Dear Friends of Marriage,
Does the Republican Party in New York want to commit political suicide? Is the national party going to help them?
ACTION ALERT! Go right now and tell GOP chief Michael Steele: No backroom deals promoting pro-gay marriage politicians to Congress! Not without GOP voters' consent!
Here's the background:
New York's 23rd Congressional district has a special election. NY 23 is what Manhattanites would think of as "way upstate NY"--the northeastern corner. The sitting Congressman, John McHugh, is a Republican whom Obama just named to be Secretary of the Army.
We are talking solid GOP territory. But for some reason (a deal with Tim Gill?) some New York Republican leaders decided that out of all the people they could choose to carry the GOP flag, they would pick Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, one of the very, very few Republicans who have ever actually voted for gay marriage. (Oh, and she's pro-abortion too, naturally.) This makes the New York Daily News describe her as a "moderate" Republican. But really, is "moderate" the word for a GOP politician who passionately advocates for gay marriage as a "civil right"? (Fight back by donating to NOM's New York PAC!)
Think about what a coup this would be for the Tim Gill/Ted Olson/Steve Schmidt wing of the GOP: The first GOP congressperson elected in the Obama era is a zealously pro-gay-marriage Republican! This would be breaking new ground for the gay-marriage movement. And Dede? She'd be a guaranteed media star! All of this is part of a deliberate, Gill-crafted new strategy to try to make it appear that opposition to gay marriage has crumbled.
But it's not true!
Nine NY Conservative Party committee chairmen have just sent a letter to GOP chief Michael Steele, begging him to reconsider this appointment: "But Ms. Scozzafava stood out as the least likely to reflect the principles we stand on based on her 15% conservative voting rating for 2008. There are many Democrats that exceed her 15% rating." The Conservative Party nominated Doug Hoffman, a strongly pro-life and pro-marriage voice, so that voters in the 23rd district will have a choice, not an echo.
Michael Steele really has a problem on his hands.
Because meanwhile Democrats, sensing a big opportunity, have nominated Plattsburgh attorney Bill Owens, who has been a registered independent and just told North County Public Radio that he opposes gay marriage.
Dede Scozzafava will let the Democrats get to the right of the GOP in a solid Republican district. And meanwhile, she will face an aggressive campaign from her right by a true social conservative champion, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
The special election has been postponed until (most likely) November. Will GOP leaders take this chance to rethink this voluntarily self-inflicted wound? Take action and fight back: Send a message to Michael Steele and local GOP leaders that our voices and our values cannot be ignored!
Of course, in a primary, Dede Scozzafava would have as much right as the next Republican to become the nominee. But what kind of backroom, cigar-chomping, Albany deal-making line of thinking made local New York leaders decide it was a great idea to promote a gay-marriage supporter for national office? (Fight back against out-of-control politicians who ignore the people's priorities--send a message to Michael Steele!)
More news: This Sunday NOM president Maggie Gallagher will be speaking at the first annual Celebrate Marriage and Family Day sponsored by our Rhode Island chapter. This day is not intended to be a political event; it's an opportunity for husbands and wives and their families to come together for an ice-cream social, listen to a nationally-recognized Christian band, renew their vows with pastors standing by, and celebrate the vision of marriage as the union of husband and wife.
But when gay-marriage advocates found out, what did they do? They organized a boycott against a company that donated a few hundred cups of coffee to the event. All Canadian media was agog! Give coffee to bigots!?! (Translation: by "bigot" they mean people like you and me and the majority of Americans, who support and promote marriage as a union of husband and wife.) On the one hand this kind of thing is small potatoes, more bemusing than outraging. I mean, just Google "Chris Plante"--our capable NOM Rhode Island executive director--and see all the news headlines from Vancouver to London. It's a little silly really.
Then again, here's what I keep wondering: What kind of movement would threaten to hurt people's jobs for a few cups of coffee donated to an event to celebrate traditional marriage?
We expect a great event on the beautiful Narragansett Bay on Sunday. But for people who think gay marriage is just about helping two individuals lead their own private lives the way they choose, this kind of thing is a real eye-opener, isn't it? If gay-marriage advocates act this way while marriage in Rhode Island remains a union of husband and wife, how will they treat traditional faith communities and other marriage supporters, if they succeed in getting the power of the law on their side?
Hmm, maybe the way the gay press treats Sen. Rick Santorum right now? As you can read below in "NOM in the News," the gay press is going bananas because Sen. Santorum, the stalwart supporter of marriage and life, has signed a letter for NOM asking Americans to help us in this fight to protect marriage and religious liberty. You probably received Rick's stirring letter in the mail. (Stand with Rick in NOM's fight for marriage. Can you give $5, $50, or even $500 to protect God's truth about marriage?)
You can also see a few samples of the media coverage of NOM Rhode Island's celebration, and, best of all, a new essay by NOM Chairman Robby George (one of the nation's premier natural-law philosophers) in the current issue of First Things.
Thanks again for your help. We are going to do something that has never been done before. We are going to show the powerful people that they cannot just roll over us to get what they want. Marriage is not a partisan issue. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about doing what is right, and making our values count.
Warm regards,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
P.S. Pass this email on to two friends right now--ask them to go here to make our voices and our values heard! Alone they can isolate and intimidate us. Together we can create an army of Americans willing to stand for truth and liberty in defense of marriage!
NOM FEATURED ESSAY
NOM Chairman Prof. Robby George on "What Marriage Is--And What It Isn't":
America's premier natural law philosopher, Princeton professor and Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, in the latest issue of First Things. Excerpt:
"Even adultery is unproblematic under the lifestyle-liberal conception of marriage if, as in so-called open marriages, there is no deception of a spouse involved. Indeed, under the lifestyle-liberal conception, as defended by Elliston and many others, it is impossible to identify any reason--there are only subjective preferences--for spouses to demand fidelity of each other. Why should they 'forsake all others'? What is the point of sexual fidelity? There is no reason, strictly speaking, not to have an 'open marriage'--only emotions that some people happen to have and others happen not to have. ...Thus Andrew Sullivan, who once framed his case for altering the traditional understanding of marriage in conservative terms, now finds himself affirming the 'beauty' and even 'spirituality' of anonymous sex--sex among partners who do not even identify themselves to each other by name."
Read more here! And help us fight for the truth about marriage by contributing to NOM--your donations make a difference!
NOM in the News Aug. 10-14
"NOM: Tim Hortons Pullout Is 'Sorrowful'"
Advocate.com
August 10, 2009
After outrage that Canadian coffee and bakeshop Tim Hortons was slated to sponsor a "traditional marriage" event by the National Organization for Marriage, the company has pulled out of the deal.
NOM Rhode Island's Chris Plante interviewed
WPRO
August 12, 2009
Click here to listen.
"Rick Santorum Dips Anti-LGBT Toes into 2012 Presidential Campaign"
Change.org
August 11, 2009
Return of the Rick. A few weeks ago, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum -- a long a culture warrior on the anti-LGBT front -- sent a fundraising message on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, pleading with people to preserve and strengthen the Defense of Marriage Act. For Santorum, now a political pundit and lawyer, it was a trip back into the right-wing political playbook that made him so famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) during his career in Congress.
"Davis: The Time To Start Mocking Rick Santorum Is Now"
365Gay.com
August 12, 2009
Oh, Goody. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is back.
27 Comments
“Even adultery is unproblematic under the lifestyle-liberal conception of marriage if, as in so-called open marriages, there is no deception of a spouse involved. Indeed, under the lifestyle-liberal conception, as defended by Elliston and many others, it is impossible to identify any reason–there are only subjective preferences–for spouses to demand fidelity of each other. Why should they ‘forsake all others’? What is the point of sexual fidelity?”
I think there is great reason to have sexual fidelity with a partner but adultery has become so widespread, especially among conservatives, that it’s probably time to just accept the reality: partnered people are likely to cheat. We’ve already decriminalized adultery and certainly no one wants to outlaw divorce, the great Satanic enemy of marriage. Yet oddly, same-sex marriage must be outlawed, according to some folks. Odd.
Kevin,
Regardless of what the article is about, you always seem to dredge up the same ol' same ol'. Whether it be the triumvirate of adultery, divorce, or children, you are never at a loss for words. Your passion is commendable.
I do have a couple of questions, though. Should there be a distinction in who commits adultery whether they be "liberal or conservative?" If so, why? Also, if "partnered people are likely to cheat," according to you, are you suggesting that that is a possibility even in a SS couple or is this only problematic amongst OSM couples? I thought that "SSM" was the cure all for the ills of OSM. Surely, "SSM" won't encounter the same perils as OSM. Or am I mistaken?
I leave dredging for NOM and Chairm. They're much better at it than I, Nicholas.
Fake indignance over adultery, and then blaming liberals, is just as ridiculous as NOM saying it stands for marriage, when in fact it is against same-sex marriage. Up is down, left is right, and the Queen of Hearts will walk through the looking glass at any moment.
But please, feel free to give me your thoughts on the virtues of denying children the security of having married parents, and how it's ok to rave about marriage's many benefits, including longer life, yet outlaw those benefits to same-sex couples. All while violating America's Constitution!
Kevin,
Need I remind you that you were the one pointing out that conservatives especially was guilty of adultery of late. I was just pointing out that neither group is without fault. In other words, adultery affects us all, it is not dependent upon political affiliation.
Again, you are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Children are the result of the union of male and female, husband and wife. You suggest that all SS couples have children, which I am sure, they do not. Even if they did, does the end justify the means? If so, then, if I am struggling to provide for my family, am I justified in stealing to make up for what I can't provide?
Lastly, do you live up to every iota of the US Constitution? Is this your guiding light? If not, then what is your basis for truth, morality, and justice?
Nicholas:
I never said that all same-sex couples have children. But many do, and I await an explanation for the diminished status of these children, denied the security that married parents provides.
I also await an explanation for why it is ok to deny same-sex couples the health and wealth benefits of marriage, as specified by NOM's Maggie Gallagher.
Kevin,
Why the need for explanation. You seem to do a good job of feeling in the blanks. Or is celebrating the uniqueness of being male and female, husband and wife, too much to ask?
Correction: filling for feeling, although, it seems to me that SSM is just that-based on feelings and nothing else.
Regardless of party, marriage is a social institution that is central to society. Politics shouldn't be trying to interfere in that.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else, is something else.
Across the country, more liberals and moderates, combined, have voted for state marriage measures than have conservatives. And more Democrats and Independents, combined, have voted in favor those measures than have Republicans.
Support for the man-woman criterion of marriage law cuts across ideology and party affiliation.
* * *
Meanwhile, neither adultery nor divorce disqualifies a voter whether that voter supports or opposes the SSM merger with marriage.
It does not disqualify a citizen from voicing an opinion, one way or the other.
Is there an SSMer who has disqualified himself based on sexual infidelity or divorce? About half of all individuals who SSM have been previously married (i.e. in husband-wife unions). Most of the children living in same-sex households are the offspring of previously procreative relationships (i.e. sexual relationships of man and woman).
Furthermore, SSM argumentation is silent on pre-marital sexual activity. That is because SSMers fear to be anything but indiscriminate when it comes to sexual morality in regard to SSM.
Indeed, Kevin has insisted that sexuality be taken out of consideration. So I anticipate his view of sexual fidelity is about subjective preferences rather than an objective societal interest in the social institution of marriage.
Mr. George referred to "the lifestyle-liberal conception, as defended by Elliston" with which there are only subjective preferences.
Kevin if you really wish to discuss the bit you quoted (you know, instead of changing the topic) please start by explaining if you believe there is objective justification for sexual fidelity as a norm of marriage.
Yes or no, why do you believe that?
You have rejected the centrality of sex integration and responsible procreation so perhaps you can plainly state the "great reason to have sexual fidelity with a partner." Apparently you think it is superior to the core meaning of marriage.
And please clarify if by "partner" you meant sexual partner. And if it makes any difference anyway if the "partnership" is actually sexualized or not. I ask because you have not provide the public sexual aspect of SSM that merits special status (marital status is a special status) much less societal interest in sexual behavior.
I am not asking about your own subjective preference, mind, but an objective basis that is of societal, rather than just private, significance.
As Mr. George noted, if those involved agree to something other than sexual monogamy, who are you to deride their personal and subjective preferences as infidelity? They'd say that they *are* being faithful -- sexual and otherwise -- and, they'd ask, who are you to push your opinion on their private choices?
Maybe you expect the government to license your version of sexual fidelity for "partners".
Or at least the judiciary might legislate it from the bench.
Or somesuch.
Chairm
In some perverse way, I admire your persistent postings of arcane, irrelevant observations. My favorite is the presumption of paternity, of course.
Again, I invite you hold yourself to a standard of persuasiveness, where the mere volume output of words is countered by how well they persuade the undecided reader.
In any event, the “presumption of paternity” may very well be an aspect of marriage, but it’s hardly the reason that someone marries, at least in this day and age. I didn’t marry in order to have fatherly dominion over whatever children my wife produced, the essence I believe of P of P. P of P is symptom of marriage, not a cause.
Here’s why people marry:
- They fall in love with someone and selfishly want that person for themselves, physically, emotionally, spiritually, legally
- They want to notify others that they are no longer available for an intimate relationship
- They want to demonstrate to their significant other their level of commitment
- They want to ensure lifelong companionship
- They want to raise children in a more secure environment and ensure that they’ll have a helpmate to assist in raising those children
- They want the specific rights and obligations the state grants to married couples
- They want the health and wealth benefits Maggie Gallagher has outlined in her articles
There’s probably other reasons (access to someone’s money, for example). Note that none of these reasons doesn’t apply equally as well for same-sex as opposite-sex couples. Marriage no longer binds couples together on the basis of procreation. There’s no longer a need to control a woman and her reproductive abilities, in order to ensure orderly transfer of a man’s property and social status.
People no longer require church approval or sanctification for marriage. Few people consider marriage a religious event, given that no questions that validity of the marriages of atheists. When was the last time you ever heard someone remark “Jim and Karen aren’t really married, since they’re non-believers.” Marriage is a state-sanctioned institution; the churches long ago surrendered whatever authority they exercised over marriage. People using religion as a validation of their marriage prejudice are not being, I believe especially honest.
The world is changing, my friend. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I don’t accept every change gladly but I’ve learned in my old age to better apply principles of fairness, honesty and respect for the law in place of my personal feelings on matters of human or civil rights.
Kevin,
Why and how is me using "religion" not a legitimate reason for opposing SSM? Regardless of why I believe what I believe, do I not have the right to voice my concern? Or should I just shut up and be let the cards fall where they may? And if I do that, won't I be a "hypocrite" then for not standing up for what I believe whatever it may be? So either way, I am in a catch 22. I choose standing up for what I believe and let God be the judge.
Kevin try to answer the question that your own previous comment raised:
I asked:
If you really wish to discuss the bit you quoted (you know, instead of changing the topic) please start by explaining if you believe there is objective justification for sexual fidelity as a norm of marriage.
Yes or no, why do you believe that?
* * *
It appears that my question was persuasive since it persuaded you to runaway from it and instead to, you know, change the topic.
Your concession is noted.
Further, ones religious beliefs in man woman marriage have been upheld as a legitimate government interest in protecting marriage and for the best interest of children.
Kevin, please plainly state what you think is the "great reason to have sexual fidelity with a partner".
What did you mean by "partner"?
* * *
Your list of "reasons people marry" does not answer the question I had asked.
But your list is full of subjective preferences.
1. "selfishly want that person for themselves"
2. "notify others that they are no longer available for an intimate relationship"
[By the way, what did you mean by "intimate"? You insisted that sexuality be taken out of consideraton.]
3. to demonstrate to their significant other their level of commitment
[Commitment to what?]
4. want to ensure lifelong companionship
[A license ensures that? You have said that divorce and adultery paved the way for SSM.]
5. want to raise children
[Can be done without a license, as you have insisted, already.]
6. want the specific rights and obligations the state grants
[Ah, the ole government licensing a license ploy, again.]
7. want the health and wealth benefits
[The magical license of a license ploy. Misrepresenting Maggie Gallagher discredits you, again.]
All told, the "I want" may be the basis for a personal choice, but your remark was about sexual fidelity and "the great reason".
If this is it, then, you have just conceded that Mr. George was correct in that bit you quoted from him.
You may want to read more carefully. It may help you from disagreeing before you realize that you do agree with what was actually said.
That's the fact, Paul, and contrary to Kevin, the centrality of responsible procreation in our legal system is expressed with the marital presumption of paternity.
The core of marriage is not arcane. Sex integration is combined with responsible procreation and it is like the hub in a wheel with the other aspects of marriage being the spokes.
The presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced and its sexual basis is well understood. It is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement -- whether or not that arrangement is sexualized.
Kevin, what is the sexual basis, if any, for SSM law?
You can't point at the sexual basis of marriage because A) you insisted that sexuality be taken out of consideration, B) you disparaged the centrality of responsible procreation, and C) you insisted on a legal requirement to determine what is and is not essential to the legal status.
So, no sexuality, no presumption of paternity, and no legal requirement that forces people who'd show-up for a license to SSM.
Speculating about personalized subjective preferences does not justify the societal preference for marriage. The state has no business licensing personalized subjective preferences. Society, through the state, licensing something.
Your failure to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage now kicks you in the butt. Likewise, your failure to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
You need more than nothing. And all you have offered so far is ... nothing but a self-inflicted butt-kicking.
Kevin your invitation to use a common standard is bogus. You keep running away from your own stated standards. It has happened so many times that it is evident that you do not hold yoursel to any of them -- that you have no standards which we could hold in common.
You waste pixels dodging rather than facing the actual disagreement on the marriage issue. You misrepresent -- either due to your incompetence or due to a deliberate tactic -- and trip over so manny errors of your own making that it has become comical to watch you clear your throat and claim to be correcting others.
Have you graduated from grade 8 social studies, yet?
Kevin said:
"I invite you hold yourself to a standard of persuasiveness [...] by how well they persuade the undecided reader."
Sure. At the outset of the contest over the CA marriage amendment, the No side had a lead of 10-15% points in the opinion polls.
They lost. We won.
Also, it a similiar pattern applies to other state marriage measures. The Yes side grew while the No side shrank. Campaigns and arguments do count for something. And single-issue campaigns focussed on the man-woman basis of marriage succeed not only with the undecided but also with those who start out favoring the SSM merger. Opinon surveys also indicate that support for SSM is much softer than support for marriage. And that's even if with questions that skew towards the SSM position.
The task for SSMers is far more difficult because their own stated standards destroy their own assertions about SSM. So your side relies more on emotivism than reason; more on identity politics than justice -- that is the theme of the SSM campaign is always "just us" and not justice.
So your challenge has been met many times both in terms of persuasion and convincing.
The statement: SSM relies more on emotivism than reason; more on identity politics than justice, is the best legal argument I've heard. This is the strongest argument yet that passes the US constitutional benchmark of equal protection and due process. We need to make sure our allies in California have this one in their back pocket.
Judicial Activism in the small minority states (that got it wrong by the way) require state constitutional amendments to make sure the will of the people prevails - in the way our government is run not the other way around. SSM proponents have not been able to show the voting public a rational argument for their position. Lets see, California, checkmate, Maine, Road Island, soon to be checkmate.. Iowa will be next when the voters have a chance to weigh in. The majority of states got it right, a few outliers that got it wrong, will soon be fixed by the voting public.
Kevin, how did they get it "right"?
You have said that the judiciary may not legislate. Well, the legisaltures in these states you cited have not changed the marriage statutes to enact a merger of SSM with marriage.
Plus, the pro-SSM opinions (the legal reasoning offered) do not support the conclusion that the courts produced.
Did you know that the Massachusetts Court, for example, did not rule that the man-woman criterion of marriage has no rational basis? They claimed that the state did not provide such a basis; of course, that's false. That court also did not say that the man-woman criterion is unjust sex discrimination -- only 1 of 7 justices asserted it was. And of the 7 justices, none decided that it was unjust sexual orientation discrimination.
The abuse of judicial review is blatant. The Massachusetts court's pro-SSM justices put the onus on the state to justify what they called a "ban"; but that conclusory rhetoric is the very opposite of the rational basis standard of judicial review. They turned constitutional jurisprudence upside down.
There was no ban on SSM in that state. But the marriage law unambiguously recognized the man-woman criterion was an essential requirement. The judiciary is not empowred to replace the clear meaning of a statute.
The court did not strike down the marriage law. It requested the Legislative Branch to change the law. That was not done. Yet somehow licenses have been issued for SSM.
To sum-up: the pro-SSM Goodridge opinion was an abuse of judicial review; its reasoning did not get marriage right.
Yet this is the most celebrated of pro-SSM cases in the USA.
Contrary to Kevin's rhetoric, state courts have demonstrated the profound flaws in the offered reasoning in these pro-SSM court opinions.
Plus those opinons failed to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
And failed, utterly, to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.
Read the dissenting opinions, also, and see for yourself how gay identity politics has been the central theme of this abuse of our judicial system.
When Kevin talks of political momentum, he demonstrates his distorted view of the judiciary.
Judges are not supposed to inject their personal policy preferences into their interpretation of the law and the constitution.
Ask yourself why restraint is a necessary requirement for the judiciary.
As Kevin said, judicial rulings cannot be changed (at least not beyond the usual path of appeal).
When it comes to changing the constitution, well, pro-SSM courts have done that, too, because it is easier than following the legitimate amending process. And because it is more difficult to correct judge-made amendments to constitutions.
The arrogance of SSMers was on full display in California where the court entertained the argument that The People could not amend their own constitution.
Indeed, the pro-SSM judges in California made both judicial and political errors.
The judicial error they refused to correct: they decreed that people who SSM'd would have marital status because the judiciary had said so. This was supposed to solve the problem the judiciary created when it did not stay its decision until after the vote on the marriage amendment.
The judiciary's political blunder was to inject itself into the amendment campaign on the No side. The two errors are joined at the hip.
Examine the CA court's pro-SSM opinion and you will find that the emphasis is on gay identity politics. Count the number of times that the word homosexual or its variants was used in the offered reasoning. It is an example of bamboozlement.
For Kevin, when judges change the constitution that's a-okay. When The People amend their constitution, that's mob-rule. At least when it comes to the SSM-merger.
This goes to show that the SSM campaign promotes a distorted view of how our government is designed. It corrupts the practice of self-government. So the damage and harm done is not just to marriage, which is of great importance, but also to governance.
Kevin, define "marriage discrimination".
Define "unconstitutional".
Explain how the judiciary's role is different from that of the two other branches of government.
Come on. Basic stuff. You seem to be confused but perhaps your answers will prove otherwise.
Chairm:
The Massachusetts court put the burden on the state to justify discriminating a specific group of people in denying marriages licenses to them. But I haven’t read that decision so I don’t know that much about it. But I do not think that marriage licenses deserve some special treatment beyond the granting of any other kind of license. If the state cannot justify discriminating against homosexuals in the granting of fishing licenses, or medical licenses, or drivers licenses, how can it justify discriminating in granting marriage licenses?
I am much more familiar with the Iowa decision, Varnum, where a unanimous court ruled that discriminating against homosexuals in the granting of marriage licenses defied the state’s guarantee of Equal Protection.
I think the states have disregarded the religious meaning of marriage, which is appropriate in a secular country. Otherwise, atheists and people of faith who are unfettered from a religious definition of marriage would be forced to abide by some religious definition of marriage. Plus, if they conformed to a religious definition of marriage, they might feel obligated to also outlaw adultery and divorce, two common practices in America, even among Christians, who are prohibited by the Bible from engaging in such activities.
Same-sex marriage is different from non-marriage in that the same-sex couple who are married have a marriage license and enjoy a variety of rights and obligations because they possess the marriage license. The unmarried same-sex couple do not possess these rights via possession of a marriage license. The same holds true for opposite-sex couples, married or unmarried.
“Judges are not supposed to inject their personal policy preferences into their interpretation of the law and the constitution.”
I believe that’s true. Judges on either side of this issue are probably guilty of this. A judge can just as easily accommodate a discriminatory marriage statute by virtue of his personal or religious beliefs.
“For Kevin, when judges change the constitution that’s a-okay. When The People amend their constitution, that’s mob-rule. At least when it comes to the SSM-merger.”
Judges can’t change constitutions, just interpret them. That’s their job and one hopes they are, and want to be, good at it. When a majority votes to strip the civil rights of a minority, especially when financed by organized religion using lies and distortions, it’s a problem. That people of faith, who are always free to practice their own faith as they see fit, seek to impose their faith on others, it creates a raft of problems: diminishment of religion generally, social discord, and of course, limits the rights of the non-believers.
Marriage discrimination is when a state denies a marriage license to a defined group of people without advancing a state interest. Ironically, denying same-sex couples marriage licenses actually undermines state interest in promoting the well-being of families and children. I think that message is starting to get out, from what I’m reading.
Unconstitutional means contrary to the intent of the constitution.
The judiciary judges the constitutionality of laws. Laws created that do not meet the standards provided in the constitution are ruled unconstitutional, and null, or if the judiciary prefers, modified to bring them into conformance with the constitution, if a clear remedy is available.
Nothing in the Constitution requires a redefinition of the traditional sacred institution of marriage, and no court has accepted a federal constitutional argument that supports this notion. The Supreme Court has indeed summarily rejected such a legal theory in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
Kevin said: "Massachusetts court put the burden on the state ..."
Four justices did so. The three justices in dissent noted that the Four had claimed to use a standard known as rational basis review. But they turned constitutional jurisprudence upside down and shifted the burden. The Four began with a predrawn conclusion and then proceeded to act against the judicial restraints in interpretation of the law: the judiciary is not empowered to rewrite an unambiguous statute.
If you are not familiar with the majority and other opinions of the justices in the Goodridge case, then, you ought not to cite it as an example making your own arguments.
The man-woman criterion does NOT use gayness in drawing lines of eligibility nor of ineligibility. Indeed, the pro-SSM justices in Goodridge failed to decide on that basis. A lot of rhetoric was tossed around, but the reasoning was poor and unsound.
This abuse of judicial review has served to misinform the discussion about SSM ever since.
* * *
The pro-SSM Iowa opinion did little better. It based its reasoning on same-sex sexual attraction and romance, of which neither are legal requirements. Yet it also attacked the centrality of responsible procreation, as have you, by claiming that legal requirements must exist for something to be the basis of the marriage law's eligiblity lines.
* * *
Pointing at the license is not sufficient, Kevin, as I have explained previously. What is being licensed? SSM. What is SSM? It is circular to say it is the license.
Name the essential legal requirements that distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. State the societal significance of the distinctive feature(s). Cite the legal requirement that makes the feature(s) the public basis for special status.
* * *
Kevin said: "A judge can just as easily accommodate a discriminatory marriage statute by virtue of his personal or religious beliefs."
So you depend on the judiciary but you say that the judges are undependable?
I think you are now trying to dodge the problem with the pro-SSM opinions by playing the game of "you too!" That is a logical fallacy, Kevin.
Abuses of judicial review are contrary to the role of the judiciary no matter the issue at stake. The Iowa pro-SSM opinion does not provide the basis for imposing an SSM merger. It reads like a stump speach for an election campaign in front of a pro-SSM audience. Even the bits you have cited make little, if any, sense in terms of the interpretation of the marriage law and the state constitution.
You say that judges can't change constitutions, but that is false. They are not supposed to do so, but the abuse of judicial review is a temptation to which many have succumbed when they feel their policy preference carries extra-judicial force. The pro-SSM opinions are classic examples of this. Ironically, this undermines whatever merit might exist in the substance of the pro-SSM political argument. Yet SSM argumentation keeps returning to only the pro-SSM opinions -- or more precisely the conclusions rather than the legal reasoning -- to assert that gay identity politics trumps the law and constitutional jurisprudence.
In this way these pro-SSM court opinions have encouraged bad habits among SSMers. You know, like citing unsound reasoning as if the judicial outcome is made more reliable by unreliable judges.
If you think that judicial restraint and the intent of the constitution is of the utmost importance, then, you ought to object to these examples of judicial over-reach.
Defending marriage is a noble cause. Attacking its core meaning, not so much.
Likewise, defending our constitutional replublican form of government is a noble cause. Discarding judicial restraint and the intent of the constitution, regardless of the strength of one's personal views on a given issue, is itself a form of unjust discrimination and an abuse of governmental authority.
The courtcentric SSM campaign has been guilty of the latter, time and time again. The legislative battles have relied heavily on the example of a handful of justices who have injected themselves into the political arena. A judge ought not to act like a legislator. Yet that is what the pro-SSM side has been depending on.
Even, as your own words illustrate, you think judges to be undependable. You see them as politicians. If they disagree with you, they must be as biased as those who agree with you, I guess. That's an example of how the judiciary has been brought under disrepute by these pro-SSM opinions (those in majority and those in minority).
The rules of interpretation, Kevin, do not permit the judiciary to rewrite a statute when that statute's intent is clear. Maybe you ought to admit that your stated standards do not apply to SSM argumentation because the SSM issue is an exception. That, or acknowledge that to abolish the man-woman criterion of marriage is beyond the judicial power.
It is even further removed from the judicial power to change the constitution to fit a judge's policy preference.
* * *
Your talk about NOM and so forth is really bogus. You should look at the millions of dollars spent in the pro-SSM campaign's propaganda machine. It is fueled by identity politics which seeks to impose a peculair sectarianism.
What you complain about is that NOM has begun to organize a national campaign that will fight the protaganists like HRC on a state-by-state basis. NOM is not imposing a religious meaningn of marriage.
You ought to stop blowing that trumpet, Kevin, because its noise is not to be mistaken for an actual bonafide argument.
* * *