Dear Marriage Supporter,
Last week, the AP wrote an article (not picked up by most major news outlets, of course) about Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's speech at the dedication of a federal courthouse library in Sacramento, CA being named in his honor.
In it, he said that major policies in a democracy should not depend "on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say."
I cannot emphasize enough how incredibly good this news is!
Proposition 8 and DOMA will be up for review in cases at the Supreme Court in just a couple of weeks. And NOM, along with our coalition of partners, will be there with marriage supporters from all across the country — marching outside the courthouse to reinforce the idea that the American people have something to say about marriage... that marriage is between one man and one woman because children have a right to a mother and a father!
But we need your help to give proper voice to the grassroots body of citizens and voters who agree with you and me on this issue. Please click here to make a donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 right away to help NOM organize the grassroots and turn them out to March for Marriage!
And, thanks to our generous donor, every dollar you give will be matched dollar-for-dollar!
Our most pressing need is to provide the logistical support that so many financially struggling churches desperately need to enable their congregations — many of them predominantly African-American and Latino — the chance to exercise their fundamental right to participate in the democratic process.
-
For a gift of $20, you and I can help enable one out-of-town marriage supporter to attend the March.
-
For $40, we can subsidize two additional marchers.
-
And for $100, we can bring 5 marchers to Washington who otherwise couldn't afford to come!
In the past two weeks we have been overwhelmed with requests from volunteers hoping to organize and activate their local communities to attend the March.
But they need our help!
Just because someone is not blessed with the means doesn't mean they shouldn't have a voice just like everyone else.
Marriage is at a pivotal time. You and I need to put everything we have into defending it. We cannot afford to look back and wonder whether or not we did everything possible to ensure the most fundamental institution of society received the best defense possible... the defense it deserves.
Help us make sure everyone marriage supporter who wants to show up is able to do so.
Thank you.
102 Comments
The American people have spoken and continue to speak. Marriage is legal in 9 states, D.C. And counting. Civil Unions (Colorado joins the group) is legal in 8 or more states. Who will defend their state laws? SCOTUS will as it must and SCOTUS will also find that the hundreds of thousands of gay married couples must be granted equal access to federal benefits for marriage.
NOM is winning Illinois not enough votes to destroy traditional marriage. Bless you Brian, for you are sent from God.
@Richard,
In order for SCOTUS to conclude that self identified "Gays" in (9) States have a right to special consideration they will also have to find that the people of (41) States that oppose said conclusion do not merit equal consideration under the law.
Not at all Randy. SCOTUS will determine DOMA to be unconstitutional. All marriages in 9 states and D.C. will be afforded the same federal benefits. After that, and as each state comes to support marriage across the board, those federal benefits will move along with marriage. Now, it is possible that if SCOTUS supports Prop 8 as unconstitutional,well, lots of things can happen
And Randy, 8 or more other states recognize civil unions (Colorado most recently). A SCOTUS reasoning in support of plaintiffs will certainly undermine state constitutional amendments that are based upon animus.
Uh Richard,
How many States have approved of expansion of Civil Union laws since they came to understand proposed expansions were nothing more than a Trojan Horse?
I'd give you credit if it were not for the fact that I and many others would not have voted for Civil Union expansion here in California if we knew then what we know now.
Animus is not unconstitutional; however questioning a free peoples rational for voting the way they did is.
In order for SCOTUS to declare DOMA unconstitutional they will also have to declare the right of a free people to self governance to be unconstitutional as well.
Another story you probably didn't hear: the attempt to dump Illinois Republican Party chair Pat Brady over his support for same-sex marriage, as trumpeted in this blog by NOM just a few days ago, has failed due to lack of support. Funny, I guess NOM just forgot to update that story.
Randy, they dont care about voters, they think your votes dont matter...unless your a liberal of course!
Randy, study your constitution. Since when is it unconstitutional to question a free peoples rationale? Animus is not unconstitutional but if it is the sole purpose for supporting Prop 8 as presented in court and subsequently a determination by the federal bench, then I wouldn't want to count on that determination as enough reason to consider Prop 8 as constitutional.
@Richard,,
Since the adoption and ratification of the very 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The right of conscience and free exercise thereof dictates that not only do we have the Constitutional right to vote our conscience, but said vote must be counted as equal to every other vote regardless of Religion, Race, or Gender.
If anything; sexual deviants are the only ones not afforded this cosideration; considering how their respective proclivity is not immitable or innate under federal law.
It is called an education; get one.
Oh, by the way. A good way of sending a comment to moderation is to use an exclamation mark
The following brief in favor of prop 8 explains why animus cannot be presumed by the court.
Brief of Judge Georg Ress, and The Marriage Law Foundation
An excerpt:
In other words, the Ninth Circuit presumed irrational animus as the only possible motivation for prop 8 when essentially the same policy is rationally based in other countries.
Since the Ninth unnecessarily presumed animus, its ruling should be vacated.
Randy, you are the one who said, "however, questioning a free people's rational[e] for voting the way they did is" unconstitutional. Read my response #10. Your next comment as regards Constitutional guarantees is simply bewildering. Where do you come up with this stuff?
bman, Judge Walker necessarily presumed animus based upon the determination that the testimony of the three witnesses in support of Pro 8 offered no compelling evidence to support Prop 8 and that, in conclusion, there could be no other motivation except animus. The Ninth circuit considered the very same evidence. In short no argument is presented and the remaining message is that for want of an argument we just don't like gays. The government has no interest in this.
Agree with Richard. The Walker Prop8 case was a showcase in the lack of credible testimony from the Oprp8 supporters. They simply couldn't find anyone with persuasive evidence or opinions. Evidence on imutability was absent. No evidence on how, actually, in reality, marriage would be harmed.
The law doesn't rely on hand waving. The amici curiae for Prop8 and DOMA is shot through with 'if's '. Not good enough.
And bman, I submitted an additional response, too long. The constitution does not mention marriage. Marriage laws have absolutely no requirement of children. And the consensus does not exist as stated by the judge. One brief by a group of legitimate sociologists states otherwise.
The Amicus Brief by the said group of sociologists cannot be named on this site nor that a certain "in the news" sociologist is a member of this group.
The people did the voting.
It was unnecessary for Walker to presume animus as their primary motivation.
On the supposed lack of evidence, see Walker's Phony Finding of Fact .
Once DOMA is struck down, the nation will have a hard time living with the patchwork quilt of state marriage laws, which lends additional force to the need to impose same-sex marriage on all 50 states. It is bewildering that the anti-gays like to play with fire, which is what going to the Supreme Court is. Why the Prop 8 supporters would appeal to the Supreme Court, and risk getting same-sex marriage imposed on all 50 states, is as bewildering as it gets.
Soon enough, marriage equality states like New York will stop recognizing marriages from states that don't recognize all New York marriages. That ought to get the marriage equality movement going even faster!
bman, you're not getting it. Even if Walker's findings of fact were bogus, which they're not, they are the facts that appellate and supreme courts have to go on. The Prop 8 supporters did such an awful job with their own "facts," that it's pretty open and shut. The appellate and supreme courts have to use the facts handed them. The Charles Cooper defense of Prop 8 was probably the worst defense of a high-profile case in the last 50 years. Now you have to live with it!
That's merely the slant presented by the media and by Walker.
The link I gave explains why the "no evidence" slant was misleading at best.
"lack of credible testimony from the Oprp8 supporters". Good strategy, bad spelling. By doing this, and having Judge Walker ignore testimony (which he would), only served to get the defense of this case to the level of SCOTUS.
Smart, huh?
Still trying to second-guess SCOTUS. My,. . . how brilliant you think you are. Missed your calling.
You are merely regurgitating media reports. See the link.
Cooper's words were reported out of context by Walker.
When we read what Copper really said and the parts left out by Walker, unfair handling by Walker becomes the default conclusion.
More and more prophets from the SSmers. Prophesy as a legal strategy? And they tell me I have no imagination(!)
That reminds me of a similar comment by TC Matthews from an older thread.
bman: went to your link. Stopped at the first reference to Fox News Sunday as one fo the Table of Authorities.
That briefing is merely an attack on judicial competence and on the expert witness testimony.
The proponents counsel was asked a simple question about what testimony supported the proponents view of marriage. There was none. There is no use referring to case law and 'natural law' as if the Courts can never overturn precedent or have to take into account incomplete conceptualisations of what it means to be human.
If there was such an argument why couldn't it be made by witness on the stand? Who would refer to you know, actual evidence?
Also, the constant reference to the Netherlands marriage rates. Causation and correlation. There is no way any causal link can be made. The long term trends make such a conclusion impossible. Eurostat has all the info. I've reveiwed in detail. A bogus claim. As the claim that Spanish rates dropping is linked to equal marriage.
bman, it appears you never once read the transcripts of the Prop 8 trial. To rely on media (your bias) reports is simply not enough. Three witnesses with no strength in testimony and a lawyer who just fell flat won't win an argument. SCOTUS must deal with the trial testimony. No way around it. And, of course, one of the three witnesses has changed his tune.
That sounds like someone who stopped reading at the table of contents!
At the very least, you should read the description of how Walker misrepresented Cooper.
I think Cooper should have taken the trial seriously, and offered expert witnesses. Sure, he had an uphill climb, since equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians is good for society and children being raised by gays and lesbians. Cooper should have addressed why he thinks some children should be raised outside of wedlock.
bman, thanks for sharing that document. Good stuff! I typed a longer comment, but it's in NOM Blog Land.
That was not a valid reason to stop reading.
The FoxNews reference simply confirms attorney Ted Olson made the following comment to the media.
Walker made virtually the same statement in the final court opinion,
The media has repeatedly portrayed the case that same way, even as you do in your comment below:
And so, you, the media, Olson, and Walker are all on the same page, and all saying the same thing.
It misrepresents Copper's actual words, however, and wrongly gives the appearance of mishandling the case.
The link I gave explains how and why you are all misrepresenting Cooper.
Its worth reading.
If you wish to counter Whelan's brief afterwards on some specific statement or some part of the transcript I would be glad to address such objections .
Spelling Correction: It misrepresents [Cooper's] actual words, however, and wrongly gives the appearance of mishandling the case.
Richard, will you, here, defend the imposition of SSM?
Pick your single best best example of the state-level revision to marriage law that enables SSM-as-marriage. Defend it here in an exchange of comments. Or drop it.
First bman, tell us you have read Walker's findings. Tell us you have read the trial transcripts. Millions have and the testimony speaks for itself.
Chairm, your question and request continue to obscure salient points. But I will attempt none-the-less.
Question 1: Will I defend the "imposition" of SSM.
Answer: SCOTUS will, in effect, do this. (See second response.)
Request: pick your best best example of the state-level revision to marriage law that enables SSM-as-marriage.
Answer: oh, this is easy, the best best example of state-level enhancement (my preferred predicate) to marriage law is in my own State of Maine. Of course I'm also partial to NH, VT, MA, CT, NY, MD, D.C., IA and WA. Now, do I need to defend the law? Not really, the law exists. The onus is on you to argue it. SCOTUS must now find that DOMA is unconstitutional for obvious reasons.
Change predicate to noun
Chairm, "the horse is out of the barn" to employ an overly used cliche'. The need to defend that which already exists is not the responsibility of those who enjoy "that". Yet, in the interest of continued exchanges, I'll offer this: gay couples exist. Marriage exists. Marriage for gay couples exists.
You are not doing well on logic skills.
An appeal to "they say" is not a valid argument.
Logic books list that as "pseudo-reasoning."
Stop pointing to the bandwagon.
Deal with the specific facts in Ed Whelans' Court Brief.
It compares the ruling against the transcript and successfully proves Walker misrepresented Cooper.
If you want to make a valid counter argument to it, you will need to quote something from it, the ruling, or the transcript.
Well, Richard, you dodged.
The imposition of SSM in Maine is justified because ... ?
Whether or not it exists is not the question here. Does it exist justly or not, that is the question.
Do not mistake process for content. Defend your agreement with the imposition of SSM in Maine. Or concede that your support of it is arbitrary and the imposition itself is arbitrary. This is the groundwork upon which your anti-DOMA view depends. Your view, Richard, is what we are discussing, as per your open invitation.
If you hold a view that you can not defend, okay, just say so. Leave the substantive discussion to other SSMers who might be more competent at stating and defending their views. But your certitude and your credibility was placed on the line by your own comments at this blogsite. Holding your view of SSM is one thing and defending it is another, it seems, according to your own stated position.
Paul Mc, we could discuss the evidence from The Netherlands, however, your strawman regarding causation is just spin. Had you really understood the social-scientific evidence from the Dutch context, then, you would not have brought up the strawman. But you did. And that undermines the various social-scientif claims made by SSMers.
It is common for SSMers to undermine their own rhetoric and argumentation. That is the problem they think is patched-over with political spin such as the kind you resorted to immediately.
Paul Mc claimed that at the Walker trial "evidence of imutability was absent."
That is false. The SSM side brought in their own expert witness whose testimony confounded the claimed immutability.
Besides gay is a socio-political identity. No such group identity is unchangeable.
Further, there is no gay criterion for ineligibility to form the union of husband and wife. And no gay requirement for those who'd SSM. See Richard's comment above (and other just like it from many Pro-SSM commenters, such as yourself Paul Mc) who have vociferously insisted that the lack of a legal requirement is decisive; gay cannot be a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility and ineligibility.
You can't complain against marriage law just because it exists. Richard said so.
Oh Professor Chairm, your sleight of hand is now revealed. The existence of gay marriage, while highly offensive to you, is readily ignored in favor of an apparent overwhelming need on your part to question that which led to the existence in the first place. Well, here it is, 53% of Maine's voters agreed that gay marriage should be a legal right for gay couples. Since there are gay couples that exist in Maine and since we believe that we meet the requirements for marriage in Maine, 53% of Maine's citizens likewise agreed and determined that justice would be served if Maine gay couples were allowed to be married. There is no other way to look at this other than "it was justly served".
And, Chairm, I happen to be one of the 53%.
Chairm, "gay cannot be a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility and ineligibility." Do you think that the voters in ME, MD and WA, cast their votes in favor of something other than the right of gay couples to marry? Please explain.
R. (Ridiculous) Richard: I knew it.
Question: "Will you defend the "imposition" of SSM." "Answer: SCOTUS will, in effect, do this."
In effect? No. Not 'in effect'. SCOTUS will take briefs for the defense of SSm, read some, discuss it internally, and rule - no doubt about it.
The question is well-posed. Richard is just terrified of it. . .
It's dumb to second-guess SCOTUS, as i already suggested, but Richard insists we should all play "Justice", the new on-line game for the uninitiated.
And another case of loose English, Richard states: "53% of Maine's citizens likewise agreed ".
Not so, because not all citizens of Maine voted. Simply a mathematical exaggeration. Richard begins on a false premise. Typical of SSmers. They need something false, just to begin arguing.
Little Man. Calm down. That you choose not to be interested in what SCOTUS deliberates is of no concern to others. Many are interested and there are many blog posts to that effect all over the Internet.
Your point re: "terrified" is silly, especially since I have no idea to what you refer. And let me add a clarifying relative clause to help you calm down, 53% of Maine's voters (who voted)...better?
Chairm and Little Man, in anticipation of the two of you politely requesting, once again, that I defend your expression "the imposition of SSM in Maine" I would have to change the verb because "imposition" simply does not apply. 53% of those who voted, voted freely for SSM. It would be more accurate to say, "the reality of SSM in Maine". Since we are discussing semantics, I'm interested: please defend your use of "imposition". I simply can't do it.
The existence of "gay marriage" is offensive to justice and to reason. Your own comments are illustrating this much.
You still have not justified what you demand be imposed on society. You are at war with your own insistence that the marriage law must be justified and must not be arbitrary.
Hey Richard: First of all, calm down.
I am indeed interested in what SCOTUS deliberates, but not in what you deliberate about SCOTUS. You can't seem to be able to keep similar concepts from merging into one. Is that a syndrome of sexual orientation?
My complaint to you was in your use of Math, claiming that 53% of Maine citizens voted for SSm. I just didn't expect it from a Math teacher. So, maybe I should say: "Get a bit more excited so you can think clearly." Not "Calm down".
If it is unjustified, and you have failed to offer sound reasoning that would justify it, then, entrenching SSM into law -- especially into marriage law -- is an imposition even if it was imposed by a majority was greater than the 53% you claimed. That is the point, is it not, of taking the majority-supported-decision of CA voters to court; that is the point, is it not, of the MA legislature refusing to allow a direct vote on SSM in that state. Please, if you are going to invoke a standard, live by that standard throughout your rhetoric and argumentation or simply admit that for you the rule against contradiction is not a rule of argumentation that applies to your special pleading here.
Richard then asked: "Do you think that the voters in ME, MD and WA, cast their votes in favor of something other than the right of gay couples to marry?"
Yes, they voted for a specious substitution for marriage. They voted for the supremacy of gay identity politics over and above marriage. They erred.
How do I know this? Well, the arguments used in those places for this imposition are the same arguments, such as they are, that SSMers have used far and wide. Just like you, none of these advocates have managed to justify special treatment for the gay subset of the one-sexed portion of the types of relationships that populate the wide-ranging non-marriage category.
So it goes back, again, to the essential(s) of the type of relationship that you have in mind, Richard, when you argue your viewpoint. Some people are fooled, sure, just as some people supported the supremacy of white identity politics being pressed into marriage law.
Apart from your gay emphasis, which you have yet to explain much less to justify, why might a society impose the SSM idea in place of the marriage idea, do you think?
The marriage idea: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.
The third item is not a repetition of the first two, because a coherent whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society. It is not owned nor is it created by Government -- in whatever form and in whatever branch you might favor, in ad hoc fashion, in your rhetoric, Richard.
Also, marriage has a special status for special reason. That reason is the societal regard for what makes marriage, marriage. Its essentials. The marriage idea encapsulates these essentials and is expressed in our laws governing marriage and marital status. This is a preferential status for a special idea that has great societal significance.
The SSM idea is a rejection of all that. It is instead a specious substitution that offers no justification for special status and no justification for delimiting that status to this or that type of relationship. It is pressed onto society with a distinct arbitrariness that sets Government against civil society -- our liberties and our ordered common good.
Nothing you have offered, Richard, reaches the level of societal significance of the marriage idea. You do need to do much better than flying off the handle in an ill-tempered reaction to being held accountable on the most basic of lawmaking tasks.
Richard said this is what led to the existence of the SSM imposition in Maine: "53% of Maine's voters agreed that gay marriage should be a legal right for gay couples."
The revised law does not have a gay requirement for those who show up to SSM. The revision abolished the bride-and-groom requirement. What was put in its place? If you walk through this imposition, you will readily recognize the flaws that directly transgress the standards invoked by SSM argumentation that attacks the bride-and-groom requirement.
Anyway, the principle of majority rule was directly transgressed in other states where SSM was imposed. Yet they got on your favored list somehow.
Justification, Richard, applies to the exercise of governmental power wherever and however it is exercised.
Second-guessing SCOTUS is dumb. And it's exactly my point that many people are indeed interested in doing just that. It's too late to do anything about it, and reading amicus briefs doesn't change anything. It's out of our hands. It is even out of the President's hand.
It's not like in one's State, where SSm is being debated, and it makes sense to fulfill our duty to vote in as informed way as we can.
Richard, if you are so interested, go ahead and read the briefs per the 2 SSm cases before SCOTUS. Your copped out default is to tell people to read all the testimonies and briefs, when you cannot answer with clear logic. All we have to do is wait for SCOTUS to rule, while we work at the State level against SSm 'imposition' through sentimental arguments.
Returning to Math, I offer a riddle:
In the SSm 'right' side of history,
what comes after 9?
Chairm,
Thank you for your defense of marriage on this blog. If you have the time, could you explain the third aspect of marriage: "these combined as a coherent whole"? I'm a fan of your comments, but I haven't yet grasped that part of the argument after reading it on other occasions. I would like to understand that component fully.
Thanks
Me too, Chairm. Interested like Ash is.
Chairm, the most I can deduce from your posts is that you have a conception of what constitutes marriage. Welcome to it but understand that your definition is at odds with 9 states and counting and millions of Americans. That gay marriage exists and is legal is anathema to you. So be it. Your interpretation of the current meaning of marriage is yours but not shared by others. Your arguments are yours. My arguments are mine: we are gay, gay couples meet requirements for civil marriage, civil marriage for gays is available in nine states and counting, toss the rice.
Little Man, not a math teacher and I don't know from where you got that idea. Regarding SCOTUS: then don't think about it. The fact that many do should be of no concern to you. However, you seem quite clear that my logic (probably everyone's ) is not clear. Well, how would you know?
Chairm, just reread this comment of yours: "the principle of majority rules was directly transgressed in other states where SSM was imposed". Do you believe that interracial marriage "was imposed" in contradiction to the rule of the majority? Well, it was by a particular set of laws commonly referred to as the Constitution. So, imposition can be a good thing when it is in defense of the rights of a minority. Maine, MD and WA were ahead of the curve; no imposition necessary.
Ash, thanks. I will tart with marriage as a social institution.
A social insitution is not just a bunch of half-hazard bits and pieces. It does have constituent parts --- essentials -- which together multiply the significancce of each part.
It is the difference between a pile of leggo blocks and the edifice one might build with the blocks. For instance, build a bridge and to understand the role or significance of an individual block in the whole, one needs to view the bridge and so view the block as a component of that bridge. It makes little sense to imagine the bridge as a random heap of blocks. The bridge is not this or that block.
How do the blocks come together to form a social institution? Well, we look at the whole and consider its impact on each constituent part. Does the whole address a societal problem or need? Is each part more potent and more influential (regarding that problem or need) when combined with the other parts?
From this view of the whole we can better discern what is essential and what is nearly essential and what is variable and what is extrinsic and not essential.
The authentic anthropological record and historical record is illustrative of marriage as a social institution. Basically, men and women have enter marriage together rather than as seperate individuals. Together in the obvious sense of complementary twosomes. But also in the sense of of the wider community. We are all in this together and each of us has a stake in it. Not just the individual but the individual block as part of something bigger than himself.
More later. But ask for clarification, if needed.
Richard, you pose as one in disagreement with me. However, you have not cleary stated the substance of your disagreement with what have actually said.
Can the law get marriage wrong? Yep, on this point we seem to agree.
Is it just when marriage law gets marriage wrong? No, it is unjust. N that we'd agree, yes?
So the crix of the matter is your answer to the question asked of your a few times but with no response, what essential(s) make marriage, marriage.
Your comment about majority rule and the racist bn on some marriages strongly suggests that you do not really believe that the majority always gets marriage right. Further, it suggests that you understand my points about consistency.
The supremacy of identity politics is unjustly pessed into marriage law by both the racist banners and the SSM imposers whose gay identity politics is center stage.
If you think that there is such a thing as «inter-racial» marriage, do you say so based on racist criteria? For my part, there is one human race. There is n such thing as subspecies of humankind nor is there «inter-racial» marriage. Racism exists, yes, but that is a flaw extrinsic to the mariage idea.
Unfortunately, the racist notion is of great importance to your promotion of the segregative type of relationship you have in mind for SSM.
The marital typeof relationship is integrative in precisely the ways n which SSM is definitely segregative.
Apologies for those typos.
You have not clearly stated the substance...
... with what I have actually said ...
... When the law gets marriage wrong, is it just?
... On that we'd agree, yes? ...
... the crux of the matter ...
... racist ban ...
... unjustly pressed ...
"What essentials make marriage, marriage"?
Civil (Maine) requirements: photo ID, certified copy of divorce (if necessary), must be over 18 (unless with parent or parent/judicial consent), no blood test required, 40.00.
Presumed (but not law): love, honor, cherish unto death, fealty, respect, sharing and a duty to love and care for any children which which a couple is blessed.
Chairm, These seem pretty essential. What would you add?
Furthermore: (Maine law) Prohibitions to marriage exist with respect to consanguinity. This list is lengthy so check it out on Maine gov. Web-site. If pets were people they would be on the list, too.
Maine civil marriage law had it wrong, with respect to gay couples. Maine citizens voted to correct the Maine civil marriage law. This is justice.
Finally, race exists. Marriage between two people of a different race can be defined as interracial marriage. But, like you, I choose to think of them as a part of humanity and...married. Heterosexual and homosexual exist. Heterosexuals can marry heterosexuals and it is called marriage. Homosexuals can marry homosexuals and it is called marriage. So I like your train of thought. Let's just refer to them as married. Is this the agreement between us to which you refer?
No, regarding: "Heterosexual and homosexual exist."
Show me, scientifically. You make a scientific statement, therefore it must be based on scientific evidence.
All of Richard's arguments are based on this premise. But that premise has not been established, first, scientifically. It is not that you are illogical, Richard. You and i just don't agree on your premise(s).
Without agreeing on premises, discussion is fruitless. I would challenge you on your premises, but you are not a scientist. So i refer you to the literature on this topic.
Richard: Define race scientifically. (You can't).
And, by the way, Loving vs. Virginia, which you like so much to quote, was not about discriminating against non-White races. It did not prohibit Asians to marry Whites in Virginia, nor inter-racial marriage in general. It was about pointing out two discernible races (before they became mixed) which were not allowed to inter-marry, to avoid mixing, which would begin to erase the two discernible races. And it had everything to do with marriage between a man and a woman, in spite of trying to keep slave descendants as distinct.
Richard, you did not answer the query. You did make comments in reaction but you failed to respond to what was asked.
Before the law enters the picture, marriage is a type of relationship for which the marriage law is written.
You got this upside-down. I'll illustrate this in subsequent comments.
Little Man, you do not recognize the existence of homosexuality. As you say, discussion, then, is probably fruitless. So be it.
Chairm, if I posted the presumed essentials first and legal requirements second would that satisfy you. You repeatedly defer to your stock response: "didn't answer the question" when what you really mean is, your answer is not what I want. Then tell us. What are the essentials? If I don't agree with you it will probably be because they do not exist in law and are, legally, inconsequential. I work with reality, you work with wishful thinking. I'm sure you've heard, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
@Richard,
Bastardizing words so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity does not qualify as "work in reality."
I mean you actually seem to believe that SCOTUS agreed to hear appeals to lower court rulings you agree with because SCOTUS also agrees with said rulings.
Seriously...?
I got Richard to agree with me - no more dodging! In Italian: Finito.
Richard my previous remark was not about the sequence in which you listed your items. But I think you are shrewd enough to have understood that anyway.
As for the items you listed regarding the SSM imposition, none of them are essentials of the marital type of relationship -- nor of SSM, it turns out.
More in bit.
Photo ID? Of the relationship? Nope.
Certification of divorce is not an essential feature of the relationship type. The relationship is not 18 years old. And it is not $40. And it is not a blood test.
You had two parts to your reply to my query. The first part was about superficial regulatory protocols that you acknowledged are not essential.
So those were not essentials of the type of relationship. They are extrinsic.
You acknowledged (in brackets) that certification of divorce is not an essential. If it was, then, lots of people who had never married and divorced would always remain ineligible; and that would eventually dwindle newlyweds to zero.
You also acknowledged (in brackets) that the age of 18 is not an essential. You listed a nominal fee ($40) but that is an administrative add-on to cover the paperwork for this type of relationship.
And you expressly listed "no blood test required" in your list of supposed essentials. Heh. There are other non-required tests for those who'd SSM -- such as for gay identity and for same-sex sexual attraction. Maybe these legal non-requirements are also legal essentials somehow? Nope. You just padded your list in an amusing way.
So legal non-requirements make it on your list of essentials along with legal requirements that are not essential nor are they essentials of the type of relationship you have in mind for SSM.
Your confused argumentation is thus on display and on the record.
Rather than go on and on about layers of mere protocols and legalisms all of which are non-essentials, dig down to the type of relationship you have in mind that is one-sexed but which you feel merits special treatment over and above the rest of the types of one-sexed relationships. Distinguish your favored type by its essentials. Then the law might enter the picture in some way justified by those essentials.
If not you, Richard, perhaps another SSMer can do a better job of making the argument here.
Richard and Paul MC,
Still waiting for you to make a valid counter argument to Ed Whelan's Court Brief.
Using the court transcript, Mr. Whelan proves Walker misrepresented Cooper various times.
Chairm, read post # 65 once again. All that I, a gay man, needs to accomplish, in order to marry in Maine, is listed there. Some are required (legally essential) some are personal (essential to me). If ever there was a confused argument it is yours. Your responses just don't correlate to what I and others post. I am beginning to wonder if you can read.
Too cruel, I had a response to bman...let's try this. Proponents set up almost the entirety of their case on the presumed principle that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation. Fact: no state requires the willingness or ability of anyone to procreate in order to get married.
Try again: simply, there was no testimony to back up supposed evidence. The author of this brief was sent in to clean up a huge mess. The tone is cleverly infused to add weight to what I see is a desperate plea.
True on both points but the points are not incompatible with each other.
By analogy, the public purpose of [a fishing license] is to enforce responsible [fish catching].
Yet, states do not test [the willingness or ability to catch fish] in order to get [a fishing license.]
The lack of a fish-catching requirement is irrelevant to whether a fish-catching purpose exists.
This is because [the right to catch fish] is conferred or recognized with a fishing license, not [a requirement to catch fish].
The same analogy applies to other things like registering a car. You might never drive a car on the road once its registered, but the public purpose of a car registration is for society to manage cars that use the public roads.
Marriage is similar to that.
The public purpose of marriage law is to formally recognize the right of a couple to procreate with each other and to restrict any right of the couple to have sex with other partners.
If an OS couple does not intend to procreate or is infertile, their right to do so exclusively with each other, and none else, remains recognized by law.
Marriage law creates a legal environment designed to promote responsible procreation between OS couples, therefore.
The lack of a procreation test does not change that fact.
That's like saying Cooper made a huge mess because Walker misrepresented him.
The author of the brief, Ed Whelan, proves Walker created the impression of a huge mess by misrepresenting Cooper.
Ed Whelan successively cleaned that mess up.
Correction: Ed Whelan [successfully] cleaned that mess up.
You said: "[1] Some are required (legally essential) [2] some are personal (essential to me)."
I itemized the two parts of your recent statement.
[1] Your own description of these tells readers that those items are not essentials of the type of relationship you had in mind.
You have now conceded that legal requirements -- such as those you now list and have amply bonded your argumentation to -- are not definitive of the type of relationship that SSM is intended for. The example of the Photo ID suffices as an obvious example. The example of the non-required blood test adds to the absurdity of your list of non-essentials.
[2] That some on your list of items are personal demonstrates that these are not essential to the type of relationship you had in mind.
Your own private rulebook does not substitute for the public law. This is not your private rule book.
Anyway, Richard, you cited stuff that are normative due to the marriage idea but do not arise from the SSM idea.
This reinforces the point that marriage is a coherent whole -- a social institution into which people enter and not something that is decided on a one-case-at-a-time basis nor on an ad hoc basis by Government.
Hence marriage law is for the type of relationship that unites husband and wife, It is not for non-marriage.
Sure, where SSM has been imposed (and it can be imposed only arbitrarily as your remarks have demonstrated) marriage law has been put to misuse by treating a subset of non-marriage as superior to the rest of non-marriage.
Your gay emphasis does not even rank as content in the SSM law. Why is that, do you think? Too personal to be public or somesuch? How contradictory.
Too long. I search for some sense in what you post and I just don't see it. Maybe others do. Let's try this. First CLEARLY explain what you mean in your very last sentence. Then, please clarify for me, clearly again, what is the existing marriage law in Maine. Please just address those two questions for now. Thank you.
The two briefs successfully argued It was unnecessary for the court to presume animus on the part of voters.
bman, please clarify. I looked back at earlier posts but. I suspect, you refer to post #5. To what two briefs do you refer and what do they argue?
bman, more specifically give us the quotes that "successfully argue [I]t was unnecessary for the court to presume animus on the part of voters". And please name the briefs.
I had responded to your post #10 with excerpts from the brief by Judge Ress.
Judge Ress stated:
Thus, the international consensus views it sound policy to reserve marriage to OS couples and use other legal mechanisms to handle SS couples.
He then adds,
Next, he explains how this applies to prop 8 voters:
In other words, since its sound policy and not animus for international governments, its unnecessary to presume animus motivated by prop 8 voters.
correction: In other words, since its sound policy and not animus for international governments, its unnecessary to presume animus motivated [] prop 8 voters.
I would argue mightily that "international consensus" is impossible to gauge especially in light of the number of countries who celebrate gay marriage. But, the fault in your argument is that Prop 8 is a state issue before SCOTUS. The Court must consider only the testimony at trial and findings of fact by judicial determination. No government interest was presented as a viable reason for Prop 8. And government won't defend it. The court was left to preclude animus as the reason. Judge Ress is trying to divert attention with unsubstantiated statements and the meaningless word: overwhelming.
Upon further reading of your post, Judge Ress appears to be almost pleading to SCOTUS for a favorable ruling and offers conciliatory (and racist by the way) suggestions that separate is equal. We know, from history, how popular that argument is.
A consensus would be a simple majority, which is not impossible to gauge.
Further, your claim is speculative so it would not outweigh the credentials Judge Ress brings to the table.
Here are the credentials listed in the brief:
Judge Ress's brief logically prevails against your statement, therefore.
Please cite references for that.
In the meantime, a lawyer quoted in the LA Times said SCOTUS is free to decide that itself.
The numbers are specifically detailed in this [third] brief
Brief of International Jurists and Academics
Excerpt:
The international consensus has 180 nations reserving marriage to OS couples, and only 12 nations that permit SSM.
Per the Becket Fund Brief, its rational for voters to believe SSm law would threaten religious freedom.
Once again we find it was unnecessary for the court to presume animus on the part of the voters since various rational arguments were available to the voters.
Other arguments available to voters were cited in the brief submitted by the Foundation For Moral Law
One example they gave was, "If two men can be joined together in marriage why not three...?"
Another is that voters rationally believed the California Supreme Court had mistakenly interpreted their constitution and so voters clarified their constitution to correct the Court's mistake.
Judge N.R. Smith also chided the court for declaring animus. In his dissent he said the burden of proof was on the court to rule out every reasonable argument before it could declare animus; something the court failed to do.
In sum, many rational arguments were available to the voters.
It was never necessary for the court to presume animus.
Richard is mistaken to claim that "The Court must consider only the testimony at trial and findings of fact by judicial determination."
The 9th Circuit, on appeal, did not feel compelled to consider only oral testimony; it did not feel compelled to limit its deliberation to supposed findings of Walker.
So why Richard imagines that the higher court of appeal must do what the lower court did not, well, that is for Richard to explain.
Consider? Perhaps. But readers might ask if the lower courts must consider -- as binding -- the precedence set by the higher court(s). The answer is, yes. Richard has exposed himself as a purveyor of ill-informed opinion and the writer of incompetent comments on the this federal case.
Chairm->Richard...purveyor of ill-informed opinion..
Correct and eloquently phrased!