FOLLOW NOM AT CPAC!
NOM is co-sponsoring this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. The event, which began yesterday and runs through Saturday, brings together conservative organizations, activists and elected officials from across the nation.
NOM Marriage Pledge signers Governor Rick Perry and Congresswomen Michele Bachmann spoke Thursday, with Perry denouncing the Obama administration's "war on faith." Presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, all signers of NOM's Marriage Pledge, will be speaking Friday. Also on Friday, NOM's President Brian Brown, Chairman John Eastman, and Co-Founder Maggie Gallagher will be present to discuss the ongoing battles to defend marriage and religious liberty across the nation. And on Saturday, Gallagher will be moderating a panel discussion in which Eastman is participating, the topic being "The Phony Divide Between Fiscal & Social Conservatives: Protecting Marriage as a Case Study."
Follow NOM on Twitter, Facebook and at NOMblog.com throughout the weekend for updates from CPAC 2012.
My Dear Friends,
The fight is on!
In California, two judges on a divided Ninth Circuit panel just decided to take away the right of 7 million California voters to determine their own state's constitution, correct an out-of-control state supreme court, and restore the public meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
What is the evidence these judges offer that Prop 8 violates our beloved federal Constitution?
In a decision that NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher rightly called "ill-natured and illogical," the Ninth Circuit actually said that the evidence that the 7 million Californians who voted for marriage are irrational bigots who hate gay people is: Prop 8 didn't take away any practical benefits from same-sex couples.
That's right, because Californians decided to focus on protecting the idea and the ideal of marriage, without restricting gay people from doing things like seeing one another in the hospital—that is the proof that they were motivated by unreasoning hatred towards homosexuals.
Ill-natured, illogical, and, I, would add: totally illicit. These were two judges with no empathy for those who disagree with their own liberal values, with a predetermined agenda they wanted to enact, with no respect for the original text or meaning of the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment, put in place to correct the serious evil of slavery, is not a license to import into the federal Constitution any vision of "equality" invented by Harvard faculty and do an end run about basic principles of democracy.
As for the idea that marriage is and always has been a union of male and female for a reason—that these unions are different than any other kind because they make new life and connect children to their mother and father—what did the Ninth Circuit say about that?
These two biased judges rudely dismissed these core concerns by claiming no rational person could imagine that publicly redefining marriage could affect the public meaning of marriage, or the way the next generation thinks about marriage:
"Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties."
Really?
Courts threaten to take away the roadmap to marriage. Rewrite the institution's public meaning. Brand traditional ideas about marriage as uniting male and female in love so children can have mothers and fathers as irrational bigotry. The public schools will teach the government's newly redefined marriage ideas to your children and grandchildren.
Gee, how could any reasonable person committed to our marriage tradition believe such a radical redefinition of marriage could matter?
The Ninth Circuit's opinion striking down Prop 8 is government of the judges, by the judges, for the judges, and I promise you it will not stand.
Here I am debating one of the leading architects of the campaign to impose gay marriage by judicial tyranny, Evan Wolfson, on ABC 7 News:
Thanks to the hundreds of you who responded to our "money bomb" request to raise $100,000 for the defense of Prop 8. We helped get Prop 8 on the ballot. We helped form and fund the winning coalition that passed Prop 8. And we are going to see this fight through to the sweet victory at the end!
If you haven't yet had the chance, click here to help defend marriage, democracy and the rule of law!
Between now and the Supreme Court decision that will (or will not) impose gay marriage on all 50 states, there is an important election for president of the United States.
Three GOP candidates have not only responded to NOM's Marriage Pledge, they quickly spoke out against federal courts redefining marriage, and taking away the sovereignty of We the People:
Newt Gingrich said on Twitter, "Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy."
Mitt Romney: "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."
And Rick Santorum on Facebook: "Today, activist judges in the 9th Circuit stripped away the rights of 7 million California voters by striking down Proposition 8. These judges inserted a right into our Constitution that isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The radical actions of the 9th Circuit underscore the need for a constitutional amendment which would define 'marriage' as between one man-one woman. Study after study shows that traditional marriage, as it has always been defined—one man and one woman—creates the best possible environment for our children. And strong families are a key part of a strong America.
"This issue is far too important to allow for 50 different definitions of marriage at the state level. And this issue should certainly not be decided by a few activist judges..."
(In our press release we also noted that Rick Santorum has been an early and staunch supporter of the National Organization for Marriage, signing fundraising letters for us, among other good deeds.)
We are very proud that the three leading candidates for the GOP nomination are all willing to speak up for marriage.
NOM is a cosponsor at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) this year, serving as a proud voice for marriage within the conservative movement as well as outside. Maggie is moderating a panel on the importance of uniting social and economic conservatives and NOM's new Chairman of the Board Prof. John Eastman will be speaking there too.
The battles continue: Washington state just passed a gay marriage law, weeks before they found the time to close a humongous budget gap. It will take a tough fight to get a referendum to the people. In New Jersey and Maryland, liberal legislators promise to impose gay marriage without a vote of the people.
In two states this year, the people will have a chance to pass state marriage amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman.
In New Hampshire, a vote to repeal same-sex marriage takes place soon.
The fight continues. The rewards for fighting the good fight are not supposed to be felt in this world.
But the chance to be your voice for your values is the benefit I most cherish in earthly terms—the chance to put my shoulder to the wheel, to work and to fight and to link arms with loving, decent, law-abiding Americans of every creed and color on behalf of something so important, and so good, as marriage. That's what no one can ever take away.
Thank you.
There's a profile of NOM's co-founder Maggie Gallagher in Salon by a New York Times columnist who favors same-sex marriage. He tries, but he can't make head or tail of Maggie's principled defense of marriage—or yours either!
At the end he reports being befuddled by Maggie Gallagher's strong and idealistic belief that gay marriage is not the future:
"I have no doubts who will win in the end," Gallagher says. "One hundred years from now the globe will not be full of societies that endorse same-sex unions as marriages. What happens between now and then is going to be less certain and full of struggle. In the long struggle, I'll bet on human nature to overwhelm ideology. The thing about same-sex marriage is it's based on a fundamental untruth: same-sex unions are not the same as opposite sex unions. They are not marriages."
Thank you for making this fight possible, with your prayers, with your words, with your financial sacrifices, with your friendship.
God bless you,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
P.S. Remember that we are fighting for the future of marriage! We will win, but we need your help to do it. Can you pledge $100 or $150 today for marriage? Or can you make a monthly donation of just $15? Every dollar makes a difference as we work to secure marriage for you, for your children, and for your children's children.
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
70 Comments
Why did you or Maggie not testify at the Prop 8 trial then? Oh, that's right. You'd be under oath to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. On here you can lie and distort all you want but the "Chicken Little Sky is Falling" defense does not work in Court.
@GZeus
I would like to know what they lied about. And NOM wasn't defending prop 8. ProtectMarriage.org was the legal defender.
Ill-natured, illogical? Pointing out that there wasn't any evidence submitted that proved Pro Prop 8 delusional claims about SSM is not ill-natured or illogical. Its common sense. And reality.
The simple fact is that marriage equality improves the civil institution of marriage.
Anyone can testify.
@Yoshi
No...not really. I'm not using this as a means to oppose same-sex marriage, but male homosexual couples are twice as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples and female homosexual couples are 3 times as likely.
The idea that public policy involving the fundamental nature of the institutions of society should be decided in a debate where a judge or three-judge panel decides legislative facts for millions of people who can’t question their judgment makes a mockery of democracy. For political disagreements to be charged as perjury in a hearing before the Grand Inquisitor is a cruel subversion of both democracy and freedom. But it is not unprecedented. It goes back to when Jews or heretics might be hauled before the inquisition to defend their beliefs. The judges weren’t very sympathetic. The Jews and heretics had or should have had an inalienable right to refuse to play the game that was loaded against them. As Maggie points out, liberal judges claim to read the minds of the accused to determine not that they must by lying heretics, or in the modern vernacular, delusional bigots.
Well said, Publius.
correcting the typo
to determine that they must by lying heretics, or in the modern vernacular, delusional bigots.
Meanwhile, it's the children that suffer, with no relationship to The other biological parent.
Part 1 of 3 – To the people who cherish traditional marriage.
A word! This is the most important thing that we are fighting for. We need to understand this. After everything else that might happen, we have to have one unique unambiguous word to define the 'old' definition of marriage. This is a need aside from all legal implications or judicial decisions.
Not to have one word to do so WILL physically change our children (and our culture). All other things being equal there has to be two different words to describe theses two different unions. This is Extremely Important. To the point that we who cherish the idea, understanding and truth of the 'traditional marriage' must be ready to invent a new word the very second the word marriage comes to mean the union of any two people. This is Essential for the safeguarding of our children's psyche, as well as what it is that we cherish about the 'traditional marriage'.
In forums like this one, we should already be using one such new word in our discussions, commentaries and arguments.
The new word (that would define the old understanding of marriage) should be free of any historical attachment so to protect it from any intellectual manipulation or discrediting. And it should be void of any phonetic semblance to the word 'marriage'.
A word with a new sound, one that sounds pleasant, respectable, admirable and discreet.
This is not absurd or frivolous. This is becoming very quickly, crucial! Are children are already, at this very moment, being transformed because of the ambiguity in the word marriage in their society. Every time the word 'marriage' is heard by our children today it can no longer clearly, and reassuringly mean to them within their minds that it is a man and woman couple that is being evoked. It is their minds and their hearts that we are fighting for. We have that responsibility to them.
Part 2 or 3 - To the people who cherish traditional marriage.
If in the future our children will have to choose between (or be born that way to) one or the other union; and if we do not allow them words to clearly distinguish between the two things, than they will be perfectly placed (right where our economic, medical and power structured world wants them). That is placed in a mental state of mind where they can be taught that there is no difference at all; that all and any combination of human couples are the same. “And don't jump to conclusions children and young adults; take your time and explore; its all the same thing.”
We must have two clear words to describe two different unions. It seems that the other side is doing all that it can to take this word from us in order to destroy it. We must invent another word. Otherwise we would also be allowing them to take from us not only the word, but what it defines. And are fight is not to win some letters in the alphabet, nor for a sound such as 'marriage'. We are fighting for the safe keeping of a truly unique and original thing; without malice nor prejudice to anything or anyone else. But simply because we want something that we hold dear to be shown equal rights and respect towards its uniqueness.
Really, Ash?
So, Publius, specifically which line from the ruling says/implies/indicates that any one is a bigot?
I'll wait.
Leviticus, how do you propose we unite the over 144 million orphans with their biological parents?
Pat 3 of 3 - To the people who cherish traditional marriage.
The fight for the word marriage that NOM and others are leading is not over in any sense, and we will continue to fight for it. But we have entered a period where our children's minds are already being conquered through the real ambiguity in the word marriage that exists today. It is for that reason that we must come up with another word that we can use when expressing the traditional understanding of marriage. For the word marriage has become entirely too polluted. We must now bring forth a clean and clear new and different word. One with a clear definition and universal understanding. One that states, without aggression nor lack of confidence, simple facts pertaining to that word. Beginning with such things as: “between a man and a woman”.
I ask Brian, Maggie and Jennifer, or others who would have a better understanding than I of how this might come about in the most intelligent and affective way; while being aware of its implications, to suggest or help introduce such a word. But I myself will no doubt, in the near future, be using some such invented word so as to be clear in my meaning.
To Ken Cauld
Step one: is by allowing them to do so in their mind. Teaching them that we are all equal in this way - that we have all come from one mother (woman) and one father (man). Let the child learn that because of that fundamental reality to life our reasonable society sees that union as a little bit different then others.
So if only 7 million Californians voted for the marriage exclusion, does that mean that 25 million Californians believe in marriage equality?
Publios: so your answer would be Let the People Vote instead of our elected representatives and sitting judges? Since "the people" who voted in this country for years were only white men with property, we would still have slavery, segregation, no women's suffrage or the right to vote for the poor, blacks and immigrants. These were granted in the great American tradition of Equality.
Seth: not likely. But I get your logic. Thing is that NOMers want referendums and Let the People Vote rallies because hate is a great voter turnout. These referendums pass because the haters are sure to go to the ballot box while others are not. If each voter actually voted, these referendums would fail. Many people believe in equality but are not motivated enough to vote. But that will change. And then NOM will try to do what they rail against now. "judicial intervention"
And yet the SSM activists claim that the majority of Americans favor SSM. If SSM activists are sure about the majority of Americans favoring SSM. Why are they scared and so worried about putting it to a vote? Its obvious why they dont want a vote on the issue, Because they know that it a bunch of lies that they speak of when they claim that the majority of Americans favor SSM.
"Since "the people" who voted in this country for years were only white men with property, we would still have slavery, segregation, no women's suffrage or the right to vote for the poor, blacks and immigrants. These were granted in the great American tradition of Equality."
They were already granted by the Constitution, they were just affirmed by the congress. So technically, everything you just mentioned was put to a vote. I trust the people more than I trust the government.
"Prop 8 didn't take away any practical benefits from same-sex couples."
Of course it did! If the word marriage is irrelevant religionists and other anti-gays wouldn't be fighting so hard to stop gay couples from using it.
Wow 654321 and Publius those were just awesome posts.
The big lie in the video from the other side. We are not redefining marriage. Oh yes you are. Marriage is one man and one woman, you want it to mean any two adults, That is redefining marriage.
Really, John? Publius has yet to answer me but he knows he can't.
The man who sells snake oil in the traveling show can give the same factless platitudes that that was posted here.
I do not see how removing the barrier to who has access to a marriage license based on the sex of either party changes the rights / responsibility /benefits of marriage.
Certainly, the bill in WA (Law as of next Monday), did nothing to change the definition of the civil marriage contract - it just allows all citizens access to entering into it regardless of race, religion or the sex of either party.
"So if only 7 million Californians voted for the marriage exclusion, does that mean that 25 million Californians believe in marriage equality?"
Where in Prop 8 was there language prohibiting self-labeling "gay" people from entering into marriage? I believe the issue was about maintaining the opposite-sexed requirement of marriage. Sexual identity was never the legal issue. Still isn't.
Curious George, to answer your question, please hop on over to the Opine Editorials, and look under their side bar for "core meaning of marriage." All your questions can be answered. The dialogue and comments on their blog area really thorough, and the arguments are polite, succinct, and to the point.
Regards!
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/12/non-sexually-integrated-is-not-opposite.html
Absolutely amazing: so many of those who post on this site have absolutely no understanding of the judicial process and/or the role of judges. Don't like the judicial consideration of the Constitutional support for equal justice under the law? Play truly dumb and scream foul. Absolutely amazing.
DoE - I tried reading both the opine blogspot and Chaim's post and I don't see a legitimate government interest in denying the issuance of a civil marriage license to any interested couple based on race, religion or sex of either party.
DoE,
I have tried to read Chaim's response and the opine response. What I don't see anywhere is a legitimate government interest in awarding a civil marriage contract to any couple simply on the basis of race, religion or sex of either party.
It is worse.
If this ruling is allowed to stand at is, it effectively means that homosexuals in California, who wish to “marry” their same-sex partners, can avail themselves of protections of the 14th Amendment to overcome any state barriers to that, while homosexuals in Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada must obtain a favorable constitutional amendment to “marry” their same-sex partners. This places homosexuals in California on superior constitutional footing.
Similarly, California would be in an inferior constitutional footing to other states, as it may not adopt the marriage policies permitted to other states, even if it finds those policies to be superior to recognizing same-sex "marriage".
DoE, I'll marry a woman if you come to New York and do the same.
"Where in Prop 8 was there language prohibiting self-labeling "gay" people from entering into marriage? I believe the issue was about maintaining the opposite-sexed requirement of marriage. Sexual identity was never the legal issue. Still isn't."
You must not be paying much attention. Gay people for same-sex relationships, which Prop 8 outlawed. Therefore, Prop 8 discriminates against gay people.
james2 you are a liar!
Firstly; there is no such thing as a "Gay" people.
Prop 8 does not outlaw the ability of perverts to enter into a relationship with a fellow miscreant/miscrenats; Prop 8 just says that the government cannot call your relationship what it is not.
We the people have a constitutional right to be protected from the unwarranted encroachment of government in our daily lives as enshrined in the history and traditions of the United States.
I've yet to see any valid argument as to why two brothers shouldn't be able to marry, or a mother and her daughter. Seems like discrimination to me.
Barb,
If "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman", what is the compelling argument that a brother can't marry her sister or a mother marry her son?
Make that compelling argument, and I will show you how that is no different from how it will be when a civil marriage contract is no longer denied to our citizens simply on the basis of the race, religion or sex of either party.
CuriousGeorge,
The compelling reason to oppose expanding marriage to include incest is the exact same reason to oppose extended marriage to like gendered partners; procreation.
There is a verifiable link to inbreeding and birth defects. We the people have a compelling reason to save proceeding generations from the inevitable harm caused by these pairings.
Procreation is the only inseverable component of marriage; and the only rational ever used by SCOTUS for limiting marriage to one-man / one-woman partnerships.
CuriousGeorge, you seem to object to the idea. Why?
That is a good point.
If rational basis scrutiny applied, the fact that children that may result from such unions may suffer genetic defects is sufficient to uphold the ban. But if strict scrutiny applied, then this was not be sufficient, for incest bans also cover brothers and sisters not even related by blood, or who for some reason could not procreate together.
Similarly, anti-bigamy laws in every state would be justified (apart from the goal of encouraging procreation in a monogamous, opposite-sex union), by a belief that women and children tend to be harmed in such living arrangements, and by a belief that open acceptance of bigamy will sever the link between marriage, fidelity, and exclusiveness. But under strict scrutiny, these justifications would not be enough.
The Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right. While this right does not include polygamy, Davis , 133 U.S. at 344, 345, it is not yet determined if it includes incestuous marriage.
You have the right to make a decision about ONE marriage - your own. Everyone else is free to make their own decision about their life. Leave it alone!
By your logic, who has the right to define marriage as a public institution?
"Children resulting from such unions may suffer genetic defects is sufficient to uphold the ban" is a good point, but if that were the case, why not make sterilization a pre-requisite (like they do in AZ, IL, IN, UT and WI for first cousins?
No, there has to be an additional reason.
One consideration, though - prohibiting a marriage contract to be entered into by immediate family reduces the potential partner pool by a dozen or two. Not allow a citizen to enter into a civil marriage simply by the condition of the other parties race, religion or sex, reduces the pool by about 3.5 billion potential partners.
Just stating that the other participant race, religion or sex disqualifies them requires a legitimate government purpose.
It used to be that the left favored the progressive measures of initiative, referendum, and recall. Now they not only denigrate these, there would prefer the people’s representatives be considered so inferior to unelected judges that the legislature must always defer to the courts, and the people should have no right to amend their constitution. The judge can simply declare something he doesn't like "irrational" or "not legitimate." End of story.
The Supreme Court did not end slavery. The Dred Scott decision upheld slavery. It was the South that attempted to bypass the political process by resorting to the sword. It was the people’s representatives passing the 13th amendment that ended slavery. Slavery is eventually doomed in a democracy because the slaves oppose it, free-laboring people don’t want competition from slaveholders, and the slaveholders are typically a small minority.
Consider women’s suffrage. It was created at the federal level by the 19th amendment, not by the courts. The Wyoming Territorial legislature granted women the vote in 1869. Voting actually produced the reform.
Consider the many civil rights bills passed by Congress and contrast that with Plessy v. Ferguson. Voting produced more positive reforms that the court.
Democracy is a more sure foundation for freedom that the rule of judges. Every modern dictatorship has courts, usually quite fearsome ones. No dictatorship has a functioning democracy.
I wonder what other parts of our constitution some judge will declare “irrational” and hence null and void.
Your argument could fly if at least heightened scrutiny was involved. But under rational basis scrutiny, your argument must be rejected.
The question then is what level of scrutiny must apply?
At least we are not so "ignorant" of the judicial process we imagine anyone can show up in a trial and testify if they want!
Maggie, if you and Brian are so in the defending-marriage-circle, you could have easily coordinated with the proponents' lawyers. I mean, the plaintiffs had 17 witnesses. Your side had two... arranging two more shouldn't have been too difficult.
Bryce, many people defend marriage. It's a large "circle". Personally, I think they did great. I'm very curious to see what happens with SCOTUS at this point.
Michael,
I guest that is the 64,000 question. Neither Romer nor Lawrence denied that homosexuality was a suspect class that required strict scrutiny.
So, if the court finds that homosexuality meets that standard, what compelling governmental interest is there to deny any two people access to a civil marriage license simply on the basis of the race, religion of the sex of either of the two people who wish to enter into that contract?
Magggie,
No, a trial isn't a legislative session, where the people can go onto the floor and spout any illogical or even false statement they wish to make (The WA senate and house debates were most illuminating).
No, the defenders of the constitutionality of Prop 8 could request anyone who they thought would help their case to testify, but once on the witness stand, they had to back up their statements with facts (I swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).
It is telling that the defenders of the couples who felt that they were unconstitutionally denied the rights to enter into a civil marriage contract had 17 witnesses - many of whom were experts in their fields.
The defenders of Prop 8 only brought 2 - one who tried to argue about if homosexuals truly lacked political power and the other who earned his doctorate writing about furniture and who wrote that "America would be more American if we allowed same-sex marriage".
@Curious George
It is dangerous in the extreme to fail to distinguish between legislative facts v adjudicative facts lest the courts commence a reign of terror using a bogus perjury line of assault, backed up by a further assault conflating philosophical positions with irrationality and insanity. To even submit to such a trial is to cooperate with tyranny,
"For those of us who are devotees of both history and literature, we recognize, with a shudder, this line of thinking starts with the ad hominem retort, “Oh yeah? Well, you’re crazy!” and ends by populating gulags (mental illness being a primary grounds for imprisonment by dictators) with candidates for sanity retraining (i.e., one’s conformity with the dictator’s views)."
See http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/02/faith-and-rationality/#more-12104
Romer ducked the question because the law was so overbroad, in that it "nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment" Romer , 517 U.S. at 629, and was "far reaching", id. at 627. See also Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska, 122 P.3d 781 at 790 (Alas. Sup. Ct. 2005) (noting that because challenged law "cannot survive minimum scrutiny", it was unnecessary to determine if a higher level of scrutiny was required)
Lawrence was decided on due process grounds.
Michael - that didn't answer the question
.
Let me try again:
If the court finds that homosexuality meets the standard of a suspect class, what compelling governmental interest is there to deny any two people access to a civil marriage license simply on the basis of the race, religion of the sex of either of the two people who wish to enter into that contract?
If the SCOTUS was corrupt enough to find that sexual depravity meets the standard to be declared a suspect class what is left to keep the court from finding all activities meet the criteria of a suspect class?
Civil rights are dependent upon who you are; as opposed to what you do. This nation was founded in opposition to the equating of what you do with who you are - the very definition of elitism is in the equating of what you do with who you are.
Procreation is the only inseverable component of marriage; and the only pairings that naturally procreate are that of one man and woman.
All others need not apply.
Michael - that didn't answer the question .
Let me try again:
If the court finds that homosexuality meets the standard of a suspect class, what compelling governmental interest is there to deny any two people access to a civil marriage license simply on the basis of the race, religion of the sex of either of the two people who wish to enter into that contract?
First off no sane court would find people who engage in immoral and unatural sexual depravity a suspect class. But here are two great reasons anyways. Remember I am John N. the person who supports NOM who is SINGLE.
(1) The homsoxuals love to throw the word right around, like in right to marry. Although one has a right to marry no one has a right to demand that the state recognize such relationships and bestow benefits upon it. All licenses granted by state are priviledges and not rights. If licenses were rights then blind people would have drivers licenses.
As a result the government may deny any people a marriage license because it is a priviledge of the state and not a right. The benefits granted in the license are priviledges and not rights.
(2) Randy King in the last post gave a great answer.
Procreation is the only inseverable component of marriage; and the only pairings that naturally procreate are that of one man and woman.
All others need not apply.
The whole reason why there is a governmental interest in marriage is because of procreation. Those benefits were incentives to procreate. This was the governmental justification for giving married people these benefits not available to single people like me.
John,
Prove to me that Inability to procreate is justification for denying a person rights to enter into a civil marriage contract.
As far as being a right or a privilege - do you think a person on death row (with no possibility of conjugal visits) has a "right" to enter into a civil marriage?
Do you think a person who has been found guilty of child molestation or even the neglect of a child that leads to death has a right to a civil marriage contract?
I would argue that there is a secondary public purpose of marriage, which is only indirectly connected with procreation, namely the protection of women. If marriage is a corporate entity, the woman is the more vulnerable partner. Women and only women bear the physical and economic costs of pregnancy. Even in the absence of actual pregnancy, women have inherently different biological clocks. The law should recognize this and not be prevented from recognizing this by de-gendering marriage. Consider the phrase “she gave him the best years of her life.” Consider the divorce of a fifty-year-old man and a fifty-year-old woman. The remarriage market is much more favorable to the man (often finding a new young thing) than it is for the woman. Men and women are not interchangeable. To treat them as if they were (as de-gendered marriage will require) will lead to the further feminization of poverty. Once marriage is de-gendered, the law will not be able to recognize that one of the marriage partners belongs to the more vulnerable sex.
@ Publius
You ignore Brown v. Board of Education, which overruled <Plessy v. Ferguson. I shudder to think how long it would have taken to integrate schools in certain states had that decision not taken place.
I understand what you're saying, but surely you don't think the Supreme Court has no business in civil rights at all. Do you?
No, see Butler v. Wilson , 415 U.S. 953. See also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 at 95 (1987) (noting that the "right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration"), id. at 96 (noting that Butler is not overruled and it "involved a prohibition on marriage only for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment; and, importantly, denial of the right was part of the punishment for crime")
Prove to me that Inability to procreate is justification for denying a person rights to enter into a civil marriage contract.
Your inability to procreate does not deny anyone a civil marriage contract. Since marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, all those who meet the law qualify for recognition from the state in the form of a marriage license. They then are afforded the benefits that come with the license. A man/woman marriage has the ability to procreate however their are some who are infertile. This is a biological defect through no fault of their own and the marriage license is still granted. Again when one meets the one man + one woman requirement it is assumed they have the ability to procreate. This is why the license is always granted. Who knows if future medical procedures can fix that problem.
So I do not get your point. There is nothing to prove. No one is denied a civil marriage contract if they are unable to procreate. There is no justification for denying a persons right to enter into a civil marriage contract. However as I have pointed out this is never done at any state level. There is not one state that makes you prove that you can procreate to get a license. It is assumed. Just obey the one man and one woman law like everybody else and the state license is granted.
If you have any examples of any state that denied a marriage license to any man/woman couple because of their inability to procreate then I would like to see it. I have never heard of such a thing as happening. I believe you are stating a problem that does not exist.
"what compelling governmental interest is there to deny any two people access to a civil marriage license simply on the basis of the race, religion of the sex of either of the two people who wish to enter into that contract?"
Would "any two people" include opposite sexed siblings, same-sexed siblings, or a parent/child pair? Would groups qualify? Why or why not?
DoE,
We are not talking specifics of each case by case basis here.
Why should the sex of either participant be the sole reason used as the criteria?
Please justify why a person should exclude 3.5 Billion potential partners. What reason is there?
John,
"Since marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman" does not state a legitimate government interest to use the sex of either party as a valid criteria to limit who has access to entering into a civil marriage contract.
The fact that it takes one man and one woman to procreate is a truth we hold to be self evident; which is why we do not impose procreation tests on these types of pairings.
The self evident ability to procreate is the one and only inseverable component of marriage because everybody knows that children are the product of one man and one woman. All precedence on this subject dating back to 1851 bases its decision on a single self evident truth; procreation is a rationale reason for limiting marriages to one man/one woman pairings.
Could it be that the real source of marriage corruption supporters angst are these truths we hold to be self evident; the laws of nature and natures God?
@Spunky
The public sympathy nationwide was heavily for Brown v. Board. Everyone (North and South) knew that separate but equal was a legal sham. The black districts were never made close to equal, and the blacks had no political power because they were denied the vote, even in areas where they had large numbers. No vote meant no democracy. The suppression of democracy was necessary for segregation to work in the South. Had the voting problem been solved first, Brown v. Board would have been unnecessary. Had the black vote not been suppressed after the Civil War, Jim Crow could never have taken hold.
Note that Board did not outlaw schools segregated by sex, let alone restrooms segregated by sex. Note that Brown did not outlaw schools segregated by age. The race issue in America is sui generis.
@Curious George
If the object of marriage law is to maximize the number of possible marriage partners so that the total is seven billion, then it will have to include those already married, those currently considered under age, and those living outside the jurisdiction of the United States. There are billions in each category.
The simplest way to accomplish this goal is an international treaty that says everyone in the world is “married” to everyone else. This would, of course, involved some redefinition of marriage, but the anti-NOM forces don’t object to a redefinition of marriage. As an advantage, there would not be two separate and unequal classes of people, single and married. Everyone would be married equally to everyone else. That would be the ultimate “marriage equality.”
"Why should the sex of either participant be the sole reason used as the criteria?"
Well, it isn't the sole criteria. Age, consent, and citizenship status are also criteria.
"Please justify why a person should exclude 3.5 Billion potential partners. What reason is there?"
Have you asked yourself why the govt. doesn't allow all opposite-sexed couples to get married? Brothers and sisters, for example, or a parent and child--
DoE,
Well, it is the sole criteria when you limit the participants to one man and one woman. You are using the sex of either party to be the sole criteria to deny any citizen to enter into a civil marriage contract with a citizen of the same sex.
One cannot even talk about age or consent before that barrier is met.
What government reason is there to deny the certificate on that one attribute alone?
Oh, and citizenship status isn't a criteria at all - that is one of the benefits awarded to man / woman relationships that isn't available to same sex couples - the entering into a civil marriage contract allows the non-US citizen to stay in the US without requiring citizenship or a green card or any other reason other than being married to a US citizen.
In the case of age limitations, there is the legitimate state concern of consent and harm to the child.
In the case of family closeness, I think part of that has to do with genetic defects, but perhaps part has to do that brothers / sisters are already family and do not need the benefits and responsibilities defined in the marriage laws as they already have them. Same with parents and children.
Some states limit 1st cousins, others allow it, still others allow it if the couple prove one or the other is sterile.
@ Publius
Your response contains one inaccuracy and two misleading statements.
I believe this statement is incorrect at least in some states. While you make a great point that most blacks were often unable to represent themselves at the ballot box, even if every black person in the South were able to vote, it still may not have been enough to pass a referendum for equality in many states. There just weren't enough black people. (Or maybe I'm mistaken. Please show me statistics that suggest I'm wrong.)
Similarly, while there are millions of gay people in the US, they make up a tiny percentage (4% or so) of Americans. Thus there is no way gays alone can create policies in the ballot box.
Secondly, you are incorrect about the reasoning used in the verdict in Brown v. Board. As Rob Tisinai points out, the verdict included this:
In other words, the very act of separating people based on race treated races as unequal, even if the separate facilities were completely equivalent.
Your last point is correct but misleading. While Brown v. Board did not address sexual discrimination in schools, the 1972 Educational Amendments deemed that public schools could not discriminate based on a person's sex. Thus a school can discriminate based on sex or race as long as it receives no federal funding.
Given all of this, do you still believe that the Supreme Court should not make decisions about civil rights?
Of course I believe the courts should make decisions about civil rights. You are either misreading or deliberately distorting my position. I never said they shouldn’t make decisions about civil rights. I never said Brown was wrongly decided. I did say that democracy is on balance a more sure and lasting way to secure civil rights than courts that cannot be checked and balanced by the other branches of government or by the sovereign people. (Remember Dred Scott) Do you believe that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed?
And I have said elsewhere that Brown v. Board is not on point regarding marriage. Baker v. Nelson came after Brown as well as after Loving. The Warren Court and its successors didn’t buy the argument line that segregating schools required redefining marriage. Race is not the same as sex. Traditional marriage is not the same as segregation. It actually integrates the sexes in a unique way.
Gay couples prosper more economically than their straight counterparts, have huge political and legal war chests, and very favorable portrayals in TV and in Hollywood. Gays have economic demographics that the average black family even today can only dream of.
If one in four (maybe one in six) members of the student body at Yale (and other Ivy League schools) in the 1950’s were poor blacks from segregated schools in the South, it would have been very hard to claim they were receiving inadequate educations.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/feb/10/one-in-four-maybe-six/
@ Publius
I never ever said the decision in Brown v. Board should apply to gay families. Whether I believe that is a separate issue. I only linked to Rob's page to show you the reasoning in the decision, which I felt you misrepresented.
My entire post was meant to 1) correct your mistakes and underscore misleading points and 2) to reiterate my question from before, which you have now answered. I didn't mean to distort anything you said; your tone really sounded as though you felt the SCOTUS should not decide civil rights.
Your last point about gay couples and their counterparts is untrue if you examine things more closely. Gay couples with kids are disadvantaged when they cannot marry--they effectively earn up to $5000 less than the average married straight couple each year. Similarly, unmarried gay couples without kids also lose that $5000, and so they're worse off than married straight couples without kids.
Well, it is the sole criteria when you limit the participants to one man and one woman. You are using the sex of either party to be the sole criteria to deny any citizen to enter into a civil marriage contract with a citizen of the same sex.
This question had been addressed and answered in previous posts. The sole criteria is the incentive to procreation. That is why the married people have the benefits denied to us single people. It is the incentive to procreate and stay together and provide that loving mother/father relationship to the next generation.
Since same sex couples cannot procreate they do not deserve the procreation incentives afforded in a marriage contract through the benefits offered. This would be totally unfair to those of us that are single.