Frank Cannon, a political consultant, explains in Politico just how out of touch Republican elites are on marriage. John McCain, while running for president, sought to minimize the social issues--and lost under the guidance of pro-gay marriage Republican consultant Steve Schmidt. Now, in a race for his life in Arizona, he ran a totally different campaign--and won. Will the elites learn? Read, enjoy: Politico.com
29 Comments
The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Christian Right. It is no longer the party of small government and a strong military. It is now the party of Intolerance. We must take back the party. Like Glen Beck says, gay marriage won't hurt our country.
Tolerance has nothing to do with bending over backwards to provide special accommodations for any particular group. Gays and lesbians have the right to live however they want, but that does not mean we should change the law to suit their interests, and create exceptions to the definition of marriage just to make them happy.
adsf, your argument is the best I've ever heard to explain away the constitution's due process and equal protection provisions for marriage equality.
adsf, please read the 136 pages of Judge Walker's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. In it, you will learn that no law has been CHANGED to suit anyone's interests. Indeed, Judge Walker has ruled that the 14th Amendment to the constitution, through its due process and EQUAL protection clauses exists to guarantee that all citizens of the United States have equal access to existing protections of government. The Constitution does not recognize marriage; the government does, however, grant marriage licenses. If gays and lesbians can live however they want, then they should also expect that their government will treat them equally, as Constitutionally mandated, in cases where it grants civil rights and privileges to its citizens. Remember, marriage, in the eyes of the state is a civil contract and to grant gays and lesbians equal accommodation to that contract will require NO CHANGE in any law. Indeed it will only reaffirm the 14th Amendment due process and equal protection clauses.
Every person has the right to marry in accordance to the marriage laws of this country. No one is denied the right to marry a member of the opposite sex regardless of race or sexual preference. But Judge Walker ruled that homosexuals have the right to have marriage laws changed to suit their sexual preference, including the marriage laws concerning conditions involving gender. All the while we continue to "discriminate" against other lifestyles like adultry and womanizing and incest by refusing to grant marriage licences in accomidation to those sexual preferences.
So don't tell me that the government enforced redefinition of marriage is anything more than the state sponsorship of the moral standards of a special interest group that masquerades as civil rights.
What happens to the foundation of society when we grant marriage licenses to rapists, child molesters, felons or abusers of any sort?
@ConservativeNY
Your argument is the exact same argument that was used in Loving V. Virginia.
The state argued that laws prohibiting interacial marriage were not discriminatory because they applied to everyone equally, thus while black's couldn't marry whites, whites couldn't marry blacks either, therefor it wasn't discriminatory.
The courts didn't accept that argument then, and they wont accept that argument now.
Um, we already do.
But what happens to the foundation of society or the family unit, civl right to their marriage or not?
Donna, if I understand your comment correctly, we should all be concerned about the foundation of American society and the family unit in today's world. Yes, there are so many threats to the stability of family units: irresponsible adults- gay and straight, adulterers, child abusers, "fly-by-night" marriages like those that last all of so many hours, you name it. Married gay couples who are committed and in a loving relationship should not be considered a necessary part of the disfunction of some family units. What is a stable society? Is it responsible people, hard-working citizens, mature adults who truly care about the well-being of children, invested members of a community, nation, church or school? Gay committed couples are very much a part of this. No one should feel threatened by this; indeed we should celebrate that gay couples want to be a part of the fabric that is this great and diverse nation. Gay family units, in the multiple thousands, exist in every state. Let's welcome them with the joys and benefits of civil marriage and, in doing so, strengthen the foundations of a strong, moral and healthy society.
Um, Donna.....I'll avoid arguing for the rights of child molesters and rapists, because I'm in favor of some restrictions of their activities, but you're saying that felons (there are a lot of them in this country (including many, many "white collar" felons) and (I'm assuming you mean) people who commit domestic violence should be restricted to marry? And it seems that by leaving the comment on the NOM site, you're linking this argument to restricting marriage for same sex couples as well??
"Like Glen Beck says, gay marriage won't hurt our country."
Gay marriage did hurt every and any country which adopted it... it's just factual evidence.
"Your argument is the exact same argument that was used in Loving V. Virginia."
Dear god, not this again.....
No, it was the same argument used in Reynolds v. United States, Murphy v. Ramsey, Davis v. Beason , and Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States .
I think you guys should keep comparing marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples to child molesters, rapists, and felons -- it does wonders for your argument.
We compare them to polygamists.
Tony, please tell me what gender integration has in common with racial segregation. I really want to know!
As we have learned, in California, all it takes is to bring the case for plural marriage before an activist polygamist judge....
Donna, little education clearly, no reading of the court findings by Judge Walker...no understanding of the role that Federal Judges are sworn to uphold, no understanding of the Constitution of the United States....as a high school teacher of Civics, I use your comment as an example of why it is so important to raise the level of constitutional understanding among the citizens of this country.
Rich, your teaching methods are clearly questionable. How much thought does it take to completely ridicule and discount anything another poster may or may not have read, done, learned or thought before posting? Only ideas that agree with yours are well thought out is that right? Stellar example of public education.
Rich, walker ignored every other federal appeals court ruling on SSM (Baker v. Nelson) as though he was deciding based on a new set of facts. Ignoring precedent is a sure sign of an activist judge, let alone a homosexual judge.
TC Matthews....yours and Donna's response are exactly what good teachers will challenge when posited by a student whose comment is an emotional response and not supported with evidence. Robust debate of any issue is welcomed as long as it is backed by sound knowledge of the issue, the Constitution, the role of federal judges and the nature of court proceedings. If you look more closely at my postings, you will see I am challenging anyone who relies solely on inflammatory terms: polygamist, activist, precedent, "new law" as examples. These are meaningless terms when one is considering the determination of a case by a federal judge after hearing two weeks of opposing argument. And, if you read Walker's ruling ( and I strongly argue that everyone should do this), you will then see how he applies the evidence at trial to case history, Supreme Court determinations, existing California law and the U.S. Constitution. I apologize for any insult; I just think this issue is too important to throw away with poorly reasoned arguments. My students do best when they are required to do their homework.
Emotional responses, hm, like the emotional response you have just given? or the suppositions you made without knowing any of the other posters on this site? No, actually the thing I would like to see is not one judge (whose decision has been well read, and further, well understood), who reaches deep into the recesses of his mind for solutions to what he perceives his own personal version of society's ills to be. That is not the job of a judge. Judge Walker repeatedly ignored the very constitution you claim he upholds in this very decision you claim to know and understand. Historical precedent both in law and in practice do not support his conclusions and he had to wrestle the law and then leap far from it in order to come to the conclusions he did. His own logic doesn't follow, and neither does yours to the extent you gave any. To discount every opposition argument as bias, and bigotry is as one sided a position as you can get.
In actuality, I am not surprised you agree with him since you've used the same tactics in your argumentation here.
Marriage means something. Marriage stands for something, that is something that cannot be had any other way without denying the very foundations of that institution. Until those issues can be adequately addressed, ssm activists have not a leg to stand on that is not based on personal attacks and innuendo such as you have done.
How is polygamist offensive?
You mean like Baker v. Nelson and Adams v. Howerton ?
TC Matthews, I have read the entirety of Judge Walker's ruling. I think you have not. Please read the Judge's ruling, then we can have a knowledgable argument of its merits with respect to case and California law. Sound knowledge, as a basis for argument, should always trump stabs in the dark. A caveat: if your issue with SSM is, primarily, a religious and/or moral argument absent any consideration of Constitutional law or the principle of separation of church and state, then no depth of debate can sway your judgement; we would have nothing to discuss.
Michael Ejercito: Baker vs Nelson (1972) Supreme Court did not rule on this; it chose to not address it, "for want of a substantial federal question". Since then gay marriage is recognized in 6 jurisdictions of the U.S., a half dozen or so foreign nationalities and is in consideration throughout the world. All this might suggest that there is now a "substantial federal question". Adams vs Howerton was as much an issue of whether a foreign alien had the right to declare himself the spouse of a U.S. citizen. A lot has happened since the last century and many citizens are of a different mind.
Walkers decision is so flawed and baseless in stating that gender does not matter, homosexuals have a new right to marry each other. Only by the luck of the draw could the homosexual agenda get a gay judge to hear their case.
And those decisions are on the merits.
What substantial federal question would this create?
and anyway, Baker is not the only decision supporting the Prop. 8 case. In In Re Kandu and In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. , the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld DOMA and the Texas marriage amendment repsectively against due process and equal protection challenges, and both courts distinguished Baker as not necessarily dispositive over those cases.
Here is another Supreme Court case.
In Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333, the Supreme Court held that a U.S. court had jurisdiction to hear charges related to polygamy, despite constitutional challenges. Specifically, they ruled that a law prohibiting advocates of breaking laws against polygamy from voting was "not open to any constitutional or legal objection". Among these constitutional objection was an equal protection challenge. (Brief for Appellant in Davis v. Beason, O. T. 1889, No. 1261, p. 41. "such discrimination is a denial of the equal protection of the laws". In justifying the law against any constitutional or legal objection, Justice Field wrote:
And he quoted a passage from Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15
The idea that "marrying" someone of the same sex is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is at odds with Justice Field's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. And unlike us, Justice Field was alive at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Rich, we already have nothing to discuss, except your perpetual need to substitute personal attacks and innuendo for substance. Please, if you're going to try to make the case for why society should promote ssm on a rational basis, do so without the emotional crutches, it does nothing but add to your discredit.