,the law on behalf of society may discriminate between the union of husband and wife and all other types of relationships.

    The SSMers talk of treating relationship types the same when they invoke fairness and equality but that is an incomplete notion.

    It would be unfair to treat different types of relationships the same.

    We do not have to show anything about homosexual ehavior of about those who claim that sexual attraction trumps marriage law. It does not trump thw law when it comes to the range of two-exed arrangements that are ineligible and which, accordingto the rhetoic of SSMers, would remain ineligible with imposition of SSM.

    We really need only show the rational basis for societal preference for a social institution that unites the sexes and provides for a very reliable way of connecting mom and dad and their children.

    If some places treat nonmarriag more generously than other places,that hardly means that societal preference for the union of husband and wife is somehow unjust.

    On the contrary the Goodridge decision and other proSSM court decisions are so deeply flawed that the injustice was promoted therein.

    The abuse of judicial review is unjust. It is an unjust means even of the end ... SSM ... might be a just end. But it is an unjust end advanced by unjust means. Neither end nor means is magically transformed into justice just because of an identity group's disagreement with the marriage idea.

    The petty legalisms of SSM argumentation do set traps but only if the false premise that marriage is sex neutral s first swallowed whole.

    Plenty of court precedent stands in the way of such a feat of swallowing a big fat falsehood. Indeed even the bits of preedent that SSmers cite supposedly in their favor actually points right at the need to conserve and restrengthen the societal regard for the distinction between the union of husand and wife and all other types of rellationships.

    SSMers might emphasize sexual attraction when putting for the racist analogy, for example,but they and not we are the inheritors of the segregationist and supremicists position.

    Loving was cited above by Fitz. Mr Loving and his wife had children whose legitimacy was undermined by the racists scheme. Their marriage was recognized as marriage nonetheless and that was the basis for their being coerce to leave the state and face prisona dn other penalties. So that makes the pro SSM analogy quite absurd in itself.

    But SSM argumentation and rhetoric calls legit marriages shams whenhomosexual persons marry persons of the other sex. Mixing of orientations is a target of SSMers.Each instance of SSM is sex egregative and is designed and defined by the lack of sex integration.

    When we lookat sexual attraction the SSMers are segregative even according to their own emphasis on sexual attraction.

    They say that the man-woman basis of marriage is unjust discrimination based on sexual attracton. They cant mean that there is a ban on a homosexual man marrying a woman. They cant mean there isa ban on a heterosexual woman marrying a man. Both are legit but they oppose the very idea as inadequate. So they must mean that the prototypical husband and wife is deemed heterosexual. Even when they are not.

    Okay so they promote segregatiive types of relationships based on sexual attraction. That is, the type that includes only male sexual attraction; or only female sexual attraction. Eve by their own rhetoric they must percieve that the husband and wife is a mix of male sexual attraction and female sexual attraction.

    Marriage integrates by oth sex and sexual attraction. SSM segregates by sex and sexual attraction.

    But there is more to the racist analogy. The SSM campaign promotes use of marriage aw ... a distortion of marriage law ...for the sake of gay identity politics just as white supremicist distorted marriage law for the salke of white identity plitics.

    It was unjust when the supremacy of identity politics was pressed into marriage by racists and it would be unjust for the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics became entrenched in law over the demotion of the marriage to a supposedly hateful and evil view of humankind.

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.That answers the identity politics of the white supremicist and the gay supremicists.

  19. Louis E.
    Posted January 26, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Norma McCorvey and Mildred Loving each became iconic symbols of rights advances who in later life were "love-bombed" by opponents of the decisions they precipitated.So the woman who secured all women the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies became an anti-abortionist,and the woman who got racial barriers out of the way of the fundamental purpose of marriage to unite male to female endorsed robbing marriage of that purpose.

    But both decisions were right and the opponents of abortion rights and of marriage being strictly male-female are wrong.

  20. Publius
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    So called "marriage equality" requires gender to be irrelevant in marriage.

    If gender becomes irrelevant in marriage and any measure that recognizes gender differences in marriage is declared unconstitutional, then the legal basis of any law that sees a special obligation and connection between biological parents and their children (and between those parents) and any law that treats women differently from "partners" is destroyed.

    True, the biological facts remain, no matter which way the wind blows, but those biological facts will have no legal basis. Any attempt to correct the social disaster resulting from the subsequent decline in traditional marriage (e.g. the feminization of poverty, increasing numbers of fatherless children living in slums, and a demographic winter) will be constitutionally prohibited or will require massive government intervention with Big Brother taking the place of natural fathers. Please take note of the recent London riots and the decay of our inner cities if you want to see the results of the decline of the traditional family and its replacement by the fatherless family with large numbers of immigrants filling demographic gaps. It will not matter much then that some gay families will be doing just fine. Gay couples already prosper economically more than their straight counterparts. What will matter is that society as a whole will be in steep decline.

  21. Chairm
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Louis E, in your view is sex sexual attraction the basis for the man-woman criterion in marriage law?

    Is sexual attraction the basis for your objection to that criterion?

    Do you think that race and sexual attraction are closely analogous?

    Do you agree that there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed? If not, what is human race and what is human sex - and can either actually be changed through behavior? Can you alsodistinguish between sexual attraction and sexual behavior ... if so howso, how do you do so within your view?

    Perhaps you'd rely on surface appearances alone. Whatever your answers, please explain how sex segregative relationships (and relationships segregated by sexual attraction) are comaprable to the Mr and Mrs Loving and the law that had criminalized their recognized marital reationship.

    Meanwhile the original blogpost above correctly identified a pro-SSM canard.

  22. Spunky
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I've never heard gay marriage activists actually say that "civil rights should never be voted on by the people" (emphasis mine). I have heard them argue that people shouldn't have to vote on such issues, but that's a different (and more reasonable) point. I of course believe the latter statement and not the former, and I hope the pro-gay side agrees with me. Please inform me if I'm wrong on this.

    I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I want gay marriage to pass no matter what, whether it be through a popular vote, state senate vote, a supreme court decision, or a constitutional amendment. At the same time, if it doesn't pass, I won't complain about the type of decision that was made, just the decision itself.

  23. Louis E.
    Posted January 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Chairm,it's all about conduct.
    Opposite-sex sexual relationships are the only kind whose existence serves the public good and therefore the only kind a government has any business protecting.(I hope you didn't read anything I wrote as implying I support SSM!)
    That certain persons are afflicted by same-sex sexual attraction is of no relevance to the issue of what kind of sexual relationship (or the public appearance of an imputed sexual relationship) can merit state recognition.

  24. yoshi
    Posted January 28, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Question for NOM and its supporters: if Maine does vote to reinstate marriage equality in that state - will you back off of Maine or will you continue fighting it in the courts or its legislature? Based on your passed hypocritical actions I have a feeling you will choose to ignore the will of the people to continue to push your extremest agenda.

  25. Publius
    Posted January 28, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Maine has always had marriage equality. There is no orientation test for marriage. What Maine has not had is marriage redefinition. There is nothing extreme about the notion that marriage is a heterosexual institution as was the virtually universal view around the world and in every significant and lasting culture until very recently.

    It is not hypocritical to believe in popular sovereignty and to try to persuade the people (the voters) to change their minds one way or the other. That is the way democracy works. It is tyranny when the elites impose their views on the people without the consent of the governed.

  26. Chairm
    Posted January 28, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Spunky the way po SSM decisions have been made matters. Can you give an example of a just way that was actually used someplace?

    Abuse of judicial review is endgaming and not an acceptable way to do this. (See states with court imposed SS). Likewise,obstructing procedurally in legislatures (See MA and CA and CT). Likewise shutting down public hearings and quashing the hearing's report (see Canada). If you have better examples please point them out.

  27. bman
    Posted January 28, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Chairm->We really need only show the rational basis for societal preference for a social institution that unites the sexes and provides for a very reliable way of connecting mom and dad and their children.

    Agreed.

    And since gay sex relationships can never provide a child with the security of married father and mother, that alone is a rational basis for society to prefer bride-groom marriage.

  28. bman
    Posted January 28, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Spunky->I've never heard gay marriage activists actually say that "civil rights should never be voted on by the people" (emphasis mine).

    Statements with that sense occur fairly often.

    Here are two examples I found from previous posts here.

    Don't you people understand that you cannot vote on people's civil rights?....

    There is no "right" to vote on the civil rights of minority groups!

    I think a web search could find many more as well.

    I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I want gay marriage to pass no matter what, whether it be through a popular vote, state senate vote, a supreme court decision, or a constitutional amendment.

    Are you perhaps ignoring the question of how its bad for society?

  29. Louis E.
    Posted January 29, 2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Yoshi,securing a permanent prohibition on SSM,including places that have allowed it,is more important than the method involved,and no matter how long SSM is legal anywhere or how it got that way,it still needs to be abolished.(I do not speak for and have not donated to NOM).

    Spunky,SSM needs to be prohibited "no matter what",but those who are on your side typically argue from self-righteousness,since the attempt to justify SSM rests on being entitled to do as one pleases,while our side is saying certain things are innately wrong for anyone to do.We both see the right and wrong as independent of popular opinion.Thus,whoever loses a referendum will resent a referendum.

  30. Spunky
    Posted January 29, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    @ Chairm

    My entire point was that I don't care to find "better examples" because it doesn't matter to me how gay marriage passes, just that it does. (Obviously this is barring illegal procedures.)

    It bothers you that legislative votes and judicial review decided gay marriage laws, but it doesn't bother me. At the same time, I'll be consistent: if gay marriage ever fails via a legislative vote or judicial review, I won't complain about the methods used, just that it failed. (Again, barring illegal procedures.) That was what I said.

  31. Spunky
    Posted January 30, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    @ Louis E.

    No. Again, I can only speak for myself, but I also believe there are certain sexual acts and types of marriages that are "innately wrong" and shouldn't be allowed. I just don't think gay sex/marriage is one of them.

    @ bman

    Thanks for the examples, although they are just people commenting on NOM and were in response to "people must vote!" articles. You're probably right that there are some articles with that sentiment, but I wish Thomas Peters would cite them rather than leaving it to you.

    And bman, I'm not ignoring anything, I just don't think gay rights will in any way be bad for society. It's just a fundamental disagreement we have.

  32. Louis E.
    Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    Spunky,while it's not the only requirement,I see no requirement for the recognition of a relationship as a marriage as more important than the partners necessarily being of opposite sexes.To the extent that you see that requirement as unnecessary I don't think you understand why marriage exists.