Dear Friends of Marriage,
Three big pieces of news this week. You've already heard about New Jersey, where yesterday the state senate REJECTED gay marriage 14 "yes" to 20 "no" (with five senators declining to vote).
That's a victory to celebrate!
As USA Today put it, "The end of 2009 saw momentum on the marriage issue stall.
"Two states rejected same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that most Americans do not support it."
Thank you. This is a victory for all the ordinary, extraordinary people who refused to be bamboozled, intimidated or discouraged out of common sense, and who summoned the decency to speak the truth in love to power--and won!
God bless you. It is such an honor to know and serve with you in this great cause!
The second piece of news, which you may not have heard: Stand for Marriage D.C. has filed a referendum seeking to give the people of D.C. the right to vote for marriage--and overturn gay marriage as the peple in California did in 2008, and thye people of Maine did in 2009.
Gay-marriage advocates are claiming gay marriage is such a core civil right that they have the right to block the people of D.C. from voting for marriage--even though that right is explicitly laid out in that city's charter, its constitution.
NOM will help local groups fight not only for marriage, but for the right to vote on this important issue. Once again, you are the ones who make this possible.
The third big piece of news this week: Next week the federal trial over the constitutionality of Prop 8 begins. Judge Vaughn Walker, in another display of his eagerness to cater to the pro-gay-marriage side, just announced he will televise this trial over the objections of lawyers for Protect Marriage, who cited the threats and harassment Californians have already experienced as just one of many reasons why we should respect the federal rule that bans televised trials.
Maggie Gallagher wrote about this decision in her syndicated column this week, and I'll share with you some of her conclusions in a second.
But there's a topline message here about this trial even many informed voters don't yet realized: It's not about California, it's about the whole country. Gay-marriage advocates are in federal court arguing for a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that would trump not only Prop 8, but the laws of 45 other states, including the 30 other states where the people have passed state constitutional marriage amendments.
That's right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage--in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy.
Gay-marriage advocates believe they have a right to win. They think you and I don't count. NOM will be filing an amicus brief in this litigation, and will work with Protect Marriage and the lawyers for Prop 8 in every way we are asked.
We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God's help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.
Here's part of what Maggie has to say about the case:
On Monday, Jan. 11, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will put the people of California on trial for voting against gay marriage.
The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don't say that lightly of any federal judge, but Judge Walker's extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display.
Take the trial itself. The constitutionality of Proposition 8 is not really a matter for a trial of fact. It's a question of law. But Judge Walker ordered one anyway. Why? Ordinarily a trial judge's rulings of fact cannot be questioned by higher courts. So the more of his opinions that Judge Walker can stuff into the box of "trial of fact" instead of "review of law," the more power he will have over this historic case.
Next Judge Walker issued an extraordinary ruling that the private intentions of Prop. 8 proponents -- ideas by definition never communicated to voters -- were properly the subject of this trial. So people who worked on the campaign have been put on trial, subpoenaed for all their e-mails and personal correspondence. This is an enormous personal headache, one which will (as intended) discourage participation in the political process in the future.
. . . ."These are kangaroo-court procedures," distinguished lawyer Ed Whelan noted in National Review Online's Bench Memos this week.
But the third outrageous ruling by Judge Walker is the worst of all: On Dec. 22, he ordered the trial televised -- in defiance of federal rules -- without proper notice and public comment... . Whelan points out that the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes televising federal trials in part because doing so "could jeopardize ... the safety of trial participants" and "produce intimidating effects on litigants, witnesses and jurors."
But this is no ordinary trial. This is a trial in a case where thousands of ordinary citizens have already faced a wave of hatred for participating in democracy. On Oct. 22, the Heritage Foundation released a report titled "The Price of Prop. 8," which concluded that "supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry."
To deliberately and needlessly expose these people to a new wave of publicity and attacks by televising the trial is outrageous.Full disclosure: As the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which created a ballot initiative committee -- NOM California -- that worked with Protect Marriage, I was intimately involved in putting Prop. 8 on the ballot. So I know dozens of people who have been personally threatened, some of whom still live in fear today when they walk outside their door as a result of an organized effort to distribute personal addresses of donors to Prop. 8. NOM is involved in a separate federal lawsuit to protect donors' constitutional rights in future marriage amendment battles.
At stake in this case is not only the future of marriage in all 50 states, but the future of democracy, the future of fair play, ordinary decency and common sense. Not to mention a little thing like constitutional limits on the power of judges.
After Prop. 8, gay couples continue to enjoy unmolested all the legal civil rights of marriage under California law through civil unions. Who will stand up for the core civil rights of the people of California... to participate in democracy without fear?
"Be not afraid." That's the most often repeated commandment in Holy Scriptures. A movement founded on a lie about human nature will fail. It takes just a few men and women of courage and vision to stand up for God's truth against all the powers that counsel defeat, despair or indifference.
Until next week, dear friend and comrade; I pray for you and for all those who stand for marriage. God bless you!
Faithfully,Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
P.S. Our victories in Maine, New Jersey, and New York, and our support for the lawsuits protecting marriage and the rights of donors have drained our coffers. Can you help get us refill them for the fights in 2010? I am asking you, if God has given you the means, to please give us $5 for marriage. If you are blessed with the capacity to meet your other obligations, and yet have more to give, can you give us $50 or $500 to spread your voices and values? The beauty of NOM is that we are the true rainbow--people of every race, creed and color coming together in love to defend the truth about marriage. Separated they can harass and intimidate, but together we have proved that your voices and your values will be heard!!
NOM in the News
"California Voters Face Show Trial in Kangaroo Court"
January 5, 2010
Maggie Gallagher
On Monday, Jan. 11, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will put the people of California on trial for voting against gay marriage.
"The People's Veto: Why Gay Marriage Failed in Maine"
Catholic World Report
Sean Higgins
In the days leading up to Maine's gay marriage vote on November 3, it seemed like a big, possibly momentous, shift in American culture was about to take place, one that could give major momentum to the gay rights movement.
All the major outlets reported that it was close. "Most polls suggest the electorate is evenly divided on the issue," reported the Los Angeles Times. The Washington Post breathlessly told readers, "Public opinion polls in Maine show a dead heat." It followed that with a quote from Maine Governor John Baldacci, a Democrat, who explained that, "I believe it is something in the water or the air in this state that recognizes individual rights and anti-discrimination."
"R.I. Assembly Faces Deficit, Taxes As Session Begins"
Providence Journal
January 3, 2010
ADVOCATES OF same-sex marriage are pushing for an opening-day override of Carcieri's veto of a bill that would let "domestic partners" make funeral arrangements for their loved ones. They will also resume their drive to legalize same-sex marriage.
"Gay-Marriage Foes Slam Plans to Televise Prop 8 Trial"
Washington Times
January 6, 2010
Supporters of traditional marriage are outraged over a California judge's efforts to bring television cameras into court next week to cover a trial challenging Proposition 8, California's initiative against gay marriage.
"Mixed Messages on Marriage"
Chuck Raasch
Livingston Daily
January 1, 2010
"In Maine, a secular blue state with a history of approving pro-gay legislation, the people once again decisively rejected gay marriage," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group founded in 2007 to fight same-sex marriage.
60 Comments
Oh, and prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the religious freedom of groups that want to perform same-sex marriages, such as the Episcopalians and Quakers. It's highly unAmerican to prohibit religious freedom and expression!
Episcopalian congregations still retain the two-sexed basis of marriage.
Sectarianism of the sort you just advocated is antithetical to the pluralism of our secular system of law.
From the USA Today story: "The end of 2009 saw momentum on the marriage issue stall. Two states rejected same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that most Americans do not support it."
The SSM campaign's momentum, such as it was, has stalled.
The marriage momentum, as evident in the victories led by NOM, has grown.
When people stand up for marriage, and win, the support for marriage becomes increasingly solidified.
Meanwhile support for SSM remains soft and mushy. SSMers invite all of society to stand on that quicksand. But marriage is on much firmer ground.
Limiting the religious freedom of faith groups, such as the nineteen faith groups in New Jersey who petitioned the legislature for legal same-sex marriage, is inappropriate and unconstitutional. I suspect the California trial will highlight these kinds of issues. Americans are evidently more easily persuaded of legal rights with video. Evidently mere words aren't compelling for them. Very savvy of the judge to televise the proceedings!
"...block the people of D.C. from voting for marriage–even though that right is explicitly laid out in that city’s charter, its constitution. "
I do not think "explicitly" means what Brian Brown thinks it means
"Oh, and prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the religious freedom of groups that want to perform same-sex marriages, such as the Episcopalians and Quakers. It’s highly unAmerican to prohibit religious freedom and expression!"
Don't be a buffoon! What about that Mormon sect in Texas that performed polygamous marriages between adult men and under age girls? Does that mean that the US laws MUST legalize polygamy and pedophilia lest we prohibit their religious freedom and expression?
Chairm,
I've corrected the oversight below, in brackets [...] in order to be fair, complete and accurate in your statement below:
----
Episcopalian congregations still retain [both same sex and] the two-sexed basis of marriage.
"Episcopal priests in the United States, now have permission to "solemnize" the marriages of "all eligible couples," including those entering same-sex unions, according to a pastoral directive from the local Episcopal bishop."
One simple and easy reason to understand that I believe Prop 8 will fail on the first round in the rational basis test during judicial review:
"Eighteen thousand gay couples who were already married can remain married. However, if they get divorced they can’t get remarried!!!! Isn't irrational, or what?"
I suggest Chairm would even agree with the premise above...?
“Eighteen thousand gay couples who were already married can remain married. However, if they get divorced they can’t get remarried!!!! Isn’t irrational, or what?”
Of course they can remarry - in accordance with the laws regarding marriage in the state of California.
Even though we have a new law, does not automatically make it constitutional or rational. The test of Judicial rational basis review, findings of fact, and conclusions of law may or may not make it so.
The question before the court is because of Prop 8, gay and lesbians can no-longer marry someone of the same sex. Is the California Prop 8 law rational as it applies to same-sex couples?
Do you think the US supreme court (all but one) would think it a rational choice and law for a homosexual to marry their son or daughter?
"Does that mean that the US laws MUST legalize polygamy and pedophilia lest we prohibit their religious freedom and expression?"
Conservative NY,
Traditional civil marriage law already recognizes and embraces the pedophile. Even two opposite sex convicted pedophile felons NOT attracted to each other (only to prepubescent children) can get a marriage license in any state of the US.
And your rational reason for denying 18,000 divorced homosexual couples, the right to remarry someone of the same sex is?????
"Traditional civil marriage law already recognizes and embraces the pedophile. Even two opposite sex convicted pedophile felons NOT attracted to each other (only to prepubescent children) can get a marriage license in any state of the US."
Two opposite sex gay people NOT attracted to each other (only to members of their own gender) can get a marriage licence in any state of the US as well.
Every person in the union CAN marry regardless of what their sexual preference is - provided that they abide by the laws concerning marriage that are in place.
God did not create Adam and Steve but Adam and Eve. The word is very clear how He feels about homosexuality. No excuses. We need to pray and break free from this stronghold.
"Two opposite sex gay people NOT attracted to each other (only to members of their own gender) can get a marriage licence in any state of the US as well. Every person in the union CAN marry regardless of what their sexual preference is - provided that they abide by the laws concerning marriage that are in place."
-That now, married homosexual couples who get divorced in California, cannot remarry the same gender will pass a rational basis review in federal court because....?
-That Prop 8 does not violate their due process and equal protection, rights and serves a legitimate interest of the state because.......?
Civil laws have to be rational, not based on animus, and accomplish a legitimate interest of the state. It remains to be determined if sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity, if changing heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation would cause serious harm. Further, to determine if sexual orientation for homosexuals and heterosexuals is pretty much an immutable characteristic, falling under the classification of suspect class for intermediate or heightened scrutiny analysis.
The "rationality" for Prop 8 is just about to be tested in federal court.. Your "just because its the law" is not sufficient or persuasive constitutional justification, or reason to provide immunity from further judicial review.
--
"God did not create Adam and Steve but Adam and Eve. The word is very clear how He feels about homosexuality."
That view is countered by other equally legitimate religious views. Usually, what ones God says, either for or against, its not valid argumentation in civl law.
"-That now, married homosexual couples who get divorced in California, cannot remarry the same gender will pass a rational basis review in federal court because….?"
It was decided that Prop 8 was not retroactive, that is: relating or applying to things that have happened in the past as well as the present. Since those gay marriages occurred before Prop 8, those marriages are still recognized. The present marriage law in California applies to all individuals. Thus, if a gay couple "divorces", they can still remarry if they abide by the laws concerning marriage which apply to all, regardless of sexual preference.
"-That Prop 8 does not violate their due process and equal protection, rights and serves a legitimate interest of the state because…….?"
I'll say it again: Every person in the union CAN marry regardless of what their sexual preference is - provided that they abide by the laws concerning marriage that are in place.
The state does not endorse natural marriage because two people "love" one another. It does so because they benefit the public welfare in numerous ways like the procreation and proper upbringing of children, health, reduced social costs, etc.
Keep in mind that Massachussets has experienced a dramatic rise in the number of AIDS/HIV cases since its court imposed SSM, and the state had to pay more each year to deal with it.
"The present marriage law in California applies to all individuals. Thus, if a gay couple “divorces”, they can still remarry if they abide by the laws concerning marriage which apply to all, regardless of sexual preference."
I see your not claiming the law is rational. I guess I was not clear with my question, not that they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Likewise it most likely would not be rational for a heterosexual to be restricted by law to only marry a homosexual?
Of the 18,000 married homosexuals in California who may divorce, can no longer remarry a person of the same sex. Your NOT claiming that this is "rational" or will pass a rational basis judicial review, simply because because they can now marry a person of the opposite sex according to current law.
"I’ll say it again: Every person in the union CAN marry regardless of what their sexual preference is - provided that they abide by the laws concerning marriage that are in place." This is not an answer to the question I asked about the Prop 8 law passing a judicial rational basis review. Could you try again?
"The state does not endorse natural marriage because two people “love” one another. It does so because they benefit the public welfare in numerous ways like the procreation and proper upbringing of children, health, reduced social costs, etc." This is a true statement for both same sex and heterosexual couples.. and your point is....?
Keep in mind Mass. has the lowest divorce rate in the US? Is it due to SSM? Alas, my argumentation fails, because correlation in Mass. does not causation make.. Likewise... correlation does NOT equal causation... here either: According to the CDC, "This increase (AIDS/HIV) was expected, due to the fact that antiretroviral treatment has greatly extended the life spans of people with HIV, and because more people become infected with HIV than die from the disease each year."
The SSMers do not offer a rational basis for treating SSM differently from the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements. That unlike SSM (at least according to SSMers) the nonmarriage category is not defined by gayness. The nonmarrige category is defined, like SSM, by its lack of the core meaning of marriage. Lacking that, it also lacks the special reason for the special status of marriage.
ConservativeNY has made points that Jonathan dodges. That is very telling.
Dayna Stone: Your silly fables are irrelevant to a discussion about civil law.
Current marriage law would...or at least should...pass a rational basis review because the laws apply to all individuals. Those 18,000 gay marriages are considered the exception only because those "marriages" took place before the present law was established. There is no rational reason to allow anyone to be exempt from that law today whether he was divorced from his gay partner or not.
And the state DOES have an interest in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman for it is the ideal family environment for producing and raising children with a male and female role model. Gay couples cannot do that.
And according to the Center of Disease Control, the vast majority of all STDs were the result of homosexual activity which include AIDS, HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis. The government sould not be encouraging and promoting a lifestyle that have such obvious health risks.
ConservativeNY keeps raising good points that go unanswered by Jonathan.
I'll add somethng in response to Jonathan's comment at January 9, 2010 at 2:05 am.
But don't let this distract you, Jonathan, from your attempts to dodge ConservativeNY's points.
* * *
Re Episcopalian congregations:
Solemnization refers to civil law, not to the theology of the quoted Bishop's church.
The Bishop said that the SSM-merger in Massachusetts contradicts the man-woman basis of marriage in the Episcopalian canons and the Book of Common Prayer.
[See footnote]
The Bishop said, in response to that contradiction, that he will now allow an localized accomodation in which clergy in that particular diocese may choose to provide a "generous pastoral response" to church members who would form same-sex unions under the SSM-merger.
Instead of blessing such unions after the legal ceremony, the clergy of this particular diocese may, at their discretion and without obligation, also perform the solemnization in the legal sense under the SSM-merger.
This does NOT transform a same-sex union into an church marriage.
He also said that this "allowance" was available only within the western diocese of Massachusetts and that this did NOT oblige the clergy to solemnize same-sex unions as marriages. Congregations and clergy are not bound by this accomodation.
That makes this different from canonical marriages between husbands and brides.
It is different, also, in that the liturgy for marriage may not be used for same-sex union. Alternatives will be used instead.
In sum: This is a very recent option; it is available within one diocese and only as of December 2010; it is not a church-wide option -- not state-wide and not country-wide; it is an pastoral allowance; it is optional and not an obligation for clergy and congregations; it is not canonical marriage; it cannot use the liturgy for marriage; it is a limited accomodation made in response to particular individuals under the localized SSM-merger; that merger relabels same-sex union, marriage.
Overall, it a localized imitative form which lacks the core meaning of marriage as per the theological basis of marriage within the Anglican Communion across the country and across the globe.
It falls far short of what you have been claiming it to be.
-----
Footnote: The SSM-merger also contradicts the marriage statutes. And the state constitution prohibits both the judiciary and the executive branch from rewriting statutory law. The legislature has not changed the marriage statutes. The SSM-merger is unlawful in Massachusetts.
-----
Using that example serves to show the SSM merger to be a peculair kind of sectarianism that promotes schism within a particular church. The governmentn has no business taking sides on such a theological conflict.
Typo corrections:
"only as of December 2009"
"that merger relabels same-sex union, marriage, in civil terms, but not in church canon."
"The SSMers do not offer a rational basis for treating SSM differently from the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements. That unlike SSM (at least according to SSMers) the nonmarriage category is not defined by gayness. The nonmarrige category is defined, like SSM, by its lack of the core meaning of marriage. Lacking that, it also lacks the special reason for the special status of marriage."
Chairm, you are stating your own conclusions, that SSM is the same as a non-marriage category of arrangements, and has no core meaning. This argumentation is not a conclusion of law NOR a finding of fact, in any civil same sex marriage filing that I can find, and will not be part of the rational basis analysis, due process and equal protection starting Monday. I suggest you start to learn about the Prop 8 findings fact, and conclusions of law on Tuesday. You Tube search if you don't have the link already: "usdccand"
-----------
" There is no rational reason to allow anyone to be exempt from that law today whether he was divorced from his gay partner or not."
I suggest that no one is asking for an exemption. However, homosexuals are stating that Prop 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights as provided in the US constitution. Do you understand the difference between "exemption" and a due process and equal protection claim?
--
"And the state DOES have an interest in defining marriage as being between a man and a woman for it is the ideal family environment for producing and raising children with a male and female role model. Gay couples cannot do that." There is a solid body of credible (peer reviewed) research that says otherwise along with supporting conclusions of law (Iowa Supreme Court and others). I suggest your view will again be proven false while the court establishes findings of fact and conclusions of law for a SCOTUS review, during the prop 8 case in federal district court starting Monday. It should provide an excellent civics lesson.
"The government sould not be encouraging and promoting a lifestyle that have such obvious health risks." I suggest here too, that this argumentation is not part of the legal filings, findings of fact and conclusions of law in past marriage equality cases, or the one currently before the federal district court in Northern California. Perhaps because its a red herring argument combined with personal opinion that explains this exclusion from the due process and equal protection claim findings of fact, but I dunno. Therefore I won't entertain argumentation that is not been determined to be relevant.
-------
“that same-sex unions can now become marriage, in civil terms, but not in church canon.” I agree with this statement Chairm. I'm delighted they are starting to perform these unions. Do you think the new policy will eventually become part of church canon? But I digress, not argumentation I'm at all qualified to discuss.
Chairm, the issue is whether the California voter initiative that forbids the state from granting marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. It is my understanding that your comment below is not part of, nor relevant to the issue before the court:
"The SSMers do not offer a rational basis for treating SSM differently from the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements. That unlike SSM (at least according to SSMers) the nonmarriage category is not defined by gayness. The nonmarrige category is defined, like SSM, by its lack of the core meaning of marriage. Lacking that, it also lacks the special reason for the special status of marriage."
Courts have decided that due process and equal protection apply to race, religion, and national origin. The federal court most likely will insure that we apply these protections to homosexuals who differ only on the basis of their sexual orientation.
In California, there are heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, same-sex couples who can live together in domestic partnerships; and married same-sex couples divorce, cannot remarry a person of the same sex or even their prior partner (as heterosexuals sometimes do). This is indeed irrational, and discriminatory, and it will not or nor cannot stand as a matter of civil law.
I think will the California Prop H8 trial being YouTube’d will settle once and for all some of the myths that supporters of marriage discrimination keep perpetuating:
1. “The majority gets to vote on a minority’s civil rights”: obviously, the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits this very thing from happening. That’s why courts ruled slavery, male-only voting, and, ironically, prohibitions against inter-racial marriage, as unconstitutional, despite the wishes of the majority.
2. “Opponents of marriage discrimination are “protecting” or “defending” marriage”: if this were true, they would be telling us how marriage would be “damaged” when same-sex couples marry. They don’t. They would also be trying to outlaw adultery and divorce, which actually DO damage the institution of marriage! They aren’t. Very revealing.
3. “Children need a mother and a father”: this may very well be true but outlawing same-sex marriage doesn’t stop same-sex couples from bearing and raising children. In fact, it makes those children’s lives less secure by forcing them to be married by unwed parents. The children of same-sex couples are NOT second-class citizens just because you don’t like their parents!
“The majority gets to vote on a minority’s civil rights”: obviously, the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibits this very thing from happening. That’s why courts ruled slavery, male-only voting, and, ironically, prohibitions against inter-racial marriage, as unconstitutional, despite the wishes of the majority."
Except, gay “marriage” is not a civil right. A civil right is something guaranteed by the constitution. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble are all civil rights. The constitution is silent on marriage. All of the founding fathers understood what marriage was, it was the union of one man and one woman, united together for the intent to raise a family. In fact gay “marriage” goes against the first amendment to the constitution in that it would inevitably infringe on the religious freedoms of the American people as traditional family values is regarded as raw bigotry.
"Opponents of marriage discrimination are “protecting” or “defending” marriage”: if this were true, they would be telling us how marriage would be “damaged” when same-sex couples marry."
They have. You just don't listen. The redefinition of marriage has led to an increase in illegitimacy as marriages decline in many places around the world. When illigitimacy rises, so do the social costs because of the resulting increases in crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending.
“Children need a mother and a father”: this may very well be true but outlawing same-sex marriage doesn’t stop same-sex couples from bearing and raising children. In fact, it makes those children’s lives less secure by forcing them to be married by unwed parents. The children of same-sex couples are NOT second-class citizens just because you don’t like their parents!"
All the more reason for society to encourage and promote the ideal family setting that a husband and wife provides by keeping marriage between one man and one woman - to make these settings more commonplace. Which is more important, endorsing homosexuality, or endorsing good paranting?
ConservativeNY wrote: Except, gay “marriage” is not a civil right. A civil right is something guaranteed by the constitution. .............. it would inevitably infringe on the religious freedoms of the American people as traditional family values is regarded as raw bigotry."
That is the specific problem with your argumentation, that gay and lesbian marriage is NOT in the constitution. If it were, there would NOT now be a constitutional claim of due process and equal protection claim under civil law for all Americans. The first amendment protections provide freedom to choose ones religious views, one that either pro or against marriage equality. The state cannot endorse one or the other view.
However, since numerous credible per reviewed studies say that gay and lesbian parents provided equally healthy outcomes of their heterosexual counterparts (good parenting is not mutually exclusive to heterosexuals). In fact, many states allow gays and lesbians to adopt. Same sex couple families also need the 1100 state and federal benefits that support heterosexual families.
Society benefits as a result. Until they have those benefits, they are indeed second class citizens.
The following s another correlation argument and not a cause and effect, with no supporting data that uses the scientific method.
"The redefinition of marriage has led to an increase in illegitimacy as marriages decline in many places around the world. "
"I suggest that no one is asking for an exemption. However, homosexuals are stating that Prop 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights as provided in the US constitution. Do you understand the difference between “exemption” and a due process and equal protection claim?"
So if someone invokes a law, and that law changes, that change should not apply to those who invoked the previous law back when it was different? How is that rational? What precedent is there for that?
"There is a solid body of credible (peer reviewed) research that says otherwise along with supporting conclusions of law (Iowa Supreme Court and others)."
All of which is based on wishful thinking, not reason or common sense. Most state courts have ruled against gay marriage (New York, New Jersy, Washington State, etc.) Iowa got it wrong because they based their decision on an exception, not the rule.
"I suggest your view will again be proven false while the court establishes findings of fact and conclusions of law for a SCOTUS review, during the prop 8 case in federal district court starting Monday. It should provide an excellent civics lesson. "
Don't be so sure. Federal courts are filled with conservative Republican judges that are not inclined to legislate from the bench – so such cases could actually be damaging to gay activism, by setting an anti-gay marriage precedent. In short, given the current federal appellate bench, such efforts are not merely futile, but potentially counterproductive to gay marriage.
Also, the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas’s law in Lawrence.
"So if someone invokes a law, and that law changes, that change should not apply to those who invoked the previous law back when it was different? How is that rational? What precedent is there for that?"
If I understand your question correctly, your stating that a law is a law, and whether the law violates due process and equal protection, or has not been subject to a rational basis, or passed interest of the state tests in judicial review, it should apply no matter what? Are you saying Americans don't have a right to subject laws to judicial review? Are you saying that it doesn't matter if laws violate the bill of rights, that the judicial review process is "irrational" and law should apply "just because?"
-------
These are state by state constitutional protections that do differ in judicial interpretation. This is why the federal constitution due process and equal protection and application of law must govern and apply to all US states. This inconsistency interferes with interstate commerce, e.g., married in one state, not married or civil union in the next.
For example:
On July 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles decided that New York law does not permit same-sex marriage and that there is no state constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Yet, the court held in Martinez v. County of Monroe that because New York legally recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples.
--
In 2006, New Jersey’s highest court ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, but split over whether their unions must be called MARRIAGE or could be known by another name, handing that question to the Legislature. The legislatures January 2010 decision to retain civil unions and deny marriage equality is headed back to the NJ supreme court because civil union solutions do not work, as tried and failed in other states.
--
Washington's voters approved the Senate Bill 5688 (the Everything but Marriage bill) in the 2009 General Election, which gave all domestic partners the same rights as marriage, except the title of marriage. The law went into effect on December 3, 2009.
---
The Iowa supreme court was firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification." To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
In Iowa there is no evidence to support your statement "Iowa got it wrong because they based their decision on an exception, not the rule."
-----------------------------
"......so such cases could actually be damaging to gay activism, by setting an anti-gay marriage precedent. " If we lose, and I don't think we will, then we have to continue the state by state voter and legislative approach. This might mean that every two or four years, in California, you could wake up and find yourself marriage in jeopardy or not. Fun huh?
-------
34 states permitted interracial marriage when Loving was decided. Only Five states permit same-sex marriages. Do you know the number of states that must agree with same sex marriage before its the right time to take your case to the supreme court? My take is that if one feels their constitutional rights are being violated, justice delayed is justice denied.
If SSM is different, then, SSMers would state that differnce with ease. They have not. It is a subset of nonmarriage unless shown otherwise.
Based on the difference, if it exists, then, the law can recognize SSM and not confuse it with nonmarriage.
Basic lawmaking.
It suffices that SSM does not advance the societal interest in the core meaning of marriage. Lots of other stuff does not advance that social interest and is not merged with marriage.
Marriage law recognizes marriage, not other stuff. If there is a state interest in SSM, that is not applicable to the rest of nonmarriage, SSMers have failed to identify it.
And, no, there is no state interest in using gayness as a trump card; even SSMers concede that they would not make gayness a legal requirement for those who'd show up to SSM.
Chairm wrote "there is no state interest in using gayness as a trump card; even SSMers concede that they would not make gayness a legal requirement for those who’d show up to SSM." Why should they, heterosexuality is not a requirement for marriage today. However, If two opposite sex couples could not marry because of a same sex only restriction, the core meaning of their identity would be neutered by that kind of marriage law. it would violate their due process and equal protection rights under the 14th amendment and they would have a valid legal claim to bring before the court.
"..... that SSM does not advance the societal interest in the core meaning of marriage." That one meaning, and no, the law does not require that of heterosexual couples today, no religious obligation to support that view or another's view along with no civil marriage obligation to procreate in a certain way or procreate at all. However, it is in the interest of society to provide the same social and civil law support for gay and lesbian families, that heterosexual couples receive today. Suffice it to say that that just one very sufficient state interest and societal benefit of marriage equality.
Chairm:
The trump card is Equal Protection and Due Process: the state can’t deny a right to someone who claims it without a rational state interest. The state would have to say why it permits straight people to marry but not gay people. There really isn’t a rational state interest in doing so. Most of the arguments favoring discrimination appear to be based on a belief that straight marriage is going away, in favor of gay marriage. That’s not true: both will coexist. Citizens will have the choice to marry a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex partner.
For instance, supporters of marriage discrimination say that opposite-sex marriage is the optimal environment to raise children. That may very well be true (although, oddly, gay couples can legally raise children together in all 50 states) and citizens who believe children are best raised in opposite-sex married households can continue to create those households. But clearly the state permits sub-optimal parenting: unmarried couples can legally raise children, single people can raise children, convicted murderers can raise children. It will be a tough sell to say that same-sex couples, who already have the right to raise children, will be lesser parents if they are permitted to marry!
Children are lawfully raised outside of marriage in one-sexed and two-sexed scenarios -- gay or not, straight or otherwise. Related people raise children together. Children are raised in underaged scenarios, too. Children are raised in threesome and moresome scenarios. Regardless of optimal to suboptimal.
So the mere presence of children does not bestow eligibility to marry. This has zilch to do with gayness or straightness. Gayness is not the trump card that SSMers demand.
* * *
There is no straight elegibility criterion and no gay ineligibility criterion in the marriage law.
The SSMers offer no state interest in SSM that does not also fit the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements.
A merger of SSM with marriage is essentially a merger of marriage and nonmarriage: a flattening of marriage. This merger directly requires the abolition of the core meaning of marriage and, thus, the special reason for the special status of marriage.
The merger does not advance the state interest in the social institution of marriage.
SSM merger = the Specious Substitution of Marriage.
The question that SSMers keep dodging is, why impose such a merger? So, instead, they ask the question, why not?, which applies logically to the rest of the nonmarriage category.
The eligibility lines are drawn around the special reason for the special status of marriage. These lines can be justified by advancing the state interest in marriage.
Changing these lines is not justified by folding in stuff that stands opposed to that state interest. Changing these lines of eligibility is not justified by negating the core meaning of marriage. That SSMers demand such unjustified changes shows that they are anti-marriage.
Why impose such a merger?
The feeling of security that comes with marriage and the assumption of many of the comforts and over 1100 protections society affords families. This difference can be felt in a very personal way. "The word 'partnership' is used to describe business deals, tennis matches and golf games. "Civil Union" is not the appropriate word to describe the relationship with a person you love.
Just one small state interest in marriage equality is to reduce impact on taxes and health care costs for gay and lesbian families who cannot access their partner's health insurance.
Those are not state interests in merging nonmarriage with marriage. SSM is a subset of nonmarriage until shown how it is different. Based on that difference, if it exists and can be shown, then, you might make a case for some sort of state interest in THAT difference.
Until then, we see that SSMers have emphasized gay identity politics as a supposed trump card that should make the government do the bidding of a particular identity group. That sort of stuff was repudiated with the federal challenge to the supremacy of racialist identity politics in the Loving case.
Nope,
The state does have an interest in protecting tax payers from picking up the bill for same sex couples who do not have access to their partners health insurance. Further, the state has a civil marriage interest in custody, contract enforcement, property and inheritance rights, for gay and lesbian couples and their children. The state has an interest in the well being of these families though the access of about 1100 civil benefits.
If we extend civil marriage to murders and child abusers, and philanders, why not to same sex couples? Marriage discrimination has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children. Solid peer reviewed science based evidence clearly shows that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals. Civil marriage is not tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking marriage. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness, and a basic civil right. Perhaps the time has come to finally include gays and lesbians in this civil right.
Jonathan, if those are state interests in SSM, then, explain why those are not state interests in the types of relationships and the kinds of arrangements which are not SSM and are not marriage.
Kevin, it is commonly called "same-sex marriage" out of convenience, not because it is actually different from nonmarriage.
The fact that you have failed to show it is different proves my point. Your limits of argumentation have beached your shipwreck of a notion.
If you weren't making such a fuss about merging nonmarriage with marriage, sure, people probably wouldn't be so opposed.
There is extensive support for provisions for designated beneficiaries. Such provisions are not marriage-in-all-but-name and are not a merger with marriage. This is the fair solution to the actual complaint -- that is, if the complaint's gaycentricity is removed. Yet you and the SSM campaign cling to gay identity politics, first and foremost.
Sure, that makes SSM different from the rest of nonmarriage, but that does not justify a special status.
* * *
ConservativeNY has cornered the SSMers who now play the part of rope-a-dope.
"Jonathan, if those are state interests in SSM, then, explain why those are not state interests in the types of relationships and the kinds of arrangements which are not SSM and are not marriage."
Chairn, Are you asking what is the state interest in folks who choose not to marry? In a friendship? Someone you date? Or with work colleagues? Or relationships with your boss? Your bus driver? Your car mechanic? The cashier at the grocery store? Your dog or cat? The person that delivers your newspaper? Or how about your house or car, or favorite pair of shoes? Or relationship with the universe in general?
Not sure how this argumentation is relevant to a due process and equal protection claim for access to civil marriage. Perhaps you could explain the legal relevancy and we can go from there.
Civil Marriage law = Federal and state benefits and responsibilities, in most cases, only available to opposite sex couples. The presence or absence of children resulting from said marriage is not referred to. Married couples are treated the same way under the law with or without children. Why? Becuase to not do so would be discrimination - and in some cases not having children IS a choice!!
CIvil Parental law = Federal and state regulations which, in a nutshell, state that parents and/or legal guardians are responsible for their children - natural, adopted, or fostered - until they turn 18 or are otherwise relieved from their parental duties. Marital status, NOT TO MENTION SEXUAL ORIENTATION, are nowhere to be found, except in a small number of states, and that only applies to adoption and fostering.
Hmmm...so let's see...in marriage law, status of children makes no difference, and in parental law, marriage status makes no difference...therefore, conclusion? The argument that "children deserve a mother and a father" makes no sense in arguing against same sex marriage!!!
Jonathan, you itemized 'state interests'. Those are not particular to SSM nor to marriage. It is up to you show how your favored subset of nonmarriage is different, as per your list of state interests.
See, you keep pounding the table with your shoe and declaring that SSM and marriage are one and the same thing. But you haven't shown how SSM is different from nonmarriage while, according to your view, SSM is the same as marriage. You haven't even shown how marriage is different from nonmarriage.
Pointing at the license is irrelevant to this question. The license and the special status that is accorded, you said, is due to state interests that exist before a license and status is conjured up by the government. So the difference(s) must exist pre-law.
You want to hoist SSM (a subset of nonmarriage) up onto the back of marriage for a free ride. Make your favored subset stand on its own two feet and show that ther is a state interest in it that does not also apply to the rest of nonmarriage.
If you mindlessly repeat your list, you haven't answered the most basic question. If you rely solely on gayness, then, you have reconfirmed your dependancy on identity politics.
Jacob, the man-woman criterion stands for sex integration; the marital presumption of paternity stands for the provision for responsible procreation. The law recognizes the social institution into which people enter when they form a conjugal union of husband and wife.
Whatever the merits, and demerits, of a one-sexed scenario, the core meaning of marriage is extrinsic to it. This is not really about gay-straight. It is about marriage itself.
SSM rhetoric places gay identity politics at the forefront (and marriage defenders will respond to that peculairity of the SSM campaign), however, when that assertion of supremacy is filtered out, as justice demands, then, what is left amounts to a call for provisions for designated beneficiaries. And that solution is not gaycentric and applies to a broad and very inclusive range of kinds of arrangements and types of relationships that are nonmarital -- sexualized or not.
Your comment logically points at something else: a call for abolishing the special status of marriage. Do you support or oppose the special status of marriage? If support, plainly state the special reason for that special status.
Chairm
I think you’ve gone beyond silly with this “same-sex marriage is non-marriage” proclamation. You may as well be arguing that a first marriage is different from a second marriage! They’re both marriage though people certainly have different feelings about them. Again, it’s an odd thing to call something marriage, as in “same-sex marriage,” and then claim it’s not marriage. Who’s doing the redefining here?!
“If you mindlessly repeat your list….”
Speaking of mindlessly repeating LOL
"it’s an odd thing to call something marriage, as in “same-sex marriage,” and then claim it’s not marriage. Who’s doing the redefining here?!"
You answer your own question. Same-sex "marriage" hasn't been "marriage" until like 5 minutes ago, and only then in a few localized areas.
Honestly. Polygamous, incestuous, underaged & forced (paid) marriages ALL have more historical precedent and cultural support than "same-sex" marriages have ever enjoyed, anywhere on earth.
Same-sex couplings look more like brothers and sisters, than husbands and wives.
Well Marty I guess same-sex marriage has arrived. And like the outdated term "male nurse," it too will evolve to be called just "marriage."
Kevin,
The term, "male nurse", is not outdated if the individual is both a nurse and a male person. Unlike "same-sex marriage", this phrase is not an oxymoron. The meaning of nurse is based on what makes nursing different from other stuff. There are both male and female persons who do that stuff.
You haven't said what you have in mind. You just dodge the questions which address the obvious problem with that oxymornic phrase.
Explain what makes SSM different from stuff that is not marriage. Given your certitude, given your emphasis on state interests, answering this basic question should be so easy for you.
And yet it has proven to be so very hard for you. That is very telling.
People who disagree with the SSM-merger have the decency to show you a courtesy in public discourse when they use it, or understand your use of it, as a label for whatever it is that SSMers have in mind when they call something both "same-sex" and "marriage". That does not endorse the term nor does it endorse the notion as an authentic subset of marriage.
That you would try to make it an endorsement shows how your rhetoric has gotten in the way of discussing the matter with intellectual honesty. You have just stuck your finger in the eye of people who have been showing you common courtesy in public discourse.
And that, Kevin, reflects very poorly on you, your rhetoric, and your argumentation (such as it may be). Your "LOL" is as phony as your pose here.
It is an oxymoronic phrase. Deal.
* * *
You have not shown that any one of those state interests you listed are not also applicable to the rest of nonmarriage.
You said: "So however you distinguish opposite-sex marriage from other stuff, feel free to distinguish same-sex marriage the same way."
Marriage unites the sexes; SSM cannot.
Marriage provides for the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood; SSM cannot.
Marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society; SSM is not.
Marriage provides for responsible procration; SSM cannot.
Responsible procreation has far more societal significance than anything you have said about SSM. It is a coherent set of principles and practices; it begins before conception; it extends well beyond childbirth; it entails the marital presumption of paternity which is vigorously enforced in our legal system.
If you'd read that to mean that the law supposedly would force people to procreate, then, you are not dealing with the actual disagreement. You are running away and hiding from it.
The core meaning of marriage is the justification for discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage. That has been illustrated and explained but the SSMer's reaction is to clamp his hands over his ears, and chant "Nah, nah, nah, don't wanna hear."
On the other hand, many marriage defenders have pointed at the fair and just solution of provision for designated beneficiaries which has long-existed, is well-utlized, and is available across the country to most of the nonmarriage category -- regardless of gayness, sexual orientation, and the like. It is based on affidavit and fits SSM emphasis on contract and protections. It just does not come with the trump card of gay identity politics. The complaint has been heard; a solution is known and widely supported. No need for further attacks on marriage.
Chairm, are you suggesting this view should be a state interest and requirement of civil law?
Marriage unites the sexes; SSM cannot.
[Why should this be an new objective of homosexual couples who want to formalize their relationships in marriage?]
Marriage provides for the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood; SSM cannot. [How does homosexual marriage change this for heterosexual couples?]
Marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society; SSM is not. [I've heard no argumentation how homosexuals will change this meaning for heterosexuals]
Marriage provides for responsible procration; SSM cannot. [Where in civil law is the requirement for procreating in a specific way?]
Responsible procreation has far more societal significance than anything you have said about SSM. It is a coherent set of principles and practices; it begins before conception; it extends well beyond childbirth; it entails the marital presumption of paternity which is vigorously enforced in our legal system. [I don't know how this view will change for those that want to continue to think this way].
Marty ",Honestly. Polygamous, incestuous, underaged & forced (paid) marriages ALL have more historical precedent and cultural support than “same-sex” marriages have ever enjoyed, anywhere on earth."
So has traditional slavery enjoyed support both in and out of marriage. However, like traditional marriage, and traditional coverture "tradition alone" is not sufficient constitutional justification for denying same sex couples due process and equal protection.
The objective of "homosexual couples" is beside the point, Jonathan, as your own question indicated.
You keep clinging to this homosexual-heterosexual dichotomy.
A husband and wife are a married couple, regardless of sexual orientation. But you keep implying something quite different: that a marriage license makes them a "heterosexual couple". The law does not operate that way.
For example, the sexual basis for the presumption of paternity is blind to sexual orientation and identity politics. Most of the (very few) children, by far, living in same-sex households have both moms and dads whose procreative relationships were usually marriages. The marital presumption of paternity protects their children and the parents. And does so blind to the things you keep wanting to inject into your attack on the core meaning of marriage.
Marriage is a foundational social institution and its core meaning is extrinsic to SSM. To merger the latter with marriage is to abolish from the law and from the culture the core meaning which makes this social institution foundational to our civil society. That -- in and of itself -- would be a harm for all of society.
You keep reminding readers that for gay activists, this SSM issue is not about justice, but rather about "just us".
As I said in the very comment that you have tried to reply to, the societal interest in responsible procreation does not mean that government must force people to procreate. So you can stop flogging that strawman of your own making. But you keep doing it anyway and thus you demonstrate the "nah, nah, don't wanna hear" theatrics of the SSM campaign.
As for your own views on SSM and the marriage amendment, I'll just parrot back at you your own glibness: "I don't know how this view will change for those that want to continue to think this way".
More serious, what you don't know is not the issue on this point. What you refuse to acknowledge is. You keep running away from the actual disagreement.
Done.
I'll leave the last word to you, if you'd not abuse it.
Chairm, where is any of this 'core meaning stuff' in civil marriage law?
-Marriage unites the sexes; SSM cannot.
-Marriage provides for the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood; SSM cannot.
-Marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society; SSM is not.
-Marriage provides for responsible procration; SSM cannot.
-Responsible procreation has far more societal significance than anything you have said about SSM. It is a coherent set of principles and practices; it begins before conception; it extends well beyond childbirth; it entails the marital presumption of paternity which is vigorously enforced in our legal system.
---------------
Chairm, civil marriage law is about property rights, custody, inheritance and eligibility (no brothers/sisters, minors etc.).
You assume that same sex marriage must meet the criteria you describe above? That is for the courts to determine. if you can make a due process and equal protection argument, then you win! But so far you have failed to do so...
I'll take those questions are not rhetorical but it looks awfully obvious that you, Jonathan, have not been paying attention. You should not abuse the offer of the last word like that.
1. Unites the sexes, see the man-woman criterion of marriage law.
2. Solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood, see the marital presumption of paternity.
3. Foundational social institution, see federal precedents. See the anthropological and historical record, also noted in precedents and the legislative record.
4. Responsible procreation, see the legislative record on DOMA, for starters; see federal precedents.
No, I won't spoonfeed you here, not after your very poor performance in our exchanges. You need to do more basic homework. Olson, needs someone to do that for him, evidently. He may be schooled by the pro-amendment testimony, but he could have learned all of this before he put his reputation as a litigator on the line.
* * *
Your argumentation puts eligiblity on the table.
The core of marriage justifies its special status as well as the lines drawn around marriage.
Your argumentation provides no justification for special status (not for marriage and not for SSM) and no justification for drawing lines of eligibility (not for marriage and not for SSM).
Indeed, as your own comments at this blogsite indicated, and as Olson's opening arguments indicated, your viewpoint would flatten the special status of marriage in favor of a merger with something that lacks a core meaning, lacks deep roots, is sex-segregative, disunites fatherhood and motherhood, and is incoherent and lacking a rational basis. The injection of gayness into all of that is unjustified -- it would be an arbitary exercise of judicial power. It would unjustly demote marriage from its special status; it would unjustly elevate gaycentric identity politics to a special status. The arbitrariness stands against all the pro-SSM whining about "discrimination" based on gayness.
It breaks all your own rules of attack on the core of marriage.
Instead of making a case for SSM, you keep flaunting a very week argument against marriage.
Your argumentation, such as it is, stands against society discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage. Your argumentation brazenly demands that society discriminate in favor of gaycentric identity politics. And that, Jonathan, is closely analogous with the racialist identity politics of white supremacy.
* * *
Once again, I'll leave the last word to you, if you'd not abuse it.
umm, excuse me, but your 'reasons' for not wanting cameras at the trial are pretty lame...
"supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.”
hello!! those 'reason' and more (including real death, not just a threat) are things gays and lesbians have to endure every day in some form from the zealots and misinformed voters passing UNconstitutional laws.
How can you not see that??? Why is it OK for US to endure it, but not OK when some of your side gets exposed?
Roy, there is no question that pro SSM forces are intolerant of prop 8 supporters. The aftermath in both California and Maine has been documented fully. Violence happens in a small measure to everyone, but these people were selected specifically because of the intolerance of the gay community for marriage supporters. The U.S. Supreme Court itself found the threats substantiated, and noted in their decision that there was no claim of harm to the gay community from proposition 8 supporters. One sided indeed! You got that right, but you forgot which side was truly being victimized.
You may feel justified in your hate Roy, but that doesn't make harming others right.