- Brian Brown, President of NOM
WASHINGTON - The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) responded today to Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) as they filed a brief pretending to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“The DOJ brief amounts to collusive litigation, failing to even offer to the court, much less vigorously defend, the reasons Congress laid out in the statute when it passed DOMA—especially responsible procreation. This is an attack not only on marriage, but on the prerogatives of Congress. The Executive branch should not attempt to exercise this kind of retroactive line-item veto over a bill passed by Congress,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.
DOMA, which was passed by bipartisan majorities in 1996, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. In the statute, Congress laid out four reasons justifying this definition of marriage including “responsible procreation.” Courts in New York, Maryland and elsewhere have accepted this reason as the rational basis for marriage’s definition. The DOJ brief formally defending DOMA, pointedly and explicitly repudiates the idea that responsible procreation is a purpose of DOMA, significantly undercutting the efforts of the Congress.
“All the parties to this litigation want the court to strike down DOMA; this is clear from their behavior, no matter what President Obama and his politicized DOJ pretend to convey to the public,” said Brown, “If Obama’s DOJ had merely honestly refused to defend the law, the court would likely have permitted another party to intervene to defend the law. Obama’s DOJ is trying to retain control so it can lose this case.”
87 Comments
"DOMA, which was passed by bipartisan majorities in 1996, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as the union of one man and one woman."
So WHO is defining marriage here then? Seems to me that "defining" marriage as between a man and a woman is as much a "definition" as defining a marriage as being between 2 loving and committed individuals, say.
Whatever the state says about "marriage" is going to be a definition. And at the end of the day there is no rational ground to define it as between solely between a man and a woman, no strong reason to ban gay marriage.
And I can perhaps add that DOMA is another unconstitutional piece of legislation that will be struck down.
This is rich.
NOM has no respect for the law or for the legislative process.
Seriously. Laws get passed and you people show up with your "let the people vote" malarkey. They did vote. They elected those legislators who embraced marriage equality.
Thank you NOM for exposing this hypocrisy of the Obama administration. Obama says he supports the definition of marriage as husband and wife because he knows most people feel that way. But the fact that everything he does contradicts that really calls into question his integrity. And he is not doing his job, which is to enforce the law!
It's common sense and everybody knows that marriage means husband and wife. Thank you once again NOM for being our voice for sanity and common sense!
Alicia....GOD is the one & ONLY definer of marriage!!! HE gave us the definition right from the start with Adam & Eve!!!!!!! HE didn't take a rib & make another man...HE MADE WOMAN to be EQUAL PARTNER with Adam~~~ Anything else is an abomination in HIS eyes & should be so in ours too!!!
Joe.,
Society benefits from having two non-related consenting adults commit to a long term relationship. This forms "families" (the building block of our society) and lessons the burden on the state by providing a private safety net.
A stable family is also the best environment for raising children - that is common sense too.
For 95% of our population, a man wants to be with a woman and a woman wants to be with a man to form their family.
For 5% a woman wants to be with a woman; a man wants to be with a man.
Common sense says that stable relationships are good and our civil government encourages them by granting a "marriage licenses" which allows for 1138 different benefits and protections. There are also penalties for breaking those vows (divorce). The commitment felt by those 5% is no different than the commitment felt by the 95%.
Only our civic government issues a "marriage license" - no church can.
"Seriously. Laws get passed and you people show up with your "let the people vote" malarkey. They did vote. They elected those legislators who embraced marriage equality."
Is it possible, Auntie, that the people, when they voted for their Democratic lawmakers, didn't know the Democratic lawmakers were going to go against what they know the polls say - that most people want the reality of marriage meaning husband and wife to be reflected in the laws the people all have to live by?
The way things are set up, people can vote on the issue. You're just mad because they repeatedly vote in a way you don't like. Sore loser.
""Whatever the state says about "marriage" is going to be a definition. And at the end of the day there is no rational ground to define it as between solely between a man and a woman, no strong reason to ban gay marriage.""
Alicia, marriage means husband and wife. We don't have to "ban" homosexual marriage because there is strictly speaking no such thing.
The Defense of Marriage Act is worth defending. Our elected representatives ought to do their job and defend the people's will concerning DOMA.
What do you expect from a socialst "president"?
""And I can perhaps add that DOMA is another unconstitutional piece of legislation that will be struck down.""
What in the constitution says that marriage is defined as anything other than husband and wife?
If some liberal psycho judges finds a "penumbra" in the constitution, then we will have to amend the constitution to make it more specific. And that's exactly what we WILL do if necessary to make sure the law reflects common sense and observable reality: marriage means husband and wife!
There is absolutely NO relationship between the day to day implementation of DOMA and that the behavior of heterosexuals are somehow changed because another innocent party is discriminated against. The concept that DOMA furthers so called "responsible procreation" is nothing more than a figment of NOM's imagination, hate and bigotry.
Ms. Marie, Obama supports the repeal of DOMA and the citizens of the United States voted and Obama was elected president. He sure ought to do his job.
View Senator Robert Byrd's DOMA-sponsoring speech .
Lamar Smith courageously offered to intervene to ensure that DOMA is defended.
If elected officials always do what the people want them to do, then why do we bother with checks and balences and the seperation of powers?
"Obama’s DOJ is trying to retain control so it can lose this case."
I agree with Brian's statement here. But I want to add that I don't think this case would be winnable for traditional marriage proponents even if someone else besides the DOJ defended DOMA. DOMA prevents a whole group of people from enjoying the benefits of marriage at the federal level.
"DOMA prevents a whole group of people from enjoying the benefits of marriage at the federal level."
Like Inscestuous couples, polygamist and polymorist groups, etc. Ain't that unfair!
If this keeps up, we'll have no other choice but to pass the Federal Marriage Amendemnt.
"Like Inscestuous couples, polygamist and polymorist groups, etc. Ain't that unfair!"
What's unfair is using slippery-slope arguments that have no basis in fact, or any relationship to same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are not fighting for the right to have polygamous marriage. So who exactly are these fictional people that want "incestuous or polygamous" marriage? By the way, you forgot bestiality. There must be millions of people out there demanding to marry their cat, right?
Obviously DOMA is unconstitutional. There's no public purpose in denying federal marriage benefits to married gay people but not to married straight people.
There is no federal interest in treating legally married individuals differently. They have to either give all the same benefits to all beneficiaries, or they aren't allowed to give any benefits to anyone.
Are all of NOMs supporters willing to abolish all federally recognized marriage rights for everyone?
Everyone has equality; if you are a man, you can marry a woman, and if you are a woman you can marry a man. If you can't find someone of the opposite sex to marry, then you can't get married. Many people who prefer heterosexual sex can't get married because they can't find someone of the opposite sex to marry. Some people choose not get married at all. They don't enjoy marriage "rights." No one is entitled to marriage rights unless they marry someone of the opposite sex. Everyone, everyone is treated equally under the law.
NOM, how about what's going on in New Hampshire?
OMG, @Equa2U - Do you seriously believe that the fact that one couple can procreate and the other can't is irrelevant to our society? If it weren't for heterosexual couples the race would have died out. Without marriage of heterosexual couples, our whole country would be like the inner-city ghettos: children not knowing who their fathers are, single moms relying on the government for support, deadbeat dads....you know the story.
Mike Brooks says: "Do you seriously believe that the fact that one couple can procreate and the other can't is irrelevant to our society? If it weren't for heterosexual couples the race would have died out."
1) Of course procreation is relevant to society: it's simply not a requirement for marriage. And that's forgetting the numerous gay couples who DO procreate by various means, or who adopt and thus who should be allowed to provide a stable family to these kids.
2) Gays and lesbians won't simply turn to someone heterosexual because they can't marry, Mike. Whether or not gays and lesbians are allowed to marry will change strictly nothing to the birth rate in the US: it's another non sequitur that NOM and its supporters love to bring forth but it just doesn't work.
Alicia -
The only requirement for marriage is a man and a woman, not because they will procreate, but because that is the only combination of sexes who CAN procreate. That's it; you can argue 2+2=5 all you want, but this is the way it is; has always been.
And homosexual couples do not fit within the bounds of marriage because two men or two women can NEVER, will NEVER procreate between themselves. It's the couple's implicit procreative ability that is the difference. Society has no interest in whether two homosexuals decide to commit to one another, because they will never make a baby. In fact, whenever a homosexual couple has a child, it involves a child who has been stripped of a parent, a tragedy. Society doesn't like when tragedies are portrayed as good things; socialization causes others to emulate those tragedies, and thus, children are conceived, e.g., with the intention to strip the child of it's father or mother.
Sexuality can be taught. That's a fact. And there are (primitive) cultures that actually do teach homosexuality up to a point, then switch to teaching heterosexuality in a child's later years. Impressionable youth are often confused with their sexuality; many homosexuals will tell you that they chose homosexuality. Yes, our society could change drastically with promoting and teaching homosexuality as an acceptable, even desireable lifestyle. It's one of the reasons why many cultures outlaw homosexuality; it destroys societies.
I keep hearing the truth over and over:
"Only a man and a woman can make a baby"
Followed by the absolute incorrect statement:
Children do best when raised by the man and woman that brought them into this world.
There is not *one* *single* study that proves this and it goes against the facts out and common sense out there....
In 2007, single mom births accounted for 40% of children born - highest in history and a steadily increasing number...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29754561/ns/health-womens_health/
More than 41% of marriages end in divorce.
The studies out there prove that
* Children do best when raised in stable family environments consisting of 2 committed parents.
* That the stability of the family is more important to the child than the sex of either the spouses in the family
Any man and woman can procreate - 40% of those who do procreate do not marry; of the 60% who do marry, 40% will end in divorce.
Every family who applies for adoption through an agency undergoes a severe evaluation and must prove that they are fit to be parents.
The most common way for a same sex family to get a child is through adoption.
Common sense tells us that a same sex family is just as good of raising their child as families with spouses of opposite sex.
(Putting aside that the many benefits and protections granted with a marriage license have nothing to do with the sex of either party on the licenses; and there is no statement: "This licenses will expire in 2 years unless you produce children"...)
Alicia - Can you explain to me how the current laws in this country deny you the right to get married?
Okay, please let me try and explain why I think gay marriage will eventually become allowed federally. On a basic level, most people are fair and open-minded. While they may be preached to about what is "right" and "wrong", they also use their internal compasses to make their own decisions. Clearly, murder is wrong, and therefore, most people willingly accept the Bible's condemnation of it. HOWEVER, as generations of gay folks live their lives more openly, the people are conflicted. They adore their son/brother/sister/co-worker/aunt and understand that he/she is a wonderful, good person. They witness the love their relative/friend shares with his/her partner. Suddenly, what is being taught from the pulpit conflicts with the witnessed reality. In such situations, especially over time, the witnessed reality wins. Mike, you can spout your hate about how disgusting gay people are, but reality disproves you. And the number of people -- common and famous -- who live their lives openly is only increasing. You anti-gay folks are on the wrong side of history. There's no way your going to get loving friends and family of gays to see them as perverted and disgusting.
In 2004, it was estimated that 3 million children were being raised by families with same sex spouses.
Today it is estimated that 8 to 10 million children are being raised by those families.
These children deserve the exact same benefits and protections that "traditional" families take for granted.
Children deserve better.
Bob, you'd come across as a lot more tolerant and loving if you weren't so insistent on calling names. Mike isn't calling names, or saying anything about the person, only the behavior. It's clear. Why you choose to misunderstand is your own business, but it doesn't change common sense into hate. Kids need a mom and a dad.
Can you name one Heterosexual couple that cannot procreate because a gay couple got married??
Have you seen the anguish of a child denied access to a mom or dad simply because of some adult's whim? Now codify it into law and tell him it's equal.
No, they are fighting for a right to same-sex marriage, something not protected by the Constitution.
No marriage is protected by the Constitution. Equality and due process are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Moreover, homosexual behavior is constitutionally protected,. There is simply no rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. The raising of children by opposite sex male female couples has not increased with discriminatory bans. It is irrational thinking, that needs to be banned. As Jose said above, It is SPLC identified hate groups that need court ordered evaluations and treatment for paranoia caused by irrational sky will fall thinking.
This is nothing more than thepolitical bullcrap that has ruined America. If the ones defending DOMA can give us a reason for the out of marriage birth rate then maybe so. Talk about procreation- you should be married to procreate. Not have babies jsut to take more money from the governemnt or from agencies that help people.
Marriage should be a right for two people that love each other and have commited their lives to stay together. Another issue then would be the divorce rate. They should make divorce illegal then, but then the lawyers wouldnt be making so much money to run for political office. Just do away with marraige period, and have unions certified by the law, that all can agree too.
NOM so much reminds me of the people who used to say the world was flat.
We voted the earth is flat, so obviously it is!
I also find it funny that people who believe in God say that it is impossible for gays to have children. In a world with a God, NOTHING is impossible. If you believe in miracles and are a Christian, then your faith calls for you to believe that if God wants a gay couple to procreate children, then they will.
Reminds me of the classroom of second graders that decided the sex of a kitten through the democratic process of voting...
"What's unfair is using slippery-slope arguments that have no basis in fact, or any relationship to same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are not fighting for the right to have polygamous marriage. So who exactly are these fictional people that want "incestuous or polygamous" marriage?"
We are further down the slippery slope than you think. Just stick your head out of that bubble you are living in and take a look:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/4/anti-polygamy-law-challenged-in-canada-court/
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e20244cb-63b2-47f9-893e-390453fa5067&k=24668
But Conservative, cases have never been decided by what someone else might or might no do? Courts deal with the case in front of them. How irrational can you be?
"Moreover, homosexual behavior is constitutionally protected,."
No, it is not. No more than polygamy, inscest, beastiality, etc. Such a notion is based on nothing more than an arbitrary interpretation.
"There is simply no rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry."
Try the fact that there is no right to marry at all, otherwise, why would we need a marriage license? Not to mention:
-rising illegitimacy
-more children raised in broken homes
-higher social costs due to more crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending.
But all that would be worth it to force the moral standards of the gay community onto the rest of society.
Mr. Conservative, Bowers v. Hardwick was the precedent that decided homosexuals have a right to their behavior. Arbitrary? What about Heterosexuals that engage in the same behavior?
Again, how irrational can you be?
---
The Supreme Court has already determined that that marriage is a fundamental right 13 times!!!!!!! What do you think the 14th time will bring?
-
Again Conservative, how irrational can you be?
ConservativeNY, why no comment about equality and due process. Why did you leave that part out?
@Philip -
Homosexuals DO have the right to marry. No doubt there are many men and women who decided to get married instead of pursue a homosexual lifestyle. You want to get married Philip? Get married: the option is there for you and for everyone. You want to marry someone of the same sex? Impossible. That's not what marriage is.
Many people don't get married for any number of reasons. Some because they don't like commitment, some because they want the freedom to have sex without being tied to a single partner, some because they're happy being single, and some because they like to have sex with people of the same sex and don't want to give that up for marriage. These are choices that everyone has the right to make. There is no discrimination in marriage. No inequality.
Phiilip wrote: "The Supreme Court has already determined that that marriage is a fundamental right 13 times!"
So when are you going to get it. Marriage is not for homosexuals. It is between one man and one woman.
We already can marry in many countries and states.. Stay tuned.. It ain't over until Ted and David have a chance to sing!!!
"But Conservative, cases have never been decided by what someone else might or might no do? Courts deal with the case in front of them. How irrational can you be?"
Courts decide sentences for criminals based on their likelyhood on repeating their crime. Ever hear of three strikes and you're out? Ever hear of the sex offender registry? Get a clue!
"Mr. Conservative, Bowers v. Hardwick was the precedent that decided homosexuals have a right to their behavior."
Dummy! That was the 1986 decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.
"The Supreme Court has already determined that that marriage is a fundamental right 13 times!!!!!!! What do you think the 14th time will bring?"
That's not the same thing as saying that anybody can marry anyone, anything, anyway, anyhow! Do you think that those 13 determinations give people the right to marry their sister or brother or an animal or an underage child? No more than they grant people the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
"As a Designated hate group if NOM were now located in Arizona we could send them in for mental health evaluations."
I guess the European Court of Human Rights can be designated as a hate group as well, since they decided that redefining marriage for gays is not a human right. And add the Center for Disease Control to that list too since they have confirmed that homosexual activity is the most efficient method for spreading AIDs and syphillis and other STDs.
"ConservativeNY, why no comment about equality and due process. Why did you leave that part out?"
Because we already do have equality and due process. The problem is that gays want special rights. Big difference.
"As a Designated hate group if NOM were now located in Arizona we could send them in for mental health evaluations."
Wait, so you same sex marriage people think that those who don't agree with you should be subject to government testing? Um. weird.
That sounds like area 51 scifi junk lol.
It must be why the Supreme Court struck down anti-polygamy laws in Reynolds v. the United States .
Michael,
Reynolds v. the United States (1878) actually affirmed the anti-polygamy laws...that case was about a LDS gentleman claiming that "polygamy was a right based on religious faith"....Kinda makes you question the whole "Marriage is just between a man and a woman because the bible says so" argument, doesn't it....
I prefer looking at things a little less dusty than over 130 years old. Lets turn the clock back 43 years...
Loving vs Virginia (1967)
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
This, I think, makes for a better analogy,
"To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sex classifications embodied in these statutes,...."
It isn't so complex. The practice of homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior and abnormal. We won't give the seal of approval of marriage to those who practice homosexualtiy.
"on so unsupportable a basis as the sex classifications"
Homosexuality is not a sex classification ... male and female are.
The Loving decision is bad for the SSM side because the reasoning in it stands against the primacy of identity politics; and the SSM idea is all about doing what the racialists did with the anti-miscegenation system.
Selectively segregate the sexes via a racialist identity filter. And profoundly undermine the provisoin for responsible procreation again via a racxialist identity filter.
Gay identity politics is a different filter, one which some might hopes will prove to be more benign than the racdialist identity filter, however, it merits no favored place in our constitutional jurisprudence nor in our marriage law.
The SSM side's argumentation is closely analagous with the racialist identity politics of the past and which the Loving opinion repudiated.
Now let's look at a case that is even less dusty, like this one that took place in NYS five years ago that upheld the laws affirming natural marriage:
HERNANDEZ v. ROBLES
"By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other. Women and men are treated alike-they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex. This is not the kind of sham equality that the Supreme Court confronted in Loving; the statute there, prohibiting black and white people from marrying each other, was in substance anti-black legislation. Plaintiffs do not argue here that the legislation they challenge is designed to subordinate either men to women or women to men as a class."
Comparing racism to sexual behavior is never a good analogy.
Here's more from HERNANDEZ v. ROBLES from the NYS Supreme Court:
"In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival” (id., citing Skinner, 316 U.S. at 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110)-a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ․ is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law” (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a “choice,” it did not articulate the broad “right to marry the spouse of one's choice” suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations ” (id. [emphasis added] ).2 Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union,3 it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."
Marriage doesn't create babies, Conservatives, having sex does. Different-sex marriage, and the babies that come from it, are in no way affected when same-sex couples get married.
If marriage is a fundamental right, and it is possible for same-sex couples to marry (it wasn't in 1967), exactly how is marriage not a fundamental right for same-sex couples?
Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it an orange, Kyle. No more than calling a homosexual couple "married" makes them married. Regardless of the new definitions the government tries to force on us.
We need the Federal Marriage Amendment to clear this up once and for all.
Also, marriage promotes responsible procreation. Redefining it so that it is only about adult sexual fulfillment while children are only an irrelevant byproduct would contribute to the decay of society.
@Kyle - States often make bad law; just because they make laws does not mean that they are constitutional.
Changing the definition of marriage for homosexuals and denying it to others who want marriage benefits but refuse to marry someone of the opposite sex would be unequal and unconsitutional. And that fact, along with the the fact that sexuality is learned, socialized behavior is one of many issues. That my marriage is unaffected is irrelevant; the change in divorce laws in the 70s had a huge impact on society, raising the divorce rate to unbelievable levels, resulting in more single moms, oprhaned children and government leaches than was ever imagined before the legislation was passed.
My parents' marriage was unaffected, and this expected lack of immediate impact was part of the argument used by the proponenets of the legislation, much as the homosexual advocates use the same red herring argument.. All done under the guise of protecting women but with the real intent of destroying traditional families, which it did and continues to do.
We won't be fooled by emotional arguments again. Our society is in bad enough shape because of homosexual acts: how much money has been pumped into research for HIV/AIDS that but for the promiscuity of homosexual men would not have been needed? How many parents' hearts were broken over the death of their sons? How many women are now being infected by men who have sex with men?
Conservative,
As you point out HERNANDEZ v. ROBLES (2006) was from the New York Supreme court - it never got past that venue.
I do not know why it wasn't appealed to the US Supreme court at that time - perhaps the wording in the ruling stated that this had to do with state constitution law and not based on the US constitution.
I much prefer to talk about current history -
Varnum v. Brien (IA - 2009)
The original ruling held:
"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex."
This ruling was affirmed (unanimously by the way) by the state supreme court:
The Court stated that the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that laws treat alike all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law, and concluded that homosexual persons are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws. After having examined the governmental objectives proffered by the county (maintaining traditional marriage, promotion of an optimal environment to raise children, promotion of procreation, promotion of stability in opposite-sex relationships and conservation of resources) under intermediate scrutiny, the Court concluded that:
'We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination."
I don't know why the opposition hasn't taken this to the supreme court either - perhaps because the ruling specifically states "Iowa state law" and is not a federal issue.
But, more to the point:
Perry vs. Schwarzenegger (CA, 2010)
On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:
"An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives."
This one will probably make it to the supreme court.
I would guess that the supreme court will hear arguments for the DOMA cases before that, though.
ConservativeNY, good luck passing the federal marriage amendment! It didn't get fifty votes in the Senate when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. But yeah, I am sure that there are fewer Americans who support marriage equality now than did then.
Opposition to SSM has nothing to do with dislike of homosexuals. We just don't want the values that support the natural family to be officially recognized as a tool for hate, bigotry, and oppression; the moral twin of slavery and segregation.
Anyone concerned about the welfare of children cannot support SSM. Redefining marriage to include homosexuals would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and father for every child. I am often amazed at how indefferent some SSM advocates are about the needs of children. Many of them deny that marriage has anything to do with children.
Children from natural marriage homes with a mother and a father are seven times less likely to live in poverty, sex times less likely to commit suicide, less than half as likely to commit crimes, less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, develop better academically and socially, and healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood.
http://foryourmarriage.org/married-parents-are-important-for-children/
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/02/Governments-Interest-in-Saving-Marriages
For thousands of years, the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong marriage ethic. Every civilization that has abandoned this ethic, from the Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires, experienced demise and extinction.
Alicia -
I agree with you: procreation is not a requirement for marriage. There has always, always been one requirement for marriage: an opposite sex couple. That's it. Hmmmm, I wonder why.
Now, do you really think that that requirement is purely irrational or solely based in animus towards people who choose to be homosexual, or do you think it might have something to do with the fact that only opposite sex couples can reproduce? If you claim that procreation is irrelevant to why marriage is defined as between a man and woman, you're being intellectually disingenuous.
The only reason people formed couples is because of procreation. Homosexual couples are merely imitating that which has a procreative element. The notion of homosexual pairings would never exist but for the fact that heterosexuals paired up for reproductive purposes. Why would they? There would be no reason; pairings of homosexuals have no independent purpose from threesomes or foursomes.
Now, I'm sorry to go here, but it's important, because you keep making the same ridiculous statement that procreation is somehow irrelevant to marriage. Well, consider the fact that homosexual pairings are not unlike pairings between a human and an animal. Now before you get your panties all in a bunch, I'm not saying homosexuals are into beastiality or that they are lower equivalent to lower forms of life in any sense. I'm saying that people form strong affectionate bonds with, e.g., their pets. Not unlike homosexual relationships, they're based in strong attraction and affection, they bring happiness to the pair, and some people want society to recognize that relationship as equivalent to a male-female relationship. And why not, after all, they're based in love - and isn't that what marriage is all about - , and certainly a pet's owner has the legal capacity to commit on behalf of his pet.
So why doesn't society accept human-dog marriages? Is it hatred of dogs? Is it because dogs can't commit on their own behalf and that a human's commitment on their behalf is somehow unfair? Why does society care whether the dog commits or the human commits on its behalf? Certainly a person and his dog could adopt a child and give it a good home, no? And a person could have sex with a dog, right? Why is being a human so important? Here's a hint: it begins with a "p."
Sorry Mike: nice try but your arguments utterly fail to convince.
As you've mentioned, gays and lesbians are not into bestiality. The topic here is gay marriage, not Joe marrying his dog or his chair (which, by the way, can't consent, they can't say "I do" which seems to me an important point of marrying.)
Gays and lesbians will marry (and some do so already) on the same terms and conditions, the same values, as opposite-sex couples do today.
You say: "Now, do you really think that that requirement is purely irrational or solely based in animus towards people who choose to be homosexual, or do you think it might have something to do with the fact that only opposite sex couples can reproduce?"
Yep that's right! I absolutely do, 100%. You don't want us married, Mike, because you don't like us. Because you hate us. Assume yourself here, please. You have your right to your opinions, but ASSUME THEM to the fullest and for what they are: hatred.
You have no reasons to deny the right of gays and lesbians to marry. I've explained myself a few times here, and others have done so too. Look up the article in the L.A. Times about the fallaciousness of "responsible procreation." Look up the arguments given during the Economist debate last week. Look up the many and strong rebuttals to Georges' article "What is marriage?"
Your church has every right to do what it wants: I'm no part of it, I have no say in it and that's fine. But if you want to deny me my rights at a STATE level then you MUST show convincing evidences of why banning loving, committed gays and lesbians from marrying is necessary. It always come to that: you are denying others their rights: the least you can do is bring reasons for this. Simply saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" because it's been so for hundreds of years and that's it is no answer at all. People also thought there was a "reason" for black people not to marry, for women not to vote, etc. There's always a "reason" that you can claim exists for such denials but you have to show the validity of those.
None of the locations in the United States which have equal marriage rights for all consenting adult couples have a residency requirement. Any same-sex couple in the United States can travel to a state which supports equality, or the District of Columbia, and get married. The federal government, if it recognizes any legal marriage performed in the United States, must recognize all legal marriages performed in the United States. For this reason, the Defense of Marriage Act will be found unconstitutional.
@alicia -
And when losing in a debate, cry out "hate speech!," "bigot!". These are emotional catch-phrases that try to change the subject matter from one of rational discussion to emotional distortion.
Nope, not gonna fall for it, Alicia.
Let me bring you back to the point: marriage is, has always been about procreation because it is and has always been about a man and a woman, the ONLY combination that can create human life. No other combination can make babies. Many other combinations involve love and affection, but society encourages, needs, only the combination that is capable of reproducing. Yes, procreation is special and important. It deserves special and important attention. Why would society have an institution between two people if it didn't do anything special?
I don't hate you or any homosexuals. In fact, I don't treat you any differently than anyone else. But I think every child should have the opportunity to be brought up by his mom and dad, and I think every mom and dad should take responsibliity for their offspring, and marriage is the incredibly special relationship that gives children the best opportunity for that to happen.
The fact of procreation is the fact, Alicia. I find that fact very persuasive. Hatred is irrelevant. In fact, if it weren't for the homosexual advocates trying to ram the change to marriage down the throats of society, I would be advocating for changing the divorce laws.
"The fact of procreation is the fact, Alicia. I find that fact very persuasive. Hatred is irrelevant. In fact, if it weren't for the homosexual advocates trying to ram the change to marriage down the throats of society, I would be advocating for changing the divorce laws."
Excellent.
No, it does not.
It reinforces the argument.
For how can a constitutional provision insufficient to protect a right to polygamy somehow protect a right to same-sex marriage?
The procreation argument is based fully upon opinion and emotion, but lacks facts and evidence.
Here is some current history.
In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., No. 05-09-01170-CV (Texas 5th Cir. Court of Appeal) (August 31, 2010)
Curious George
Those two cases you cite are examples of judicial activism run amok, both under the guise of legal jurisprudence.
The American College of Pediatricians have found that homosexual couples provide less safe and stable environments for kids. They display more violence, are more prone to dissolution with the average gay relationship lasting only two or three years, are more likely to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. So even if cases of homosexuals liiving long, healthy, monogamous lives and providing well for kids were shown to the Iowa Supreme Court, the research shows that such people are the exception rather than the rule. And laws must never be based on exceptions.
The people of Iowa did exactly the right thing voting out those three Iowa justices from the Supreme Court. And it is only a matter of time the rest of those judicial activists are kicked out as well.
And Judge Walker is an activist of the worst kind. He abused his judicial authority by playing the role of a social engineer, imposing his genderless ethics on the rest of society while ignoring contrary legal precedents, contrary facts, and pretended he never saw the deep scholarly evidence presented that opposite sex unions are different and children need mothers and fathers.
Walker's opinion defamed the whole country, including Pres. Obama, and the majority of judges who have found our marriage laws survive rational scrutiny.
"ConservativeNY, good luck passing the federal marriage amendment! It didn't get fifty votes in the Senate when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. But yeah, I am sure that there are fewer Americans who support marriage equality now than did then."
That was then. But over time, as more and more republicans are elected in response to Democrats ramming their unwanted and unpopular agenda down our collective throats, and the efforts to force the redefinition of marriage onto the entire country continue, the Federal Marriage Amendment will have a much better chance.
Legalizing SSM does not create a more secure environment for raising kids, whatever you have heard from leftist activist groups masquerading as medical organizations.
Redefining marriage has lead to more couples forgoing natural marriage and have more children out of wedlock. Most people won't go through the trouble of getting married to have children if marriage isn't about children. Most won't tie themselves to one person if they don't need to.
And as illegitimacy rises, not only are children raised in broken homes, but the rest of us are forced to pay higher social costs because of the resulting increases in crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending.
Just look at the state of Scandinavia and the Netherlands who have had SSM the longest for confirmation.
ConservativeNY, this is all I could find about the effects of SSM on Scandinavia:
"Before Denmark recognized same-sex couples in 1989, the Danish marriage rate was falling, and the divorce and non-marital childbirth rates soared. If the president was right that gay marriage harms the institution, one would expect these trends to accelerate after that country recognized lesbian and gay partnerships.
Yet the opposite occurred: After 1989, the marriage rate increased, the divorce rate fell and the rate of childbirths outside of marriage declined for the first time in decades. Similar but less dramatic trends occurred in the other Scandinavian countries.
State recognition of lesbian and gay unions does not harm the institution of marriage.
Moreover, allowing same-sex couples to marry has a number of positive benefits. We interviewed a wide variety of Danish couples who had registered as partners. They told us how their legal unions deepened their commitment to each other, helped legally protect the children they were raising, enriched their relationships with family members and co-workers, and helped educate the community. One couple even reported that their enthusiasm for marriage inspired their heterosexual friends to formalize their own union in marriage.
Our book documents the numerous social and community benefits from Scandinavian recognition of lesbian and gay partnerships. Because marriage and partnership serve private social welfare functions, legal recognition stands to save the state money. Recognition helps integrate lesbian and gay families into the larger society and helps attract productive workers to the country.
We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.
The Nordic nations have had marriage-like partnerships for 17 years now, and the sky did not fall on marriage. This suggests that the defense-of-marriage argument for the Marriage Protection Amendment is a lavender herring."
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2717.htm
ConservativeNY
"Redefining marriage has lead to more couples forgoing natural marriage and have more children out of wedlock. Most people won't go through the trouble of getting married to have children if marriage isn't about children. Most won't tie themselves to one person if they don't need to."
Where is your evidence? What are you facts? Hmmm. Brings me back to the broken record Judge Walker played time and time and time again - with nothing forth-coming from your side.
Here are some interesting facts: In MA, where SSM has been legal for over 5 years, the divorce rate actually decreased to the lowest in the nation - how did that happen if SSM is the cause of all your ills.
In our nation, single moms accounted for 40% of all births in 2007 - the highest percentage on record. Interestingly the number of states denying 5% of our population the fundamental basic right to choose who they wish to marry has increased as well... seems this is working in reverse, no?
It seems the real problem we need to work on is teaching the boys and girls how to procreate responsibly. We should be teaching our children about contraception; we should be taking steps to firm up existing marriages - not trying to prevent "those" people from marrying.
If you are trying to reduce the social costs, you would be promoting access to benefits to the 8-10 million children already being raised by same sex families.
You would be promoting private safety nets that marriage provides - between two committed consenting adults regardless of the sex of each spouse.
ConservativeNY
The study linked by Jacob is not new.
The authors of that study were referenced in an article about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia by Stanley Kurtz in 2004.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
"For how can a constitutional provision insufficient to protect a right to polygamy somehow protect a right to same-sex marriage?"
Simple: Equal protection.
So homosexuals have more equal protection than polygamists?
@Jacob - that's an old study since proven to be a bunch of crap: marriage has been destroyed in Scandanavia since the marriage laws were changed to accomodate homosexuals emulating heterosexual behavior. And, of course, along with that, scads of kids have been born out of wedlock.
@CuriousG - Walker is a gay activist; poor excuse for a judge. Read the article cited by Anna to see how a decline in divorce rates is just a reflection of the fact that marriage rates have dropped; i.e., you have to get married to get divorced.
The high rate of out-of-wedlock childbirths is due to no-fault divorce laws, which have essentially made a mockery of marriage, welfare laws which deny benefits when fathers remain in a household, and liberal promotion of sexual promiscuity, which has also led to such goodies as HIV/AIDS and deaths of thousands of promiscuous homosexual men.
If there are 8-10 million children being brought up in homosexual households (which I doubt), that's 8-10 million kids deprived of at least one of their parents. That's tragic, not something to be celebrated or be proud of. What society should be doing is fixing what has led to such tragedies in the first place -e.g., rescinding no-fault divorce laws - not making matters worse by changing the marriage laws yet again.
After seeing how they must totally secularize the situation (i.e., asserting that, from a STATE viewpoint, there is no reason to deny gays “their rights”), it is clear that no progress can be made because they do not recognize the authority of God and His plan for society to be created only through God-blessed marriage.
A STATE is a natural part of God’s society, not of the gays’ society.
In emphasizing the STATE, they can’t claim SSM to be an inalienable right because inalienable rights come from God and are consistent with His nature. Such rights are “self-evident”, for example, as noted in the Declaration of Independence for “certain inalienable rights”.
SSM is obviously not a self-evident right and can’t be validly compared to resolved racial problems as if such resolutions proved something about SSM and gay unions.
God neither makes mistakes nor contradicts His nature by creating homosexual persons per se with such God-intended attractions yet denying them a right to act on them. If such attraction-tendencies in some way be part of the fall in Eden, as are all flaws in our bodies and minds, then God’s grace is sufficient to resist the acts, and organizations exist to help in that trial.
Nor is God stupid: He does not design the body so that the acts can give rise to such severe disease. Nor is God a liar whose Son severely warns those who lead little ones astray. Especially, children do not belong in any type of gay “union”. All these mark the absence of “self-evident” rights.
Concerning “positive studies”, in other fields we’ve seen lots of misleading studies. This tendency becomes reality when the definition of harm is totally secularized for “marriages”. With progress not possible, use your vote in every election to get God-respecters elected.
Michael: yes, they do. There's no such thing as a polygamist; it's just someone with multiple spouses. There is such a thing as a homosexual and it is a part of someone's identity, according to medical organizations.
So there's a big difference in terms of civil rights protections.
Look Mike, I hear your point but as I've said, you are not convincing me. I will say here only 2 things.
1- If you don't want us to call your speech hate speech, then don't compare our relationships with bestiality, which they are not. Don't make false analogies and don't distort the facts.
2- If reproduction is so important to you, then campaign to make it an absolute requirement for marriage, in the law. The fact remain that at present, it isn't. Your church can define marriage the way it wants but the role of the state is to make sure all its citizens are treated equally. Besides, we value reproduction too: how is my being able to marry my partner going to affect a) you personally and b) the rate of reproduction in the country? On the contrary, my kids (and not only mine, but millions like them who are raised in gay families) will have benefits from being raised in a loving, stable family unit. You chose not to recognize the merit of my family, and I've read in this blog that some think such families are harmful to children: fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's values. But I'm just saying that I should have the right to benefit from the same rights and benefits as married straight couples.
Again, Mike, your church can say what it wants about my relationship: I have no say in its teachings, I respect churches' rights to teach what they see fit. But unless you want to make marriage a solely religious institution, again, as I've said, you would have to show me why, at the STATE level, gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. The fact that you disagree with this shouldn't factor in: there are lots of things I disagree with, and yet that doesn't give me the right to deny others privileges, rights, benefits, simply because I disagree with their views.
And as Curious Georges pointed out: where are your facts, where are your evidences for the decline or marriage, of traditional values, of the harm caused to chidlren ,etc? There is none forthcoming, which is why you hate Walker so much: because he put in your face facts, evidences, which you KNOW you can't refute. Thing is, gay marriage will change NOTHING to your relationships. Nothing at all. There's no reason why your homophobia should be sanctioned by the state. I also find it very telling that you have to set up bogus institutions to back up your "claims": such as the American College of Pediatricians, who clearly has an agenda and distorts facts which are unconvenient to them. Check out the American Academy of Pediatrics for a truer version of the consequences on children living in gay families: i.e., none at all.
Alicia, lol what a way to misconstrue what was said.
Personally I think you're just bent out of shape because you don't have the facts to back up your position Alicia.