Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher
The Supreme Court just issued an emergency order blocking Judge Walker's outrageous ruling that the Prop 8 trial be televised. For the second time, as the Chicago Tribune points out, the Supreme Court has been willing to step in on an emergency basis to protect marriage supporters from outrageous court rulings.
"In October, the justices blocked officials in Washington state from releasing the names of 138,000 persons who signed ballot petitions seeking to overturn a state law giving equal benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Under Washington law, the names were considered public records.
But attorney James Bopp told the high court that the signers of these petitions could be subjected to harassment if their names were revealed. And the court granted an order blocking the release."
Only one Supreme Court justice (Steven Breyer) dissented. Television coverage is blocked at least until Wednesday, when the Court considers the matter more fully. But a Supreme Court that was willing to keep petition signers names private on First Amendment grounds, even though the law requires them to be revealed, seems to me unlikely to agree to let a judge unilaterally life a federal rule banning televised proceedings under these circumstances.
I might add: This is two strikes against Justice Walker, for even the 9th Circuit could not swallow his previous ruling that all the private communications of Protect Marriage campaign team should become part of this trial, and overruled him.
62 Comments
This is interesting that the supreme s blocked him again. Its good that the supreme s will weigh in on this and not just Judge Walker sitting in the heart of gay pride. If he ruled against the gays, they would re call him in a heartbeat with their majority of gays.
The legal strategy of the anti-8 litigators is really a political strategy to place the pro-marriage trial participants on trial.
The SSMers who are enthusiastic at such a prospect have shown themselves ready to subvert the fair treatment of litigants. They are pleased to have a national stage on which to hurl ad hom attacks. And those attacks, and that enthusiasm, would be a replay of the scene at El Coyote Restaurant, for example.
It all stems from the false assumption -- an assumption that is transformed into "fact finding" through the alchemy of gay identity politics -- that to support the core meaning of marriage is to be bigoted against the gay identity group.
The pro-amendment side has a stronger hand than the anti-8 side, so the anti-8 side looks for every manufactured political advantage possible -- even in a courtroom. This Olson case is a spectacular example of that very thing.
The review by the supreme court will insure that the losing side, whoever that may be, won't be able to blame their defeat on You Tube Video intimidation. Rather, defeat needs to be based on strength of argumentation. Thank you SCOTUS.
This case may not reach the US Supreme Court.
For readers who asked about my reference to El Coyote, checkout the following blogpost: "Revolting at the diner."
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-you-want-revolution.html
Here is a small snippet of that very extensive blogpost:
"They said this could not happen in America. But now it has.
"It must have been oppressive during this show trial. Here is what happened. Here is what is taught, in three easy lessons and three hard payments."
Did you read the New York Times Op-Ed piece about this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11meese.html
I'm happy that (so far) this hasn't been televised. People don't need to be harrased and intimidated for holding the view that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Ah yes, the hatred and intimidation of the gays. It's all here:
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/hateful-gays
re: "This case may not reach the US Supreme Court."
Correct - the ruling, whatever that may be, may be left as unique only to California.
Chairm, In additon to El Coyote, you forgot to Google the "Mountain Meadow Massacre" It provides balance, meaning their are always two sides. The electro-shock change 'em therapy, the attacking of gays for hand holding last summer. You have to weigh it all... and not be selective in order to provide balance.
Actually, Johnathan, your examples do not really provide 'balance' as you say. 'Balance' would imply that you were providing an opposing point of view.But you have simply cited more examples of persecution, and I think Chairm's point was that it is wrong to persecute people for what they believe. I don't think anyone is in disagreement about that, or at least, I hope not. Of course, the argument of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal is a separate issue. But I think we can at least agree that nobody on either side of the issue should be persecuting anyone who holding a contrary view.
But Matt, are they persecuting people for holding a contrary view? Or are they refusing to give their money to someone who will use that money to strip them of their rights? Big difference there.
Rob, go to the blogpost I left in my previous comment. The person the crowd intimidated made a very small financial contribution to one side of a legitimate issue campaign.
1. The crowd demanded the woman recant.
2. When did not, the crowd demanded that she make a financial contribution to the side she opposed.
3. When she did not, the restaurant manager made a contribution on behalf of the restaurant.
4. That was not enough for the crowd. They planned a boycott.
5. The crowd still insisted on coercion to get her to recant, to make financial payment, and to lose her employment. Also, to further press the restaurant to denounce her, her beliefs, and to provided even more financial support for the side that lost the election.
That's a summary. Read the blogpost. It quotes extensively from the crowd and from the commenters who are anti-8.
The issue campaign was about marriage, not about 'stripping rights'. The gay-straight dichotomy is false in terms of the marriage amendment, anyway.
Thanks Matt, your comment closely aligns with what my comment was about. For or against the marriage amendment, we should recognize that there is a basic democratic principle of public discourse that has become endangered. Drifting toward that danger only makes things worse, no matter what one thinks and feels about the marriage issue.
I agree with Rob. No minority should be expected to finance its opposition. And since same-sex couples were stripped of their fundamental right to marry in California, it's understandable if a few bad apples, if any, overreacted. I really don't think there's a gracious way to respond when you're right to marry is obliterated. I know I'd be plenty mad if it were done to me!
I wonder if all of the people who think that gay marriage legislation is benign are aware of the kind of gay activism that follows passing gay marriage laws. It is not just a matter of "love" or of that nice gay couple that you know getting married. It is being taught in schools as a healthy practice, with no adverse health consequences. Anal sex, fisting, cross-dressing all are taught to kids in schools and parents can do very little about it:
http://www.narth.com/menus/schools.html
Is this what we should be teaching in the public schools? Are parents just hateful bigots if they don't want their kids to be given a "fisting kit" and a guide to local gay clubs? If you think I am inventing this, do a careful search for PFLAG, Massachusetts and fisting. Or "the little black book", PFLAG and Massachusetts.
The quickest way to draw ones credibility into question is to cite NARTH.
NARTH is a religion-centered organization for demonizing gay people, especially gay men. It is not a credible source for any citation or reference.
Just because you dislike NARTH does not mean that PFLAG did not distribute information about fisting, etc. to kids in Massachusetts.
http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/glsen_043005/black_book/black_book_inside.htm
The point is, that when people support gay rights legislation, they get a lot more than they bargain for, including the pushing of the gay agenda in the public schools.
NPR did a report, too. Perhaps you find them to be more credible:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5219696
Actually, GLSEN, not PFLAG.
I've heard of public schools where Christians try to teach about Christ and salvation and stuff like that. Sometimes schools are able to stop such stuff in time and sometimes parents can pull their kids out of school before it happens but sometimes they can't.
"The crowd still insisted on coercion to get her to recant"
Coercion? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion
NOM might want to know that when people try to search for this site on Google, a bunch of sites that criticize NOM pop up, but not a link to this site. It's obviously an attempt by online hackers to prevent people from coming here.
In other words - NOM's been googled. I'd look into it if I were you.
The $100 contribution that the waitress made was from her own hard earned wages.
It is simply a falsehood to say that she or anyone else expected the anti-8 side to finance the pro-amendment side.
The crowd (not just a few bad apples) made clear that they expected the waitress, and her employer, to pay restitution to the anti-8 side because that side lost the election. They pushed for her unemployment. They stood at the doorway pressuring customers to boycott.
That's coercion (intimidation to obtain compliance) in both intent, effect, and by design. Soft-pedaling that harrassment serves to draw your credibility into question.
The FBI has a pretty clear definition of intimidation: "unlawfully placing another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words and/or conduct."
The protesters told potential customers that the money they spent at El Coyote had been used, in part, to strip them of their rights. Calling that "intimidation" serves to call your credibility into question.
Also, why do you keep calling her a waitress? This inaccuracy (or at best a half truth) serves to call your credibility into question.
"It is simply a falsehood to say that she or anyone else expected the anti-8 side to finance the pro-amendment side."
You are correct, and no one has claimed otherwise. In fact, I agree that the gay and lesbian patrons most certainly did NOT expect that the money they paid for their meals would go to finance the pro-amendment side. And once they discovered that it had in fact happened, many of them decided to stop buying their meals there.
What has been used by pro-gay marriage advocates to threaten people:
Intimidation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=3
Vandalism:
http://www.kcbs.com/pages/3595819.php?
Death threats:
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6479861
Rob, you linked to your chosen definition of coercion. Now you want to toss it.
The crowd sought to intimidate, coerce, the 67 year-old waitress. I suppose she could have pressed criminal charges if she had been a high school student being accosted forher lunch money Instead she took the high road. She lost her employment and wages. That was the direct result of the intimidation -- the coercion -- that the crowd used against her.
That was the cost they put on her lawfully participating in the democratic process.
The manager of the place tried to mollify the crowd by making a significant financial contribution. That was not for the crowd who pressed for more.
Read the blogpost. The anti-8 people spoke for themselves.
You are making excuses for all that.
* * *
Rob, I responded to Kevin's comment, "No minority should be expected to finance its opposition."
You are dead wrong. The lady used her own wages. Neither you nor that crowd has any say in what she does with her own hard-earned dollar.
As for boycotting the restaurant, go for it.
But don't pretend that shouting at people at the entrance is some gentle non-intimidating, non-coercive, tactic.
* * *
From a report on the anti-8 campaign of vengeance-seeking and reprisals:
"Boycotting businesses that engage in commercial behavior consumers find objectionable is a time-honored form of activism in American society. However, targeting businesses for the political and religious views of their owners or even their employees -- and the decision of these individuals to participate in democratic political processes -- has raised serious concerns about the state of public discourse regarding marriage and the condition of civil society generally. No individual should be compelled to choose between making a living and participating in democratic processes affecting fundamental matters of public concern, such as marriage."
http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg2328.cfm
* * *
The point of bringing this up is to demonstrate that SSMers will excuse this stuff even as they wrap themselves in the protective shield of "tolerance".
The political/legal strategy of the anti-8 litigators is as crude and snivelling as was the overheated nonsense on display at El Coyote Restaurant. The anti-8 litigators would promote that very sort of irrational reaction against the pro-marriage trial participants.
By the way, marriage defenders did not react in that way when the SSM side had its wins. Not in CA. Not in any other place in the country. The contrast speaks volumes.
Cheering for the defenders of Prop. 8. May democracy prevail against thuggery!
Chairm, Google "8:The Mormon Proposition" for the You Tube video Its the other side of the story. Its the other view, not to justify the crowds reaction but explain it.
"Rob, you linked to your chosen definition of coercion. Now you want to toss it."
Actually, that's a simple untruth. I gave a definition of coercion; it invoked the words "force" and "intimidation;" you claimed she was intimidated; I gave you a reasonable definition of intimidation that doesn't fit with your claims. I haven't tossed my definition -- I've supported it.
How on earth could she have pressed criminal charges? What charge would she have presssed? A meeting turned into a shouting match with shouting on both sides. That's all.
And THIS is laughable: "By the way, marriage defenders did not react in that way when the SSM side had its wins. Not in CA. Not in any other place in the country. The contrast speaks volumes."
First off, your side (which are in fact marriage attackers, not marriage defenders, given that they have only worked to destroy marriage,s not save any). has worked hard to strip others of basic civil rights. We have simply tried to defend our rights. So let's see: destroyers of rights vs. defenders of rights. Yeah, the contrast speaks volumes, all right.
Harrasment, vandalism, coersion, threats by those who oppose Prop 8:
http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg2328.cfm
Horrific attacks on gays, lesbians, and their children:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#Full_text
Sky will fall argumentation may be a red herring according to early data....
"States which had not adopted a constitutional marriage ban, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates.”
"States which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval.”
Perhaps enough data to engage in more sophisticated longitudinal studies.
-fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html
"By the way, marriage defenders did not react in that way when the SSM side had its wins. Not in CA. Not in any other place in the country. The contrast speaks volumes." The OSM side did not lose anything.. why would they want to react? They went home, and found themselves in some cases still married to the same person whether they liked it or not..
A recent study (at http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20091217/southern-states-are-the-happiest), published in the highly esteemed journal "Science," provided information about the level of happiness in each of the various states in the US. The southern states were mostly at the top with the northeastern states mostly at the bottom. One might jump to the conclusion that the warm weather controls, but California was also near the bottom and Montana, Maine, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and South Dakota were near the top. One factor the researchers did not consider, but which seems obvious to me, is the level of militant feminism and lesbianism in the state. There appears to be a strong negative correlation between the incidence of militant feminist lesbianism in a region and general levels of happiness in that region, probably because of the increased levels of conflict, mistrust, and tension between the sexes.
The more the militant feminist lesbians push their agenda, the more children will become confused, and the more girls will become bisexuals and lesbians, with the militant feminists encouraging them to become hateful towards men. Most such girls will likely lead miserable lives and the rejected and wounded men and boys will also likely become miserable.
The increased social chaos and tension will make human solidarity much more difficult to achieve and efforts to agree on the common good virtually hopeless. The male-female bond has been the glue holding human society together, and as it is dissolved, as the militant feminists hope to do through same-sex marriage, we will see radical changes leading to a far more vicious and hostile social environment than most Americans are used to.
It is beyond insane that so many want to push forward with this radical experiment in same-sex marriage, ignoring thousands of years of history and encouraging a behavior that may ultimately prove destructive for society, when the sane, prudent course is obviously to wait to see what happens over the next couple of decades in those countries that have already chosen that path.
Prop 8 trial twitter updates from Protect marriage
http://twitter.com/ProtectMarriage
following the twitter updates! Andy Pugno's got a great blog going too.
Could someone please provide a resonable explanation why religious "lifestyle choices" should be protected under the law, but not sexual orientation "lifestyle choices"
Perplexed.....You've heard the arguments. "Homosexuals are an oppressed minority just like racial minorities or women." "The gay rights movement is the new civil rights movement." "Homophobia is equivalent to racism and sexism."
From their perspective, promoting marriage between a man and a woman is the same as denying racial minorities or women the right to vote. They claim the whole debate is a pure and simple civil rights matter. Those who oppose same-sex marriage might as well be opposing the abolition of slavery.
This argument, however, is not only intellectually dishonest, but part of a long term strategy to normalize homosexual behavior.
Discrimination vs. distinction
To reduce all forms of discrimination-racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, or any other -ism-into one group is grossly dishonest and creates serious problems. Discrimination (in the classical sense means to distinguish and judge) plays a necessary and central role in any society. Problems arise only when those judgments are based on faulty, incorrect, or non-existent distinctions. In the case of racism, for example, past discrimination was based on the non-existent distinction between people of different skin color, wherein most people today readily accept that color truly is only skin deep.
To say that homosexuality is equivalent to race is to likewise assert that there is no true distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This is patently false. As Shelby Steele of the Wall Street Journal eloquently explains, "[T]here is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly-not innocuously-different. Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists."
Arguments demanding that the LGBT rights movement be treated as the new civil rights movement seek to erase this profound and necessary distinction. However, discrimination against homosexuality is not faulty or incorrect, but rather based on a notable distinction necessary for the perpetuation of a healthy society.
Homosexuality is not a civil right
Homosexuality, as a behavior, is not a civil right, as it does not fulfill the criteria required to establish homosexuals as a protected group under civil rights legislation. In order to achieve such protection, the trait that distinguishes a group as a minority must be inherited, innate, or immutable. Social science research indicates homosexuality does not meet any of these criteria.
Below is a brief overview of this research. For a more in-depth review of the essential arguments and research for engaging in a dialogue on homosexual behavior, you can view UFI's Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation.
Homosexuality is not genetic
There is no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic, or hormonal causation for homosexuality. A small percentage of the population may have a predisposition toward homosexual feelings, but this does not mean such people engage in homosexual behavior as a result of genetic causation. Predisposition toward something does not mean that it is inevitable or that such a predisposition cannot or should not be resisted and overcome.
Homosexuality is not innate
What a person does (behavior) should never be equated with who a person is. No human being can or should be reduced to his or her sexual impulses. Impulses cannot compel behavior or identities without a person's consent.
Additionally, current evidence suggests that environmental, familial, and personal external influences contribute significantly to the development of homosexual tendencies. Seventy years of therapeutic counseling and case studies show a remarkable consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed in childhood.
Homosexuality is changeable
Reputable studies and decades of successful treatment show that homosexual behavior can be changed. Thousands of former homosexuals testify to this possibility. According to Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH), a coalition of organizations committed to helping those wanting to change same-sex attraction, "In more than 50 years of research, including 48 studies . . . there are data and published accounts documenting easily more than 3,000 cases of change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction, identity and functioning." You can view an overview of those studies here.
Many LGBT advocates cite the decision made by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders as proof that homosexuality is natural and unchangeable. However, the decision to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) was made only after APA leaders and members had endured several years of intense political pressure and disruptive lobbying efforts by militant homosexual activist groups. Even pro-homosexual psychiatric professionals will admit that the APA's decision was purely political, not scientific.
Homosexuality is defined by behaviors that are destructive to individuals and to society
Homosexuality is defined and distinguished by risky behaviors that are proven to be destructive to individuals and to society. The most serious consequence of the homosexual lifestyle is exposure to HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Evidence indicates that 50 percent of men who have sex with men will eventually become HIV positive or infected with another potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease.
Research also indicates that homosexuality is tied to significant increases in drug and alcohol abuse and mental or emotional health disorders. One study found that men with same-sex partners were 6.5 times as likely as heterosexual men to have attempted suicide, and a separate study demonstrated that homosexuals are almost three times more likely to suffer major depression and generalized anxiety disorder.
Rates of domestic violence are also dramatically higher among same-sex couples, particularly lesbian couples. One survey of over a thousand lesbians found that more than half reported being verbally, emotionally, psychologically, or physically abused by their female partner.
Research shows that there is no reduction in the rate of suicide, mental illness, substance abuse, alcoholism, and domestic violence in areas where homosexuality is more widely accepted, proving that the high rate of emotional trauma in homosexuals is not induced by society, but rather, is the result of deviant sexual behavior that negatively impacts emotional and physical health. The same list of negative consequences attached to any other behavior would inspire broad societal efforts to prevent and discourage that behavior.
"From their perspective, promoting marriage between a man and a woman is the same as denying racial minorities or women the right to vote."
Don't be disingenuous. You're not just promoting marriage between a man a woman. You're working to outlaw marriage between two men or two women. It's quite possible to do the first without doing the second.
"In order to achieve such protection, the trait that distinguishes a group as a minority must be inherited, innate, or immutable. Social science research indicates homosexuality does not meet any of these criteria."
I'm not going to argue with you over whether homosexuality is immutable. You're going to believe what you want to believe.
I will however to point out that you are factually incorrect when you say that a trait must be immutable to establish a protected class. Because, of course, there's the protected class called (drum roll, please):
RELIGION
Why do conservatives always forget that religion qualifies for civil rights protection?
"Don’t be disingenuous. You’re not just promoting marriage between a man a woman. You’re working to outlaw marriage between two men or two women. It’s quite possible to do the first without doing the second."
actually the attempt to "redefine" marriage does exactly what you say it does not. Redefininging the meaning of marriage, neutering it and severing marriage from it's connection to children and families renders it from something worthwhile to a meaningless scrap of paper.
I don't care what non marriage form you want to redefine marriage to accept. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, etc. There are many flavors of sexual activity that do not qualify a couple for marriage.
Marriage is worth fighting for. That's why I support it.
Here's my question... doesn't this set up both sides to disqualify judge walker, now. the court pretty much said, that the process was slanted toward broadcasting it. is it fair to wonder how else the process might have been slanted. and further by blocking this overreach, might the judge be now in danger of retaliatory bias? i mean maybe this judge hoped to be famous and these darn defendants screwed that up? So shouldn't they disqualify him now?
Did you all notice Ted Olsen said if The State gets out of the marriage business. then the problem would be solved constituaionally? So if government can possibly get out of the marriage business. How is marriage a fundamental right?
Coverage has been blocked. Decision made to day 5-4
http://www.fresnobee.com/1148/story/1780032.html
There are many things that pose a threat to marriage. A high divorce rate, pornography, selfishness, unrealistic expectations, drugs and alcohol, high unemployment...But dealing with these is hard. what is easy is for married folk to point their fingers at gay people and say 'it's all their fault'. NOM does nothing of substance to help marriage. Bexause that would be hard. scapegoating is much more fun.
Rob, readers can go to your linked definition and see for themselves.
Rob you conceded that intimidation took place at El Coyote:
"A meeting turned into a shouting match with shouting on both sides. That’s all."
Of course, Marjorie did not shout. She did not intimidate quietly, either. The crowd's behavior was intimidating and you can try to paint lipstick on that pig all you want. It only goes to reinforce the point I made in connecting that scene with the strategy of the anti-8 litigators.
Rob, you were well-answered by L. Marie.
You said: "You’re working to outlaw marriage between two men or two women. It’s quite possible to do the first without doing the second."
First of all, whatever you'd call SSM is not marriage but neither is it outlawed.
Not like, say, polygamy which is a felony. Not like underaged marriage, also criminalized. Not like incestuous marriage, certainly void but also subject to criminal charges.
As SSMers have described it, the one-sexed arrangement they favor is left alone as another subset of nonmarriage. Indeed, it has been accomodated with its own special treatment in the form of Domestic Partnership status. I doubt that such a status can be justified based only on homosexuality, or gay identity, or whatever else SSMers keep on about, however, it goes to show that this "SSM" thing is not outlawed.
Adam made an excellent point that deserves to be repeated.
SSMers are invited to try to answer. If you remain silent on this question, then, you concede very much indeed.
Adam said [January 13, 2010 at 6:38 pm]:
Did you all notice -- Ted Olsen said that if The State gets out of the marriage business, then the problem would be solved constituaionally? So if government can possibly get out of the marriage business. How is marriage a fundamental right?
* * *
Cue the crickets.
Here is another comment that is worth repeating. It is right on the topic of the blogpost at the top.
A.W. saud [January 13, 2010 at 6:32 pm]:
Here’s my question… doesn’t this set up both sides to disqualify judge walker, now. the court pretty much said, that the process was slanted toward broadcasting it. is it fair to wonder how else the process might have been slanted. and further by blocking this overreach, might the judge be now in danger of retaliatory bias? i mean maybe this judge hoped to be famous and these darn defendants screwed that up? So shouldn’t they disqualify him now?
* * *
All good questions.
The cricket in the back, please step forward...
Chairm wrote: "Did you all notice — Ted Olsen said that if The State gets out of the marriage business, then the problem would be solved constituaionally? So if government can possibly get out of the marriage business. How is marriage a fundamental right?"
* * *
My take here...
Religions would perform marriages, and the state would only perform civil unions. Marriages would no longer fall under equal application of law and due process. Civil unions would become a fundamental right. Homosexual and heterosexual couples would get their civil unions from the state and could get married in a church that
solemnized them.
Children would now say, "When I grow up, I want to be civil unioned and live happily ever after!"
So, Jonathan, marriage is not a fundamental right?
You seem confused about solemnization of marriage.
The wedding ceremony has an solemnizer. This is a civil role, not a religious role. The basic duty is to be present when the couple give themselves as husband and wife.
California's statutory code (Section 400-402):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=50995015398+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
In addition to "authorized person of a religious denonmination", about thirteen other kinds of functionaries are listed who may solemnize a marriage.
You mistakenly split the required solemnization from the "getting" the union okayed by the state. One and the same thing.
Maybe you meant "blessing" after the fact of solemnization.
Is civil union the fundamental right that is in the US Constitution?
Seems that it, along with marriage, is optional and not fundamental, according to Olson and his fellow SSMers.
"So, Jonathan, marriage is not a fundamental right?"
Currently as a civil function of the state yes. "If" the states stop performing them, I don't see a due process and equal application of law issue.. Do you? Please explain... If civil marriages were replaced by civil unions.
re: solemnization.. Can be a civil function (the act of performing the ceremony) but can also be a religious function:
"Mormon Marriages can be solemized in the Salt Lake LDS Temple."
The state could be out the Solemnization business for civil unions. Just a kiosk in the county clerks office, you enter the information, provide documentation for verification, and press enter.. Out comes a civil union contract. You want solemnization with that too? You could, but why not go somewhere else for that, since the state is out of that business.
Gotchya.
Charim, stated "the wedding ceremony has an solemnizer. This is a civil role, not a religious role. "
That is incorrect, it can be both.. Gotcha!
I wonder why marriage discriminators want "the people" to vote on marriage yet don't want them to witness a trial weighing the pros and cons? Seems odd to limit the flow of information. Makes me a little suspicious: what are they hiding?
Kevin, ensuring fair treatment of litigants is the paramount duty of the judiciary. Providing a limitless 'flow of information' is not a duty of the judiciary; nor is making the courtroom a stage for the political messages of the anti-8 litigators.
Showing subjective bias against one side in a trial is a transgression of the judiciary role. In this instance, Judge Walker was grandstanding probably out of his own desire for attention; but it prepped the courtroom for unfair treatment.
Even people in favor of SSM, and hoping for a good result for the anti-8 side, have criticized the rule breaking (talk about due process!) and bias (talk about equal protection!) and agree with the Supreme Court's reasoning. Maybe you'd accuse those SSMers of hiding something, too.
* * *
Jonathan, unsurprisingly, your comments are still confused -- by your own choice.
* * *
The "gotchya" was in reference to your comment @ January 15, 2010 at 9:44 am.
I'll leave you the last word, if you'd not abuse it.