Now, sure, there is some good achieved in identity politics, but it is minimal. Mostly it is a cultural thing that gets hugely distorted when entrenched into governance; at that point it corrupts far and wide.

But identity politics is a recurring problem for human civilizations. Even at that, marriage's universal core has remained across the millennia even though there are many variables in how societies have responded to that core.

The core meaning of marriage cuts across the religious, political, and cultural divides of humankind. It is the ultimate pluralistic idea that has withstood all kinds of bizarre abuses -- among the most extreme being the pressing of identity politics (the white supremacist variety) onto marriage law during the days of the anti-miscegnation system. Marriage's core meaning is under attack by the SSM campaign and it is vulnerable to abuses by statist political movements, however, its strength is intrinsic to the nature of human civilization, I think, and will remain even when the storm of gay identity politics has passed onto the trash heap of history.

The core meaning of marriage: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

Note that point 3 is not a mere restatement of points 1 and 2. Coherency is what radicals, and deconstructionists, attack when they seek to destroy a social institution.

Okay. Go with that.

Just promise to eat humble pie.

No need for the BBQ drama voguing stuff here.

Come on. Take it down a notch or two.

B73,
To "be gay" is to refuse to understand one's homosexuality.Anyone "anti-gay" has a better understanding of homosexuality than any "gay".

Eliasasm,
Since identification as "gay" is a form of lying about oneself,knowing more about "gays" than "gays" do is extremely common.

Remember, Rome fell AFTER it became a Christian nation. Think about it.

You are a living testiment of why religion is afforded Hightened Scrutiny protection; whereas sexual depravity does not even rank an honorable mention.

Marriage, in our culture, has not changed in over five thousand years; sans the four years in Rome where Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

You cannot find a single reference in antiquity testifying to the merits of your proclivity, only condemnation for the harm it has done to societies that were stupid enough to tolerate it.

No, that's like stateing the obvious, that for some reason you all are in denial of.
This is a predominitly a religious issue. People want to believe because of their religion that we are somehow not as good as you so you are not going to let us play the game. You are ignorant to the point that religion should not be used in this country as a reason to do what it is that you want to do. That has never gone over very well in human history. You are ignorant to the fact that being a tradition means nothing more than it is a tradition. Not enough of an argument to use to do what it is that you want to do. We will start a new tradition, how's that? Do you have a problem with that, too?
You are also ignorant to the fact that marriage and cultures and laws and religions have always changed. That's how life works. You can either jump on the train and join in on the ride or you can stay where you are and keep fighting something that can't be stopped, Life moving forward.
It's ignorant to think that I or anyone should not be allowed just because of what you are choosing to believe of us and it is ignorant to think that everyone has to go along with something a religion says if they are not of that club. And if you think so, you are missing a very big important point.

Contrary to your claims about "treatment" these individuals sought no outside help but found their way to heteronormativity outside medicine or religion."

Anecdotal examples aside, any scientific proof??? And what do you mean by "identifying as straight"?

You reference these miscreants as if they were the proverbial Unicorn from antiquity. There is no such thing as a "Gay People."

"your claim is as arrogant as it is ignorant. How could you possibly claim to understand being gay better than those who are gay themselves?"

Maybe they personaly know multiple people in their lives who identified as gay for a period of time in their youth but eventually came to identify as straight.

Contrary to your claims about "treatment" these individuals sought no outside help but found their way to heteronormativity outside medicine or religion.

"No, but it is there predominity because of religion."

Thats like saying that laws against theft exist "predominity because of religion", just because "thou shalt not steal" is in scripture.

The fact of the matter is that marriage as traditionally defined is part and parcel of our culture, law and religion just as many things are.

You reveal yourself not to be so much inacurate - but rather nieve.

Hyperbole aside, your claim is as arrogant as it is ignorant. How could you possibly claim to understand being gay better than those who are gay themselves? Because some quack psychologist making money off of debunked theories and dangerous treatments claims thst he and his lucrative but controversial methods are  legit? Or is it because some religiously conflicted closet cases claim they've "changed"? 

And your "meltdown" comment? Please. Abandoning his faith? How about acknowledging that you simply don't value someone who is intelligent enough to understand that the doctrine of one's chosen religious faith will not always be in perfect alignment with what is morally correct and just in a free and pluralistic society? 

or when you can acknowledge reality, which ever comes first.

so not worthy.

Let's talk again when you turn fifteen.

I just can't my head around how you straights think you know more about gays than gays do. Really?

No, but it is there predominity because of religion.
You are so not a worthy opponent.

In other news, the Sun rose in the east this morning.

PS: There is not the slightest reference to any religion in Amendment One.

Worse luck next time.

Just call him Cash Obama.

Its a new fundraising letter from the Obama Campaign.

The first line of this fundraising letter is priceless:

Katrina –

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
…
I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them. If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

Thank you,

Barack

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that one out of six of Obama’s bundlers are gay. Clearly, the campaign is hoping that Obama’s decision to back gay marriage will reap in some new donations.

Yes, Romney needs to turn the heat up on this issue and keep it up. He has a real chance of changing results in key swing states..

Southern & midwestern democrats who are disinchanted with Obama, latino swing votes and even a higher percentage of the black vote is possible with the issues laid out as they are.

Hardly. The current GOP is SO far to the right, even Goldwater looks liberal.

Bingo.

*if*...........*if* Mitt Romney has the stones to play the cards.

What's really sad is the late author of amendment 1 couldn't even defend it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0vIqYJcLC4I

Must be why it lost...oh, wait.

Ultimently there is no avoiding the central federal question under the U.S. constituion...anymore than they have been able to avoid it under State law.
B73 - I'm not trying to pop your ballon but their is more going on than your aware of. SCOTUS and "living consitutonalism" is already on notice since Roe v Wade. The Justices are in a position were the State Supreme Courts now feel they can override clear Federal Precedent and activist attorneys on the left that they can game the system to this degree.

I think when you look at it from the perspective of both Judicial politics and seperation of powers you may come to realize that you guys bit of more than you can chew here.

Sure SCOTUS "could" rule any-old way...Put you have to remeber the pressure they have on them to stay looking ligitamate in the eyes of people who actuallyh know the law and understand that it can only be twisted so much before it breaks

Course, it's no different than Prop 8 - only argument is that gay relationships make people feel icky, I guess.

"Fitz, I gave you the opportunity that you weren't completely clueless. You failed. I'm not going to take the time to address each and every point you attempted to make so I'll just address what I gather is the main point you're trying to make. SCOTUS is not going to answer a question that's not relevant to the case they're considering. And they're certainly not going to hand down a decision that says that states have the power to define marriage in a manner that restricts the civil rights of citizens and, simultaneously, that state's do not have the power to define marriage in a manner that expands the civil rights of citizens."

Whats so amusing about this is that the 14th amendment legal arguments of ss"m" proponents are the same equel protection arguments be they State or Federal.

B73, you seem to be saying that your (suddenly) not confident in his equell protection arguments when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Yep, he sold out for his "30 pieces of silver".

Glad he came out publicly now though, thereby making redefining marriage *the* defining issue of the 2012 vote. NC's landslide victory was yesterday's reason to celebrate. His public embracement of SSM is today's.

"Fitz, I gave you the opportunity that you weren't completely clueless. You failed. I'm not going to take the time to address each and every point you attempted to make so I'll just address what I gather is the main point you're trying to make. SCOTUS is not going to answer a question that's not relevant to the case they're considering. And they're certainly not going to hand down a decision that says that states have the power to define marriage in a manner that restricts the civil rights of citizens and, simultaneously, that state's do not have the power to define marriage in a manner that expands the civil rights of citizens."

Whats so amusing about this is that the 14th amendment legal arguments of ss"m" proponents are the same equel protection arguments be they State or Federal.

But B73 seems to be saying that he (suddenly) is not confident in his equell protection arguments when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Ultimently there is no avoiding the central federal question under the U.S. constituion...anymore than they have been able to avoid it under State law.

Around the office we got to calling these people "the newly minted, earstwhile, temporary federalists"

The idea that "same-sex "marriage" is inevitable...but not just yet is untenable.

Justices on either side wont go in for such gamesmanship...such as "claiming an argument in state court to get yourself in a position where you deny such arguments in Federal court.... But only for awhile, because we will be back to assert this nationwide when we feel the political winds are better"

B73 - I'm not trying to pop your ballon but their is more going on than your aware of. SCOTUS and "living consitutonalism" is already on notice since Roe v Wade. The Justices are in a position were the State Supreme Courts now feel they can override clear Federal Precedent and activist attorneys on the left that they can game the system to this degree.

I think when you look at it from the perspective of both Judicial politics and seperation of powers you may come to realize that you guys bit of more than you can chew here.

Sure SCOTUS "could" rule any-old way...Put you have to remeber the pressure they have on them to stay looking ligitamate in the eyes of people who actuallyh know the law and understand that it can only be twisted so much before it breaks.

Indeed, in Bishop v. United States, DOMA is being challenged alongside Oklahoma's Question 711. Any arguments the administration uses against DOMA would also apply against Question 711.

That's quite a word salad there

I simply reiterate:

It has long been clear to me that there is no real possibility that the SCOTUS is prepared to essentially inform the people of the United States that they no longer possess the right to retain the immemorial institution of marriage.

That would truly be...................a message to ponder.

I'm glad Pres. Obama declared himself. It'll make the contrasts so much clearer come election day.

"Poor Fritz, who doesn't understand Baker v Nelson. The Court declined to hear that case because there was a lack (at that time) of a federal question, which Fritz somehow interprets as the Court saying there IS a federal question."

I sorry tam...but you are simply wrong as a matter of law & fact.,

Baker was dismissed for "want of a sunstantial federal question" - i.e. - They couldent even state a cause of action that the court felt it could address (like asking to get a dog liceance for your cat)

Baker represents what is called a "question on the merits" and is therefore standing precedent.

Instead of not granting certiorie, SCOTUS reviewed the briefs in the case and slapped it down as hard as they could...

When they say "want of a sunstantial federal question" - it dosent mean there was no federal issue involved (as you seem to think "at the time")

Rather is says that the plaintiffs case is so weak that a cause of action is not present to even rule on..

Thats why its considered a ruling "on the merits" and becomes binding precedent.

"Fitz, I gave you the opportunity that you weren't completely clueless. You failed. I'm not going to take the time to address each and every point you attempted to make so I'll just address what I gather is the main point you're trying to make. SCOTUS is not going to answer a question that's not relevant to the case they're considering. And they're certainly not going to hand down a decision that says that states have the power to define marriage in a manner that restricts the civil rights of citizens and, simultaneously, that state's do not have the power to define marriage in a manner that expands the civil rights of citizens."

Whats amusing about this response is that now lawyer or judge would have a hard time understanding what I'm saying.

I can assure you that I am anything but "clueless" on this matter. I stay well informed as to the state of the law and politics on this issue.

Why do you think the Federal Appeals court bothered to write an opinion that narrowed its reasoning to just California? Its to avoid precisley the substaantial Federal question involved that I bring up.

Whats really amusing is that the Federal question is EXACTLY the same as the State question that pro-ss"m" side has presented to multiple state courts succesfully.

"Does the equall protection clause of the (State/Federal) comsituion require a change in the defintion of marriage?"

Thats why the running joke around the office is "The newly minted, earstwhile, temporary Fedaralists"

Its funny because suddenly YOU B73 and gay "marriage" advocates DONT want to raise the same question to SCOTUS as you have in multiple state courts.

Eventually you do, but for now your satisfied with a State by State battle in order to maintain your gains.

My point is simply that SCOTUS is not going to be amused with this attempted manipulation of judicial review. They have the power authority and precedent to address it.

Poor confused Fritz. With opponents like that, no wonder marriage equality gets more popular every year.

"Fitz, not sure were that incoherent garbage comes from but you still arent answering B73."

#1 - Is there a particular point that your having trouble with?

Perhaps its not so much "incoherent" or "garbage" but rather you dont like what it denotes and have dismissed it for emotional rather than intellectual reasons.

#2. I suppose only B73 can speak to if I have answered his querry to his satisfaction.

Thanks for this insight.

I suppose a lot of this comes down to whether or not the SCOTUS will resoundingly slap down this incredibly cynical manipulation of our nation's judicial process by Vaughn Walker and his co-conspirators, or whether they will take the easy way out and simply uphold Prop 8.

It has long been clear to me that there is no real possibility that the SCOTUS is prepared to essentially inform the people of the United States that they no longer possess the right to retain the immemorial institution of marriage.

That would truly be...................a message to ponder.

"Fitz, all of that cutting and pasting and you still haven't answered the question or clearly stated hiw you see things playing out. So let me help the discussion along. It appears that you think that SCOTUS overturning Walker and ruling that the U.S. Constitution does not require the extension of marriage rights to gay and lesbian people, thereby affirming that states have the power to deny those rights, that would simultaneously be ruling on a question that isn't being asked: does the Constitution prohibit states from extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Is this what you're suggesting?"

Yes: I think I see were your going with this.. Indeed its the same place both the anti-prop 8 attorneys as well as the Federal appeals court want this to go. Hence the narrowing of the question to apply only to California.

What I am saying is that trained legal minds who are informed on this issue (like the Justices of SCOTUS) can and do see through this strategy & have the power & authority to resist the gamesmanship of avoiding a direct ruling on the merits.

The avoidance strategy has kept this out of federal court as long as they could in a sort of attempt to "run out the clock" on same-sex "marriage" in the states that have it.

At the utmost minimal me & other legal scholars have a hard time imagining that the four solidly conservative justices would rule that every state can decide for itself how marriage is defined.

Just because upholding prop-8 in California could be precieved as a victory for opponents of same-sex "marriage" does not mean that the conservative wing of the court will be fooled into ignoring the more central federal question.

To do so would be tyo establish a completley new precedent that says marriage's very definition is a State by State issue. This goes contrary to ALL SCOTUS rulings on marriage to date including Baker v Nelson.

Indeed: the very gamesmanship of avoiding Federal court for so long as well as carefully crafting the question presented is more likley to encourage those Justices sympathetic to same-sex "marriage" to side with standing precedent.

Thats part of what I mean by the "judicial politics" involved.

Poltically - as far as everyday advocates are concerned - both sides are being manipulated.

Example: NOM has no incentive to explain to people that marriage has always been a Federal issue and that SCOTUS can (and likley) will overule those State Courts and legislatures that have changed it definition. To do so would take the heat off the succesfull attempt to get amendments in all those 32 States that have them. Those amendments represent serious leverage to the conservative side when they try and persuade a majority of the court to get behind them on this issue.

This was not the time or place Obama had hoped to make this move.

His hand was forced by the disastrous repudiation of the "historical inevitability" meme in NC yesterday.

He was forced to this by his financial backers- and he went for the money, in direct and flagrant disregard for the expressed will of the people.

Good.

It's all on the table now, and we have a tremendous issue with which to defeat him.

If only Mitt Romney can somehow rise to the occasion (I have my doubts).

"Wow, all those NOMers who were already not voting for Obama, are extra not voting for Obama."

You need to add a greater sophistication than that. You need to add all those Obama voters who thought (because of his stance) he was sincerly backing traditional marriage...as well as all those who wont like his flip-floping on this (or any) issue. As well as democrats who in elections past thought gay marriage wasent going anywhere but who now realize its being pushed by the Whitehouse...as well as... greater enthusiasm of those republican social conservatives in defeating Obama because of this...

This and more and you need to add how this effects crucial swing states in the mid-west and south as well as draws the contrast with his opponent.

eliasasm (writes)

"See, none of them mean anything to you. Mine and thousands of others like mine are all over these blogs and you have to ask? Apparently none of them could compute beyond a singular point."

Your imputing what I think before you have stated your case. I think I put together a pretty extensive list of why people want gay "marriage" - yet you refute that those are the reasons and emplore me to search this site to glean your particular reasoning.

I shall not.. I am not a regular reader or commentor so I am not familiar as to why you think gay "marriage" is important.

See, the point is that you do not care what we think, you do not care how what you are doing affects us, you do not care about anything other than yourselves. You don't get the point that your views somehow make us seem different than you when we are not. You don't get the point how this became an issue. You don't get the point that you are the one with an issue. You don't get the point that maybe what you think isn't necessarily so. You don't get the point that this is a point to you because you want it to be. You don't get any of them.

See, none of them mean anything to you. Mine and thousands of others like mine are all over these blogs and you have to ask? Apparently none of them could compute beyond a singular point.

This us just like that cute Starbucks boycott, the faux success.

Well then by all means....Whats your point?

Nope, that's not the point. If you got the point, you wouldn't be doing and saying what you are saying.
We get your point and we understand your point and why you have the point that you do. You do not understand our point. And you don't care what our point is. Every word that comes out of your mouths is to state and defend your position which is always right but never really address the point, only what you think the point is or what you want to make the point be. You don't get the point or even the reason for it.

Seriously, what is preventing you from seeing the obvious? This is all an issue because you have an issue. If you did not have the not quite accurate thoughts about it that you do, this would not be happening. Are you not paying attention to yourselves?
Your view of homosexuality and just about everything that you want to be associated with that, is why this is happening. My gosh, seriously. How can you possibly deny that. You have the issue.

"What's sad is they are missing the point and show that no point outside of their own exists."

On the contrary, most marriage protectors get the point. Changing the definition of marriage would undoubtably make gay people feel happier and more encluded in society. It would put a sort of "goodhousekeeping seal of approval" on gay relationships and say to the next generation that such realtionship are just as good as heterosexual relationships. They could (like many people) also benifit form the different rights and privilages married couples get from the goverment.

I think it would do all those things..

Its simply the case that the cons however outweight the pro's.

Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex couples can (& do) produce children. People need clear standards they can relate with. Changing the definition of marriage effects far to many people (indeed all of society) and resonates through the generations. Marriage is too important a social institution to be used as a vehicle for gay affirmation.

When you begin to understand that pro-marriage supporters really would be happier addressing the multitude of social problems caused by the sexual revolution than defending the very defintion of marriage you may begin on the path to wisdom.

We were supporting marriage and family values well before same-sex "marriage" was thrust upon us by the courts. Now that is has been it is incumbant upon us to first secure its basic definition in law & culture first.

We cant defend what we cant define.

If they didn't have someone to tyrrant, they couldn't feel special. That's the whole point.
How someone can't not see the absolute mindless absurdity to this, leaves ya speechless. What's sad is they are missing the point and show that no point outside of their own exists. How do you communicate with that way of thinking? They are right. Period. And every time they open their mouths they prove it, to themselves. Unbelieveable.

If they didn't have someone to tyrrant, they couldn't feel special. That's the whole point.
How someone can't not see the absolute mindless absurdity to this, leaves ya speechless. What's sad is they are missing the point and show that no point outside of their own exists. How do you communicate with that way of thinking? They are right. Period. And every time they open their mouths they prove it, to themselves. Unbelieveable.

Makes me wonder if Obama believes he is going to lose on health care and Prop 8 in the not so distant future - talk about telegraphing your punches

Just tell me what marriage is and we can dialogue on whether you are prohibited from it.

The attempt to distract by name-calling is truly astonishing. No one "hates gays." That's ludicrous. People believe that homosexual conduct is immoral. But why should that bug you? You think that that judgment is immoral. So, you're in the exact same position as your adversary.

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Is this the statement of a bigot? A homophobe? A hatemonger? If u say yes, you just insulted Jesus Christ

No, No and No. but what you want that to say is. You just put words in "God's" mouth. Blasphemere

"That's not true. Marriage is a fundamental human right protected by the U.S. Constitution but the states issue licenses and the federal gov't has always - until DOMA - deferred to the states with their many variations on marriage law. SCOTUS isn't going to roll back civil rights that have been in place for a decade or more."

#1. I dont have any secret knowledge - I have simply done my homework and are aware of the "lay of the land" so to speak

#2. While individual states may regulate marriage as they see fit - the federal goverment has always protected it basic parameters.

Allow me to demonstrate..

Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage is clear: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

#3. It common practice for courts to overturn both state court decisions as well state legislatures. This happens all the time and as a matter of coarse. Indeed its the whole point of consitutional review.

#4. The cases cited above are the entirity of applicable case law on the issue of marriage.. with the exception of Balker v Nelson, the case on point and standing federal precedent. The conservative Justices are not going to allow the court to ignore the very definition of a federaly protected right (see NY opinion above) and for the first time in history allow every state to come up with its own definition of marriage..

With the exception of business people, constitutionalists, people of faith, gun owners, etc etc etc.

Funny stuff, Albert (as if that's your real name).

Once SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, then we will take care of the details.

The important thing is to destroy the cynical, judicial and legislative tyranny which has just fatally overreached, just in time for the election.

I'd rather have a President who stands with the people instead of the money.

Thanks for sharing.

We all get one vote, and I guess we can assume who's getting yours.

But the issue here is electoral votes, and I am delighted to see Obama much more likely to lose the election as a direct result of placing himself in open opposition to the voters on this issue.

Thanks for sharing.

We all get one vote, and I guess we can assume who's getting yours.

But the issue here is electoral votes, and I am delighted to see Obama losing the election as a direct result of placing himself in open opposition to the voters on this issue.

Elitist social engineering schemes like marriage corruption play very well in the media.

They play very poorly in the privacy of the voting booth.

This is the reason for my happiness in the face of North Carolina's forcing this coy, two-faced President to finally drop the mask.

"Fitz, You think Supreme Court is going to overturn marriage equality in the states that have it? Oh boy, this little win down south seems to have given the bigots delusions of grandeur."

No - Im just aware of the legal reasoning and judicial politics involved. You dont seem to be. This is "inside baseball" type of stuff, and your outside the loop as it were.

The fact of the matter is that marriage is a federal right. Precedent dictates that the entire counrty must have a single defintion of marriage.

Both sides realize this; thats why pro ss"m' keep avoiding SCOTUS... Its why Obama is for a state by stae approach...Its why prop 8 case was decided so narrowly and tried to confine itself just to California.

They want to avoid the Federal question who's answer is clear and already established precedent.

I completely agree that this will cost Obama.

But the reason for the move was exactly the victory in NC.

His marriage corruption financiers made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

He knows exactly which side his bread is buttered on, and the incredible, devastating repudiation of the media brainwashing campaign in NC scared the gay billionaires into giving the President his new marching orders.

If we fight hard and make Romney start talking about this issue, Obama just put himself out office.

Unfortunately, Mitt Romney is very likely to blow the chance.

Game on!

It's amazing that Obama decided to choose the dead wrong time to endorse it too. The day after the battleground state of North Carolina - by a landslide margin - voted to reject gay marriages and civil unions. An extremely dumb move.

We all know what the stakes are now.

Thanks North Carolina, for smoking the President out on this.

The marriage debate is now front and center in the election campaign.

Exactly where we want it