Paul Linton, special counsel for the Thomas More Society in Chicago, writes at Public Discourse:
"...The fact that advocates of same-sex marriage uniformly oppose public votes on state constitutional amendments that would define marriage as a union of a man and a woman is telling evidence that they do not believe what they say. If advocates of same-sex marriage believe that the people of Illinois are now prepared to accept same-sex marriage, let’s have the General Assembly put the issue on the November ballot and we’ll see who wins. Same-sex marriage should not come in the back door, via an arguably collusive lawsuit in which no one charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law actually defends it."
24 Comments
"The reason why they are called rights is because you dont get to vote on them"
It's ridiculous that blacks in the South during the Civil Rights movement didn't want to put their rights up to a popular vote by the people.
Oh, wait...
Same-sex marriage is not a right. See Baker v. Nelson.
This is excellent analysis of the Illinois case by Paul Linton. Piece by piece, he demolishes the assertions of the ACLU and Lambda Legal.
No wonder they colluded to bring the lawsuit against Cook County, although many of the same-sex couples listed in the case reside in other counties and didn’t file a suit against their own clerks.
They wouldn’t dare bring the challenge against a state official who is intent on doing his/her job and defending the law.
Great work by Paul, as one would expect from someone writing on marriage in the Public Discourse.
Marriage supporters: read it, learn it, love it.
It is really impossible to make the case for redefining (de-gendering) marriage without pretending gays are poor blacks under Jim Crow. Consider, however, that blacks were denied the vote under Jim Crow. Normal democratic processes were not available to them. Gays are not so situated. Blacks were are economic underclass and to some extent still are. Gays, on contrast, are more affluent than their straight counterparts and are well represented in centers of higher education. (Just Google “one in four, maybe more.”) The gayest neighborhoods are not rural shantytowns and urban ghettos, but the trendiest and toniest neighborhoods.
If merely asserting a “civil right” made it so, then millions of foreigners could assert a right to immigrate. They are similarly situated to blacks under Jim Crow. They can’t vote. The are poor. They are undereducated. Do we have a right to vote on their assertion?
If merely asserting a “civil right” made it so, then the 1% could assert a right to a flat tax (equal taxation). They are a minority. Many people hate them. Do we have a right to vote on their assertion?
Certain rights are called inalienable because they come from God. Of course, secular liberals reject that notion. Rights can be called civil rights if they come from the civil sovereign. Traditionally, the king was the sovereign. In America “the people” replaced the king. Here the people are sovereign. Here the people rule. So if the people are sovereign, they do get to decide what is a civil right. Even the Bill of Rights had to be approved by the people (through their representatives) before it became binding.
The Illinois case is simply a clever bit of lawfare.
@Ash, "Same-sex marriage is not a right"... yet.
The whole point of a civil rights movement is to gain legal recognition of one's rights. If a court decides "you don't have that right", then it is the people's prerogative to fight against the govt/courts for change. See, for an example, the civil rights movement.
Ash - The 14th Amendment guarantees that all people have a right to Equal Protection and Due Process. That is, we all have a right to be treated equally by the law. What marriage equality supporters are asking for is the right to participate in a legal institution.
I want the law to treat me and my neighbor the same when it comes to getting married. If he can marry the person he loves, why can't I?
Please show me the exact words in the U.S Constitution where " same-sex marriage" is a right or even the the words " marriage is a right" I need those exact words.
Wish these gay people would have stayed in the closet where they belong so that we normal people wouldn't be dealing with their crap.
Fascinating read. It's the perfect setup for marriage redefiners. That is, set up a law suit where there's no defendant.
IL politics hasn't changed a bit since the days of Capone. Only the names are different.
@Jim - 'That is, we all have a right to be treated equally by the law.'
The law treats people differently all the time
Blind people can't drive
Felons can't own guns
Sexual offenders can't live near schools.
People can't marry more than one person
Equality doesn't mean everyone gets to do anything they want to do.
You have the same rights now as everyone else. What you are looking for are special rights for your situation. What if you 'love' more than one person? We don't need the Supreme Cout defining that for us.
Jim,
The 14th Amendment states that you cannot be denied equal protection "without due process of law." the 14th does not state that "you cannot be denied equal protection."
I hope this helps.
Lots of housecleaning to do after Obama is defeated and pseudo-marriage is shown to be a unanimously rejected fraud this November.
@Austin&Jon: The gay lifestyle is immoral, unhealthy, and destructive. The Constitution nor the common law gives to the practice of perversity cherished position of a human right. A recent comprehensive study by the University of Texas reveals the debilitating effects on children from gay parenting. The name of the study is New Family Structures Study. The outcomes of the study show the damage to children. See outcomes graph:http://americansfortruth.com/2012/06/15/washington-times-graphic-on-homosexual-parenting-study-reveals-risks-of-having-lesbian-mothers/.
Randy E. King:
"The 14th Amendment states that you cannot be denied equal protection 'without due process of law.' the 14th does not state that 'you cannot be denied equal protection.'"
You are incorrect. The last sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amemdment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This, of course, means no one can be imprisoned without due process of law; however, it's clear that even convicted prisoners retain the right to equal protection under the law. I'm not a lawyer, but I can read.
This is a GREAT article that should be read in total. It completely makes all the correct arguments without getting into religion.
In any event, the Supreme Court decided in Baker v. Nelson that the 14th amendment did not require the de-gendering of marriage.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The semi-colons in the above sentence dictates that "without due process of law" be applied to all rights noted in said sentence; not just those noted prior to.
Might I suggest a remedial English class you may find useful…?
I know marriage corruption supporters are proud of their ignorance, but must you flaunt said ignorance at every opportunity.
Poster #15 points out the classic homosexual lie:
You are incorrect. The last sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amemdment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 14th amendment applies to we the people under the law. It does not apply to human actions, behavior, or conduct. Following poster's #15 logic any pedophile can claim equality and that the 14th amendment protects him/her.
Once again we see the ACLU doing what it does best. Using the court of law to take away our civil rights and liberties.
Another example of why civil unions should not be recognized. It is simply used as a trojan horse to force marriage corruption down our throats.
Randy E. King,
Are you serious? All it takes is a high schooler's reading comprehension to see that my claim regarding the 14th amendment is correct. It doesn't require a law degree or specialized knowledge, just basic reading comprehension.
John Noe:
You're not responding to what I actually wrote; I'm simply arguing that, contrary to Randy E. King's claim, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to all citizens; it does NOT lay out rules for when equal protection can be denied.
If you are fond of reading the law, then, you will acknowledge that in the marriage law there is no gayness criterion for ineligiblity to marry.
Marriage is comprised of a husband and a wife.
You would falsely equate marriage with something else. That something else would clearly mean favoring the gay subset of nonmarriage.
The nonmarriage category is populated by a wide spectrum of types of relationships and types of living arrangements. Again, gayness is not the defining feature of the large nonmarriage category.
So, why your gay emphasis? It cannot be due to something you read in law.
Atheists Communists Liars Unite
The ACLU and the type of tyranny they stand for,are what the Founders fled from.