Federal Judge Rules on Prop 8
“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote.
The judge added in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
His ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians. The landmark case is expected to be appealed and could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is not a right for your marriage to be recognized by the state. There is a right to marry, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Agree or disagree with gay marriage, it isn’t a matter of rights.
Furthermore, the judge sets an interesting standard when he says, “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights…” First, as I said, it’s not a right to have the state give you a piece of paper acknowledging your marriage. Second, many laws are indeed based on a “moral disapproval.” The judge’s standard becomes ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. Bestiality? Polygamy? Public nudity? Prostitution? Child labor? Indentured servitude? Mandatory emergency medical care? Hardcore porn on over-the-air television channels? Ban on trans fats? Hunting limits? Environmental preservation? These are all things that we can debate, but our laws regarding them are based in morality (or ethics) - not rights.
While moral disapproval alone might not be a justification for a law, neither is moral approval justification for overturning a law.
“Agree or disagree with gay marriage, it isn’t a matter of rights.”
Shall the discussion start here?
What rights does one gain by being married?
What are the current financial and legal incentives to have the state recognize a marriage?
- joint parenting;
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims’ recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits;
- domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0955 hrs
sorry, forgot link for above
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htmPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0957 hrs
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
This sums it up pretty perfectly.
Ultimately, as the younger and less hateful crowd grows up and the older generation dies off, gay marriage will be accepted and this will be viewed similarly to women’s suffrage, separate but equal, etc.
While the US may not be accepting of that now, I’m just happy to know decisions like this are out there to make the bigots uncomfortable. At least make them sweat a little.
If there is a right to marry, it’s only logical that the right be defined as a right to marry whom you choose.
Which laws are not based on morality or ethics?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 0959 hrs
Historically, much of marriage law has been about children and inheritance. Which is to say, it appears to be an institution largely designed around the needs and issues created by reproduction.
Now, one could argue that there’s no substantive difference between a sterile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. But, that still doesn’t change the reality that much of marriage law, historically and in the present, is and was created to manage a reproductive unit known commonly as a “family.” In any case, the judge simply ignores this.
Nor does it address the issue of legal recognition of assorted polyamorous combinations—which is not a red herring, but a legitimate point. After all, once we’ve said that marriage is not inherently heterosexual (despite its origins in reproduction), what’s to say it’s inherently about couples?
The libertarian position (that it’s none of government’s business) ignores the reality that historically marriage has been seen as a public as well as a private event (probably because the State, and informal communities, see a vital interest in the welfare of children).
And then there’s the democratic (small ‘d’, OK?) position—that unless one can show that there is no essential difference between men and women (as we recognize that there is not between persons of different races) then The People should have the right to decide what unions shall be recognized by the State.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1015 hrs
Anytime you have to get permission, approval, or a license from the government to do something, you’re not exercising a ‘right’, but rather, a privilege.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1018 hrs
You know owen, it would be a good idea to consider using the WHOLE statement. The judge said, “Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”
Which actually makes sense. The only reason gays could not marry was because they are gay. Your whole little tirade listing all these other things that are outlawed is a straw man agrument. Those are outlawed for everyone in the US. One section of the population does not get to participate in them while another cannot.
If it is not a right to get a marriage as owen puts it and a privilege accord to mpp, why is it only available to straight couples? Either way to try to spin it, you are only denying the abibility of gay couples to get married only because they are gay.
What other straw man arguments are people going to try to use?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1041 hrs
Owen, your list of things we don’t allow based on morals are laws and the judge is talking about rights in his decision. Big difference.
We pass laws and those laws often change over time. Sometimes they are based on what people of the current time think is moral. Rights are things that we don’t allow laws to go on the books if they take a right away from people or deny them from a certain group.
You are not comparing the same things in your post so your argument doesn’t work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1044 hrs
“It is not a right for your marriage to be recognized by the state.”
You are framing the question wrong. I think you’re doing it on purpose too. You don’t have a right to have your marriage recognized by the state, however, if the state is going to be in the business of recognizing marriages, it can’t do so in a discriminatory manner.
“Second, many laws are indeed based on a ‘moral disapproval.’ The judge’s standard becomes ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion.
“Bestiality?” Should only be illegal to the extent we wish to protect animals from abuse without consent. Based on harm principal, not moral disapproval.
“Polygamy?” Should be totally legal.
“Public nudity?” Should be totally legal.
“Prostitution?” Should be totally legal.
“Child labor?” Should be regulated based on harm principal and the (admittedly arbitrary presumption that children cannot consent.
“Indentured servitude?” Should be a totally legal contract allowed between consenting adults.
“Mandatory emergency medical care?” Not sure what you mean by this.
“Hardcore porn on over-the-air television channels” Should be totally legal. Private companies would provide means of blocking it.
“Ban on trans fats?” I think you have this one backwards. what are you saying is marally disapproved of, trans fats or bans on trans fats?
“Hunting limits?” Based on sustainability/harm principal. To the extent objectuons are based only on moral disapproval, hunting should be totally legal.
“Environmental preservation?” Harm principal again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1051 hrs
“Which actually makes sense. The only reason gays could not marry was because they are gay. Your whole little tirade listing all these other things that are outlawed is a straw man agrument. Those are outlawed for everyone in the US. One section of the population does not get to participate in them while another cannot.”
I don’t think that’s a good distinction. The law in question outlawed gay marriage for everyone, not just gays. That’s obviously a stupid argument in real life, but if we’re going to draw parallels and make distinctions, we have to be fair about it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1055 hrs
There are numerous laws on the books that allow one sect of the population to do something, while others may not.
Only people of certain age may vote, drive, or run for elective office. Felons are not allowed to vote or own firearms. Many state-sponsored programs are created for one level of income earners while others are ineligible. Other government programs have eligibility rules based soley on race or gender.
Look, anyone can get married, and nothing prevents anyone from holding a ceremony and make a verbal committment to another person. But the question here is whether the state will recognize it as a legal marriage, sanctioned it, and afford it certain benefits due to that sanctioning.
Seven million people in California say it should not, and one judge says it should. We will all just have to wait and see what nine other people say.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1110 hrs
That’s such a phony argument. No, not everyone can get married equally. And that’s what it’s about. 7,000,000 people who are wrong. 7,000,000 bigots.
Either do away with marriage all together or make it equal.
As it’s been stated many times, there’s no rational basis for singling out homosexuals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1148 hrs
Again, Mr. Pelican Pants and Owen are talking about laws not rights.
Yes, a law says you have to be a certain age to vote, but the right to vote itself is protected.
And Pants, anyone cannot get married. That’s the whole point. The right to see your loved one in the hospital. The right to receive the retirement benefits your loved one wants you to have if they die.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1153 hrs
The crucial difference here is that of rational basis. One can make an moral argument against prostitution, but one can also call credible experts who will testify to the social damage and emotional/physical harm that the practice can cause. Same with most of the rest of Owen’s list.
The key is that you can prove that the action is rationally related to a legitimate interest of government. Tradition, however, is not a legitimate interest of government. That was established in the majority opinion of Williams v. Illinois, which reads in part that “Neither the antiquity of a practice nor the face of steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack…”
Moral disapproval is also not a legitimate interest of government. It wasn’t more than seven years ago when Justice O’Connor wrote in Lawrence v. Texas that “Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. Indeed, we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.”
And that’s the thing here. Judge Walker gave the defendants every opportunity in the world to present expert witnesses who could attest to there being some rational, definable basis for how this policy would achieve a legitimate interest of government. And the defendants effectively punted, perhaps in part because they were afraid of subjecting much of their witness list to any kind of intense scrutiny. The plantiffs called 18 witnesses. The defense called two. Two witnesses?
“God doesn’t like it” is never a rational basis. Saying it’s bad for child rearing, without providing any kind of objective proof or evidence, is not a rational basis. Saying it promotes procreation, without providing any kind of objective proof or evidence, is not a rational basis. Besides, none other Scalia himself already divorced the procreative argument in his dissent in Lawrence.
These arguments would be a lot more interesting if only those who oppose gay marriage would provide a solid, concrete, factually supported case for what the end is that justifies their means. And as the courts have ruled time and again over the years, a discriminatory action without some kind of rational basis will not survive a 14th Amendment challenge.
For Scalia to oppose he practically has to ignore everything he wrote in his Lawrence dissent, which effectively acknowledges that established precedent has paved the path for the court to legalize gay marriage. It’s a path that Walker outlines clearly and unambiguously reminds them of in his ruling.
And for Kennedy to vote no on gay marriage, he has to recreate a world in which he didn’t write the opinion in Romer.
If I’m opposed to gay marriage, I’m pleading with the defendants to not appeal. This isn’t going to turn out well for you.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 05, 2010 at 1210 hrs
Look, anyone can get married, and nothing prevents anyone from holding a ceremony and make a verbal committment to another person. But the question here is whether the state will recognize it as a legal marriage, sanctioned it, and afford it certain benefits due to that sanctioning.
A marriage is not a marriage without a license. Otherwise it is just a ceremony. You cannot prevent gays from getting a license solely on the basis that they are gay. It draws lines to when a white person couldn’t marry a black person. They were not allowed to marry solely because of race. And no, I am not opening the door to the “gay by choice” bs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1225 hrs
Nothing like legislating from the bench!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1236 hrs
Gays can get married just not to a member of the same sex.
Why can’t I marry 2 women? Because the law says You can only marry one person of the oppisite sex at a time. Are my rights being violated?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1238 hrs
I can’t get married again to have two wives - and those are just morals aren’t they? So where is my right to have as many wives as I want. I’m being discriminated against. I demand a fully recognized marriage to anybody or anything I want.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1238 hrs
Gays can get married just not to a member of the same sex.
Right, so they can’t marry who they want.
Why can’t I marry 2 women?
So you want to compare not being able to marry >1 to someone not being able to marry 1 person. Nice straw man argument.
Also, why would you want another wife? Hard enough to put up with one…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1306 hrs
Nothing like legislating from the bench!
Is this sarcasm or are you actually trying to use this as a point?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1309 hrs
So you want to compare not being able to marry >1 to someone not being able to marry 1 person. Nice straw man argument.
It’s not a straw man just because you say it is.
If the counter to:
The rights are the same for all - everyone is free to marry some one of the opposite sex.Is:
No, it’s not the same for all because gays aren’t fee to marry who they want.Then why does it not follow that the very same principle would apply to marrying multiple people if that’s what someone wants?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1321 hrs
Seven million people in California say it should not, and one judge says it should. We will all just have to wait and see what nine other people say.
Our country was set up as a republic, not a democracy. We are a country of laws. Allowing the will of the majority can lead to some very bad things.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1327 hrs
“So you want to compare not being able to marry >1 to someone not being able to marry 1 person. Nice straw man argument.”
That’s not a straw man and that’s a totally reasonable argument. Both gay marriage and multi-marriage would involve contracts between consenting adults. And both absolutely should be legal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1328 hrs
I support the decision for people to openly and honestly marry as many consenting adults of any race & sex as they’d like.
When the polygamists band together and make a serious social and legal movement, I’ll throw my support towards them wholeheartedly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1333 hrs
It’s apparent that the far left believes that everyone since and including our founders have been wrong until this opinion was signed.
Posted by on August 05, 2010 at 1339 hrs
Gays can get married just not to a member of the same sex.
Right, so they can’t marry who they want.
Why can’t I marry 2 women?
So you want to compare not being able to marry >1 to someone not being able to marry 1 person. Nice straw man argument.
Also, why would you want another wife? Hard enough to put up with one…...
Ok, let’s change this up just a bit to compare apples with apples and eliminate the strawman you perceive.I am not free to marry a woman who already has a husband.
Therefore, I am not free to marry to ONE other person that I choose.
No one has the right to marry anyone they choose, we all have the right to marry a person of our choosing provided they are not already married and are of the opposite sex.
I also ( in certain states) cannot marry someone who is related to me to varying degrees.
Marriage is NOT a right, it is a privilege, and is defined and limited by laws. That is the reason you need a license, just as you need a driver’s license, or a hunting license or a license to practice many occupations.
You must meet qualifications that are determined by the state. In the case of marriage, you must be of the age of consent (there are exceptions to this, with permission of a parent or guardian), you must be mentally sound (you are entering into a contract) and, in most states of the Union, you must be of the opposite sex.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1341 hrs
It’s not a straw man just because you say it is.
It kind of is. On one hand, gay marriage, a male cannot marry another male and a female cannot marry another female. On the other with polygamy, you already have the ability to marry one person and want to add another spouse.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
And you still haven’t given any rational explanation as to why a GROW man would actually volunteer to have two wives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1342 hrs
And you still haven’t given any rational explanation as to why a GROW man would actually volunteer to have two wives.
And in the spirit of the current ruling, he does not have to give a rational reason to want to do it, it cannot be limited for anything less than a rational reason. Your not understanding the reasons why, or moral disapproval of it is not a reason to prohibit it.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1353 hrs
It’s apparent that the far left believes that everyone since and including our founders have been wrong until this opinion was signed.
You act as though people weren’t flawed. You act as though our founders didn’t own slaves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1355 hrs
I do like how the anti-gay marriage crowd, when asked to provide a rational reason for their belief, avoid any attempt at an explanation. It’s easier to try to mold the current laws (and any lack of clarity in the laws) to fit into their view. It couldn’t possibly be that any law / legislation that opposes gay marriage is simply wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1358 hrs
You are comparing apples to oranges.
And you still haven’t given any rational explanation as to why a GROW man would actually volunteer to have two wives.
Personally, the one I have is about 75% more than I can keep up with, so I can’t disagree. My wife on the other hand…well that’s neither here nor there.
I should add that I’m a conservative who supports gay marriage or some mechanism for gay couples to get the rights JP listed at the top. As much as anything, I’m, playing devil’s advocate searching for the consistency of underlying principles I always try to use to guide me. I hate unnecessary exceptions.
Do you or don’t you have a right to marry whomever you want? I’d hope we can all agree that you don’t - that there are some limitations and we’re quibbling over what those are. Obviously minors for example (though those making the history argument should struggle with that). Since it’s effectively an contract, it certainly stands to reason it’s limited to individuals with a sound mind. Though that’s certainly a whole other can of worms as defining what level of capacity is required and does it change based on the that of the other individual?
How is a right to marry someone already married fundamentally different? What is the underlying principle that defines it such that two men, two women or one of each can get married but three cannot?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1423 hrs
“Marriage is NOT a right, it is a privilege, and is defined and limited by laws. That is the reason you need a license, just as you need a driver’s license, or a hunting license or a license to practice many occupations.”
I love how you big government Republicans think it’s just great that we should need a license to do anything. Why should I need a license to drive? Couldn’t we just regulate dangerous driving regardless of the cause? Why should I need a license to practice law? Couldn’t my clients determine whether or not I do a good job?
Who cares if it’s a right or a privilege. There still needs to be a rational basis to afford it to some but not others.
Love this quote from the ruling: “During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that ‘responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interst in regulating marriage.’ Tr 3038:7-8. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, ‘you don’t have to have evidence of this point.’ Tr 3037:25-3040:4.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1429 hrs
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
I can’t tell if you were being sarcastic, I was, but I actually can’t think of a man who would want a 2nd wife. Twice the nagging, twice the complaining…
I am not free to marry a woman who already has a husband.
True, but doesn’t this show that marriage as an institution is flawed? And instead of trying to put up more barriers to prevent people from participating, we should remove them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1430 hrs
I think what I enjoyed most about reading this ruling was the complete nonsense spouted by the anti-gay “expert”, and the complete disdain that the court showed for him. Courts too frequently finds two differently qualified experts to be basically equal. It’s nice to see a purveyor of nonsense ignored for once.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1442 hrs
The judge’s standard becomes ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. Bestiality?
I thought better of you, Owen, but it turns out you’re just a hack like all the rest.
The straw that broke the camel’s back. Best of luck with this masturbatory website. Rest assured that it will never be accused of being a place for real dialogue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1508 hrs
I love how you big government Republicans think it’s just great that we should need a license to do anything. Why should I need a license to drive? Couldn’t we just regulate dangerous driving regardless of the cause? Why should I need a license to practice law? Couldn’t my clients determine whether or not I do a good job?
I hope THIS is sarcasm, but regardless; Whether I agree with the need for a license or not is not the discussion here. None of the things listed, driving, hunting, practicing law/medicine/boilermaking is a right. They are all privileges subject to restriction. Just as marriage is. Within the restrictions no one can be discriminted against due to their being a member of a protected class. A female law school graduate cannot be denied a license to practice law simply because she is hispanic, but she can be denied if she has not passed the bar. A heterosexual cannot be denied a marriage license simply because he is a paraplegic, but he can be denied that license if the partner is his sister (and in this case there may be many of the same reasons as listed in JPs earlier post to want to secure the priveleges of marriage). And a woman is not denied a marriage license because she is lesbian, she is denied the license because her spouse is not male.If you want to change the priveleges or requirements, fine, have at it. But don’t say that there is a right to marry anyone you want, no one has that right as it is NOT a right.
Conversely, just as you would be expected to have to make a case on why it is better for society as a whole to allow people to practice medicine without needing to be licensed by the state, let’s hear the arguments of why it would be beneficial to society for the state to extend the privelege of marriage to same-sex couples? What does allowing same-sex marriage do to make society, as a whole, better?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1509 hrs
In 1878, in order for Utah to become a State they had to change from polgamy to marriage between one man and one woman.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Driving (traveling), hunting, practicing your trade and marriage are not priveleges, they are natural rights in anything resembling a free state.
The problem is the idea that marriage is somehow a grant from the state. It isn’t and shouldn’t be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1524 hrs
Maybe there’s a rational argument for harm arising from polygamy and polyandry. I’m not sure. But I’m sure there’s no rational argument against gays marrying one another.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1526 hrs
7,000,000 bigots.
Boy, libel sure comes naturally to people who don’t attach their real names to their words, doesn’t it Anon?
The ruling is absurd. First, whether or not laws have a rational basis is a policy judgment, not a legal one. The decision should have strictly been based on whether or not any provision in the Constitution clearly denies states the leeway to define civil marriage for themselves. And the fact is, the Constitution has no “Rational Basis” Clause: as William Duncan rightly said on National Review, Prop. 8 would have been constitutional even if it was voted in simply because they liked the number 8. Even if you think passing Prop 8 was stupid and wrong, the fact is that the Constitution allows states to be stupid and wrong.
That’s not to concede that California was stupid and wrong to pass Prop. 8, of course, which brings us to our second point: of course there’s a rational basis for defining civil marriage as a man-woman union: the view that society has a legitimate interest in strengthening the bonds of the only kind of union that naturally produces children. People can disagree on whether this is correct, but it’s certainly rational. For Walker to simply deny the very existence of a rational basis is nothing short of judicial malpractice.
Judge Walker seems to want to use the law to proclaim that certain opinions are not merely mistaken, but officially wrong, as if they simply cannot be held in America. Needless to say, this isn’t his place as a judge. Want same-sex marriage? Vote for it, and convince the rest of your state to do the same. Don’t believe a state should be able to maintain traditional marriage? Then get cracking on an amendment of your own. Say what you will about conservatives fighting for the Federal Marriage Amendment (heaven knows libertarians will say plenty), but they’re doing it the right way: submitting the question to the Constitution’s rigorous amendment process, through which an overwhelming majority of the nation must agree before their goal is achieved. Nobody on the Right is trying to pull a fast one on the people or the law.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1531 hrs
I do like how the anti-gay marriage crowd, when asked to provide a rational reason for their belief, avoid any attempt at an explanation.
I like how the pro-gay marriage crowd ignores every explanation their opponents give them and make no attempt to understand where the other side is coming from, then pretend not to know why people believe in maintaining traditional marriage.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1536 hrs
Driving (traveling), hunting, practicing your trade and marriage are not priveleges, they are natural rights in anything resembling a free state.
They ARE not priveleges or they SHOULD not be? Tell me one country where any of these things are not restricted to some extent? And driving is NOT travelling, driving as in the sense of operating a motor vehicle. You are free to travel.
But I’m sure there’s no rational argument against gays marrying one another.
Scott, you and the other supporters of gay marriage are the ones who want to expand the privelege to those who do not currently now enjoy it. Either make the argument that marriage is a right that should not be denied anyone, or make the case for why society should extend this privelege, what would it benefit society to sanction same-sex marriage?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1537 hrs
the view that society has a legitimate interest in strengthening the bonds of the only kind of union that naturally produces children. People can disagree on whether this is correct, but it’s certainly rational.
The problem with that Calvin is that the proponents were unable to introduce any evidence that hetro marriages would strengthen those bonds. Without any support, there can be no rational basis.
A judge can only rule on what was introduced into evidence before him. So instead of finding fault with the court, find fault with the attorneys and proponents of prop 8 for failing to present the necessary evidence to establish a rational basis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1540 hrs
Super ID, it’s possible the witnesses for the defense didn’t do a good job. I’ve heard some commentary to that effect. But A.) the rational basis is so simple that it’s simply impossible for Walker to have not already been aware of it at the beginning of the trial, B.) I have no faith that he evaluated the evidence that was offered impartially, and C.) as I said, the whole question of rationality is immaterial to Prop 8’s constitutionality anyway.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1545 hrs
What about the right of equal protection?
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1550 hrs
make the argument that marriage is a right that should not be denied anyone, or make the case for why society should extend this privelege, what would it benefit society to sanction same-sex marriage?
What benefit does only allowing heterosexual marriage bring? From what some other comments here appear to say is the benefit of procreation. Procreation is not dependent on marriage.
I think comment #1 at the top has a decent list of societal benefits included:
- joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1551 hrs
What about it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1551 hrs
Doesn’t that mean you have the right to be treated equally under the law? As in, isn’t it a problem if the reason you’re treated differently (denied marriage license) based on your sexual orientation a problem under equal protection?
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1553 hrs
Calvin,
A. I’ve heard a lot of commentary to that effect. I believe at one point, counsel even conceeded that he had no evidence to offer that hetrosexual marriages were better for children. Since, CA already allows singles and gay couples and to adopt I believe that would have been a tough argument.
B. If the rational basis is so simple, counsel should have been able to have introduced evidence in support. If you are saying Walker should have been aware of the basis from the beginning of trial aren’t you asking the judge to partake in judicial activism? Remember, this is a Bush appointed judge. He is not going to give a decision without the evidence being properly presented.
c. Isn’t rational basis the legal standard on which the proposition must be evaluated?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1558 hrs
The good news is that with the ruling, self-marriage is not far down the road.
This is a win for both Feldstein and George, both of which can go literally fuck themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1559 hrs
What benefit does only allowing heterosexual marriage bring? From what some other comments here appear to say is the benefit of procreation. Procreation is not dependent on marriage.
At some point in the past in our siciety, the decision was made that marriage was to be defined as between one man and one woman. Right or wrong, that was the decision, for whatever reasons they made it.
Today, there is a segment of our society that wants to change that. For better or for worse, I am not saying.
But, this segment of society eatither has to make the argument that there is a RIGHT to marry anyone you want, or they need to make an argument that society is better off for granting the privelege to those for whom they advocate. They have not done the former, since they will not equate their struggle with that of polyamorous ‘couples’.
JP made a well thought list at the op of this post, but what do those things do to make SOCIETY better? They are benefits that will accrue to the individuals involved. What does sanctioning same-sex marriage do to improve my life as a member of society in general?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1559 hrs
The Equal Protection Clause applies to individuals, not relationships, groups or organizations (I’m pretty sure liberals wouldn’t want us to start treating corporations as if they were individuals with full Fourteenth-Amendment protection!). Every individual, gay or straight, has the exact same set of abilities before the law: the ability to obtain a marriage contract with a consenting, mentally-competent person of the opposite sex who isn’t a close blood relative. None of us have a legal right to marry “who we want.”
This is because civil marriage isn’t actually a right at all - it’s a social construct that society offers in exchange for something, that something being the increased likelihood that a couple capable of procreating will stay together for the sake of their likely offspring.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1604 hrs
That’s very clever, but the “None of us have a legal right to marry “who we want.”” argument is de facto discrimination. As the judge said, the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex is not a reasonable option for gay Americans.
civil marriage isn’t actually a right at all
But equal protection is.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1607 hrs
SuperId
I do not know if it is intentional or an honest mistake, but Calvin did not say that hetero couples were better for children, I know that the science on that is varied and inconclusive at best.
What he said, and what cannot be denied, is that through heterosexual marriage is the only natural way that children can be created and raised in a family setting.
Yes, singles can have children naturally. Yes, same sex couples can provide many, if not all, of the benefits of a family unit to a child. But both of those situations are lacking in some regard; a single parent cannot provide a complete family unit. A same-sex couple cannot bring the cild into being through natural means. Are either of these deal-breakers? I don’t think so, but THIS is what the original decision was based on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1611 hrs
If the rational basis is so simple, counsel should have been able to have introduced evidence in support.
Maybe they did, and Walker ignored it. I don’t care if he was appointed by a crappy Republican president or a crappy Democrat one, his conduct shows he was out to get a predetermined result: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/194492/judge-walkers-skewed-judgment/ed-whelan
If you are saying Walker should have been aware of the basis from the beginning of trial aren’t you asking the judge to partake in judicial activism?
Not at all. I don’t accept the rational-basis standard to begin with. I’m simply evaluating the accuracy of his statement and pointing out that he shouldn’t base his opinion on statements he knows not to be true.
Isn’t rational basis the legal standard on which the proposition must be evaluated?
No. The legal standard is “Does the Constitution say a state can’t do this?” That’s it.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1611 hrs
...argument is de facto discrimination…
So you say.
As the judge said, the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex is not a reasonable option for gay Americans.
That’s a policy judgment, not a constitutional one.
But equal protection is.
And equal protection is not at issue here.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1614 hrs
scott:
There is no Equal protection argument to be made. The same set of laws pertain to all involved. There is no ‘seperate but equal’ argument being made. We are all in the same boat, living with the same restrictions. And the ruling did not overturn Prop 8 on Amend 14 grounds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1616 hrs
You’re very quick to say that, but isn’t that part of the judge’s decision?
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1622 hrs
It’s part of the judge’s badly-reasoned decision based entirely on a constitutionally-irrelevant line of inquiry that he selected to help rationalize a predetermined ruling.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1625 hrs
You’re very quick to say that, but isn’t that part of the judge’s decision?
I am not a lawyer, I am not wellversed in appellate proceedings, so if I am way of base on what I am about to say, please someone who is more knowledgable correct me.
Scott, no it is not part of the judge’s decision to decide which argument should or should not be made. The lawyers don’t get to just say “this isn’t fair. You tell is why it isn’t fair*
AFAIK, they plaintiffs would have had to argue on what grounds they wanted the law overturned. And if a 14th amend argument had been made, it would have been addressed in the ruling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1628 hrs
the ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker, which declared that the ballot initiative outlawing gay unions in the Golden State violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100804/pl_yblog_upshot/whats-next-for-the-prop-8-case
I just know that’s what I’m reading…
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1630 hrs
All you have demonstrated is that Walker said it was a 14th-Amendment violation. That says nothing about whether or not Walker was correct to say so.
Maybe it would help to post a chunk of the article I linked above exposing Walker’s staggering pre-ruling bias:
From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Consider his series of controversial — and, in many instances, unprecedented — decisions:
Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro–Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate. Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.
Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.
Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors — a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.
Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than 7 million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.
Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1635 hrs
I do not know if it is intentional or an honest mistake, but Calvin did not say that hetero couples were better for children, I know that the science on that is varied and inconclusive at best
.
elovrich, my comments were not specific to Calvin’s comments, but were in response to an argument that was initially made in support of prop 8, but conceeded for lack of evidence during the proceedings.
And the ruling did not overturn Prop 8 on Amend 14 grounds.
The Court addressed equal protection under the 14th amendment starting at page 117 of its decision.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1636 hrs
I am not wellversed in appellate proceedings
You don’t need to be because this was a district court opinion and not an appellate court decision.
Next step would be the 9th cir, (3 judge panel) although they could petition for the full 9 (which I would assume they will do.) Then SCOTUS from there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1640 hrs
They are rights, elovrich, as witnessed by the default position being that the state must issue any such licenses absent a significant and legitimate reason for not doing so. The state takes great care to try and craft laws so as not to infringe on those rights, although they have already been allowed to do so unnecssarily.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1644 hrs
Why didn’t J. Walker recuse himself?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1649 hrs
Calvin, lets revisit what you call prejudgement bais:
In its pre curium decision, the SCOTUS explained the record:
On September 25, 2009, the trial judge,Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, discussed the possibility of broadcasting trial proceedings both within the courthouseand beyond, and asked for the parties’ views. No party objected to the presence of cameras in the courtroom fortransmissions within the courthouse, Exh. 9, p. 70, App. toPet. for Mandamus in No. 10–70063 (CA9) (hereinafterApp. to Pet.). (“No objection. None at all”), and both sidesmade written submissions to the court regarding theirviews on other transmissions.
I personally find it significant that neither party objected to the transmissions when it was discussed. I don’t see how that is baised when neither party argued that it was.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1652 hrs
BVB:
That is a legitimate argument re: rights v. privileges.
Now are the same-sex marriage proponents going to get behind extending the right for a US citizen, regardless of state of residence, to marry anyone they want at any time they choose, or are they proposing limitations, and for these marriages to be recognized by all fifty of the United States, for all purposes, social, economical and practical?
If they are not, then they are still talking about extending a privilege. And if that is what they want to do, I am still waiting to hear an argument of what it brings to the table for society in general.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1657 hrs
It’s always funny when people like Calvin would rather argue a position based on what they think the law or the constitution should be as opposed to what courts have already ruled. Calvin can hate the rational basis test, but it exists in precedent so basing arguments on ignoring it is probably not worthwhile, unless Calvin has some legal evidence as to why he thinks Anthony Kennedy will vote to reject a test that he himself established.
A state constitution is to be honored only insofar as its contents are not in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. To argue that its status affords it some kind of protection is silly. To the federal government, a state constitution, state law, and municipal law are all the same.
Regarding the procreative aspect of nature, no less than Justice Scalia already dismissed that argument in his dissent in Lawrence. As he notes, if marriage were about procreation, we wouldn’t allow sterile couples or seniors to marry. That we do allow is concrete evidence that marriage is about something beyond the ability to create and raise children. The majority opinion in Williams also clearly indicates that tradition alone does not stand as a defense to a constitutional challenge. Preserving tradition, in other words, is not an end by which discrimination against a particular class will be found to be a constitutional means.
These cases are all clearly cited in the ruling. Some of you might benefit from actually reading them.
Furthermore, it didn’t help that the defendants in this case, as others have noted, basically elected to offer zero evidence in support of their claims. A judge can only adjudicate based on what’s presented. Furthermore, appellate courts can only overturn based on errors in a judge’s reasoning in interpreting what is actually presented. It’s not the place of a socially conservative appellate court judge to make a case or provide validating evidence for a lawyer that has done his job poorly.
This, I suspect, will be the ultimate downfall of the defense: that they were too scared to subject most of their witness list to reasoned questioning.
@elorvich: If you read the end of the ruling, Judge Walker clearly walks through both 8th and 14th Amendment objections, and rules that the amendment as written fails to comply with either. Due process discussion begins on page 109, equal protection discussion begins on page 117.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 05, 2010 at 1659 hrs
edit to the above, move the phrase
or are they proposing limitations,
to the end of the sentence
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1659 hrs
Prop 8 overturned.
New York Landmark Committee rules that the Park51 community center can proceed.
Elena Kagan confirmed.
Hey Owen - I’ll buy you an adult beverage if you need to settle your nerves…
Posted by Swamp Gas on August 05, 2010 at 1714 hrs
It’s always funny when people like Calvin would rather argue a position based on what they think the law or the constitution should be as opposed to what courts have already ruled.
Why, because I think the Constitution itself holds more weight than the whatever the courts might claim the document says at any given time?
Calvin can hate the rational basis test, but it exists in precedent so basing arguments on ignoring it is probably not worthwhile
Only for those who admit they don’t care whether or not the rational basis test has any constitutional foundation…
Regarding the procreative aspect of nature, no less than Justice Scalia already dismissed that argument in his dissent in Lawrence. As he notes, if marriage were about procreation, we wouldn’t allow sterile couples or seniors to marry. That we do allow is concrete evidence that marriage is about something beyond the ability to create and raise children.
If that’s what Scalia said, I think he’s very wrong. The natural capacity to procreate is one of the defining characteristics of man-woman unions, and is an obvious difference between them and same-sex ones. That we don’t bother to vet every single one of them to ensure that they can or will hardly invalidates the general concept. Most couples who get married have kids, and for many that don’t, the possibility is still there, and the we recognize the fact that some won’t as a relatively insignificant practical inconsistency/imperfection that’s hardly worth obsessing over.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1720 hrs
Calvin, why do you care what two gay guys want to do. It doesn’t effect you in any way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1730 hrs
Calvin, why do you care what two gay guys want to do. It doesn’t effect you in any way.
Here come the strawmen…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1732 hrs
Just a question.
“Just a strawman” is ironically a strawmanish way of not giving an answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1735 hrs
I don’t care what two gay guys want to do. Nothing I have written calls for any kind of restriction on gay actions or relationships. If I were to wave a magic wand and impose my vision of the perfect social conservative status quo on the entire nation, gays would still be able to do all of the following:
- live together
- have sex
- hold marriage ceremonies
- jointly own property
- visit one another in the hospital
- receive joint employment benefits from employers that wished to offer them
- identify one another as primary caretakers, decision-makers, and inheritors in willsPosted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1804 hrs
Sounds like you would have voted no on Wisconsin’s gay marriage amendment thingy a few years ago.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1808 hrs
You mean the one Peg Lautenschalger claimed would forbid all those things before the election, yet admitted would allow those things after? That marriage amendment?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1810 hrs
It just sounds like you’re for an equivalent legal arrangement that isn’t called marriage. And if you are, you’d have voted no. But if you’re not… why not?
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1814 hrs
That we don’t bother to vet every single one of them to ensure that they can or will hardly invalidates the general concept. Most couples who get married have kids, and for many that don’t, the possibility is still there, and the we recognize the fact that some won’t as a relatively insignificant practical inconsistency/imperfection that’s hardly worth obsessing over.
But it’s not insignificant at all. You’re only arguing insignificance as an attempt to dismiss the argument instead of confronting it.
The reality is that nobody sees a man marrying a sterile woman or two seniors getting married as a threat to the institution of marriage. The ability to procreate has never been a relevant factor in the determination of whether or not to issue a marriage license.
Similarly, there is no evidence that by allowing sterile couples and seniors to marry that we are somehow thwarting or discouraging the ability or desire of others to procreate within the social contract that marriage creates.
And so in this capacity, gays and lesbians are legally in the same boat as heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. They are similarly situated. As such, you can’t deny them access to marriage simply because they can’t reproduce.
I’m not saying you can’t make other arguments. But this particular argument, just like any argument grounded in tradition, is a dog that prior rulings would lead most people to believe won’t hunt in this case.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 05, 2010 at 1815 hrs
I’m for the ability to do these things, which gays already have without any sort of government formalization of their relationship, be it gay “marriage,” civil unions, whatever. By preventing the state from enacting same-sex marriage under another name, the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment didn’t change that.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1817 hrs
So you would have voted against it on the basis of it not providing anything of consequence that gay couples don’t already have.
Posted by scott on August 05, 2010 at 1825 hrs
Similarly, there is no evidence that by allowing sterile couples and seniors to marry that we are somehow thwarting or discouraging the ability or desire of others to procreate within the social contract that marriage creates.
This is a straw man. Nobody argues that same-sex couples impact the ability or desire of others to procreate. We argue that the state has no interest in couples that don’t, and that the point of marriage licenses isn’t to do anything so vapid and amorphous as telling anyone “it’s okay for you to love each other now. Your love is ‘real’ now.” Marriage is society’s way of using incentives and obligations to bind two people together, not for their own sake, but for the sake of whatever children they might bear.
I think it would be interesting, and maybe worthwhile, to take a look at everything civil marriage offers, and review which provisions should be left untouched, which should be revoked entirely, which should only kick in upon childbirth, which should only apply to single-income couples, etc. But again, the fact that there are minor imperfections or inconsistencies in the way civil marriage carries out its societal purpose pales in significance to efforts to erase that purpose entirely.
But this particular argument, just like any argument grounded in tradition, is a dog that prior rulings would lead most people to believe won’t hunt in this case.
Then perhaps “most people” should balance their reliance on prior court rulings with history and reason.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1831 hrs
So you would have voted against it on the basis of it not providing anything of consequence that gay couples don’t already have.
I voted for the amendment because it protected marriage from redefinition without harming the actual rights of gay individuals.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1834 hrs
“Just a strawman” is ironically a strawmanish way of not giving an answer.
Your question was directed at Calvin. I found his posts to be informative and yours came across as if you had not read his.
Interesting that Webster now includes same sex marriage in it’s definition of marriage.
As an aside I just relearned that earth is the densest planet in the solar system from Final Jeopardy, Teen tournament. Somehow that makes perfect sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1834 hrs
Marriage is society’s way of using incentives and obligations to bind two people together, not for their own sake, but for the sake of whatever children they might bear.
And yet somehow, marriage managed to exist for entire millennia without government serving as an incentivizer or obligator or binder or recordkeeper of the matter. We got to the 16th Century before Martin Luther schmucked it all up got government involved.
Apparently it’s appropriate to use government incentives and obligations to attempt to promote and preserve marital unions. I didn’t know that. Who knew Calvin would take such an activist bent towards the role of government in everyday life? Somehow the birds and the elephants and the giraffes and the lions manage to raise their offspring without tax breaks and tax credits, but humans just wouldn’t figure it out if it weren’t for free money from the government. I learn something new every day here at B&S.
Put me with the small government people who think that government has no business being involved in the matter whatsoever. Marriage, as defined by government, is nothing more than a contractual relationship between two consenting parties who are deemed of adequate age to make such a commitment. Let any two adults who want it have it. And let churches decide whatever they wish in terms of sanctioning the matter before God.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 05, 2010 at 1851 hrs
Ironically on Bob and Brian today, the topic of a man marrying two wives came up. Bob’s response was “You know what the punishment for marrying two wives is right?” and his answer was “Two wives”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1909 hrs
I don’t think most people (aside from the most hardcore libertarian or the most conniving leftist) would agree that civil marriage as it has existed for ages is comparable to the kind of government nannying that the progressive Left has foisted upon the nation…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1918 hrs
Seriously, if I see the word “Strawman” one more time. How about mixing it up “red herring” anone?
Marriage is society’s way of using incentives and obligations to bind two people together, not for their own sake, but for the sake of whatever children they might bear.
And that does not provide a rational basis for prop 8. So were back to “rational basis”, which you note is not in the constitution. However, the actual tex of the 14th amendment is even less supportive of your position than the rational basis test:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1920 hrs
You like repeating things that add nothing to the conversation, don’t you Super? As has already been explained, the 14th Amendment is utterly inapplicable here.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 1931 hrs
Seriously, strawman and red herring are two different things.
Strawman: An informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
Red Herring: An idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance
Just like apples and oranges on the densest planet in the solar system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1937 hrs
Marriage is society’s way of using incentives and obligations to bind two people together, not for their own sake, but for the sake of whatever children they might bear.
So then, divorce should not be allowed because it hurts the children. Maybe Newt and his third wife would agree with that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 1948 hrs
Boy, libel sure comes naturally to people who don’t attach their real names to their words, doesn’t it Anon?
Holy cow, what a blowhard!
Buy a dictionary.
You’re as anonymous to me as I am to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2027 hrs
I like how the pro-gay marriage crowd ignores every explanation their opponents give them and make no attempt to understand where the other side is coming from, then pretend not to know why people believe in maintaining traditional marriage.
Rational was the key word, little guy. You don’t have a rational explanation, no matter how much you try to convince yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2029 hrs
strawman and red herring are two different things.
Yes, and most of what has been referenced as a straw man is actually a red herring. See e.g. “why can’t I marry two women.” Polygamy was not at issue in the ruling.
the 14th Amendment is utterly inapplicable here.
Calvin, excpet for the fact that the court based its decision on the equal protection clause, contained in the 14th amendment.
Moreover, you keep referencing all these great public policies for hetero marriage:
Marriage is society’s way of using incentives and obligations to bind two people together, not for their own sake, but for the sake of whatever children they might bear.
(post 82)
If you are contending that those policies justify not extending marriage to same sex couples, those polcies must meet the scrutiny required by the 14th amendment. So contrary to your assertion, the 14 amendment is very applicable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2037 hrs
Holy cow, what a blowhard!
I’m serious. To call Prop 8’s yes voters bigots is a deliberate, unsubstantiated lie.
You’re as anonymous to me as I am to you.
Unless you count the fact that I post under my full name and that my name goes directly back to my website, where anyone can see exactly who I am. Speaking of dictionaries…
You don’t have a rational explanation…
...that partisan demagogues like you will acknowledge.
Calvin, excpet for the fact that the court based its decision on the equal protection clause, contained in the 14th amendment.
Is the obtuseness deliberate? The 14th is inapplicable to the question of Proposition 8’s constitutionality. I’m fully aware the judge said otherwise - and he’s manifestly wrong.
If you are contending that those policies justify not extending marriage to same sex couples, those polcies must meet the scrutiny required by the 14th amendment.
Says who?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 2052 hrs
Federal judge with decades of experience and a J.D. from Stanford: 14th amendment applies
Calvin, student at tiny liberal arts school in Michigan: No it doesn’t
Oh gee, well if you say so Calvin.
Do us a favor, then. Make your argument as to why 14th amendment doesn’t apply, and make sure to address all the reasons in the ruling that Judge Walker says that it does, and the reasons that the court ruled that it did in Roemer, and that the court ruled that it did in Lawrence. There are more cases, but we’ll stop there.
You just saying that it doesn’t apply doesn’t fly so far with those of us who were taught to sift and winnow instead of parade our own opinions around as gospel. The arrogance and dismissiveness with which you handle legal precedent should surely allow you to do this without so much as breaking a sweat.
Looking forward to a good read!
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 05, 2010 at 2121 hrs
I personally find it significant that neither party objected to the transmissions when it was discussed. I don’t see how that is baised when neither party argued that it was.
Posted by Super Id on August 05, 2010 at 1652 hrsThat seems to me, to be a very curious barometer for determining bias. Isn’t it entirely possible - likely even - for both sides to believe a judge’s bias might help their client? Providing an advantage to one side & the other not seeing that he didn’t intend to actually help but rather handed out just enough slack to hang himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2129 hrs
That’s a lot of smug talk coming from a guy who’s asking me to explain something I already addressed.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 2131 hrs
This whole thread reinforces another theory I have about liberals: they don’t enter discussions to discuss ideas, explain their positions more fully, or understand opposing views; their tactic is simply to wear down their opponents’ patience with inanity and misdirection.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 2134 hrs
Locke,
Calvin refrenced a blog post by Ed Whelen, which argued that that decision to transmit broadcast was evidence of the Judge’s bias to overturn prop 8. My point was that the parties involved did not think that was evidence of that the judge was biased against them so why should we?
Calvin, let’s explain our positions. As you intitially asserted:First, whether or not laws have a rational basis is a policy judgment, not a legal one. The decision should have strictly been based on whether or not any provision in the Constitution clearly denies states the leeway to define civil marriage for themselves. ... Even if you think passing Prop 8 was stupid and wrong, the fact is that the Constitution allows states to be stupid and wrong.
It’s my position, that under the equal protection clause in 14th amendment, states do not have the ability to pass any law that restricts the rights or privileges of its citizens that are not applied equally. Caselaw interpreting the 14th amendment provides that when the rights and privileges are infiringed the state must meet the required level of scrutity. Strict Scrutiny for a protected classes, or ordinary rational basis for other classes.
Respectfully, if you are going to assert that we should disregard both the plain languge of the Constitution, and the plain languge of prior precedent, that we are going to need a better explanation than an uncited assertion that the States can do whatever they want.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2212 hrs
For the record Calvin, I vote Republican way more often than I vote Democrat. And my liberal friends would tell you that I’m far from liberal. So perhaps you could simply address the question that Super Id have posed to you.
Also, it’s fairly incredulous when you suggest that people who disagree with you aren’t interested in discussion when two of us are practically begging you to elaborate on your position and you have thus far found nothing but reasons not to.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 05, 2010 at 2219 hrs
We have only ourselves to blame for this miscarriage of justice, and now with Kagan on the Supreme Court it’s going to get worse. We’ve allowed Liberal judges to get away with the tactic of legislating through their rulings, and now they’ve become so emboldened they no longer care what the laws actually mean, and interpret them as they see fit. Not to worry though. Their actions are bringing awareness to a growing number of true Americans, and one way or the other they will make right that which has gone askew.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2221 hrs
Calvin refrenced a blog post by Ed Whelen, which argued that that decision to transmit broadcast was evidence of the Judge’s bias to overturn prop 8.
This was but one of several issues Whelan raised.
It’s my position, that under the equal protection clause in 14th amendment, states do not have the ability to pass any law that restricts the rights or privileges of its citizens that are not applied equally.
And it’s my position that Prop 8 does nothing of the sort, for reasons clearly stated above.
Id, the claim that I’m advocating we “disregard the plain language of the Constitution” is disingenuous on its face, and the claim that I’m asserting that “States can do whatever they want” is equally unfounded in my words.
Also, it’s fairly incredulous when you suggest that people who disagree with you aren’t interested in discussion when two of us are practically begging you to elaborate on your position and you have thus far found nothing but reasons not to.
I guess I was foolish to hope for a discussion without disingenuousness. You are acting as if I never wrote things that are on this very page.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 05, 2010 at 2226 hrs
Locke,
Calvin refrenced a blog post by Ed Whelen…My point was that the parties involved did not think that was evidence of that the judge was biased against them so why should we?
I read and followed the context. And while I find the further list of examples of bias listed by Calvin & in the article he linked somewhat interesting, I really don’t care to get into a whole thing over whether the judge in this case was biased. If for no other reason than because this ruling is will end up being but one small piece of what we eventually end up with (and to be brutally honest, perhaps the least important one).
My question was more general & since you didn’t address it, I’ll pose it again. Why is it significant that neither side protested? At best, you can infer that neither thought it was an unfair or biased ruling at that particular moment in time. But what the lawyers thought to be true has no bearing on whether it was or wasn’t true. And at worst, it could be a matter of choosing one’s battles - of being afraid to fan the flames over a minor point early on in the process and risk further prejudice.
How is this different from saying, “since X didn’t file an appeal immediately after a trial, there must not be anything valid to appeal”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2255 hrs
Locke
The attorneys’ lack of an objection is significant because objections are usually deemed waived unless they are timely made.
Your right, the lack of an objection doesn’t mean that there is no merit.
But I guess I fail to see how permitting transmission of a trial shows bias in either direction, especially since the decision was not made with out input from both sides. So I see Whelen’s argument as specious in that regard. Could the judge still harbor a latent bias, sure. however, the cited “evidence” doesn’t establish that the judge was biased.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 05, 2010 at 2311 hrs
Calvin, sorry if I missed your argument somewhere in the previous 105 posts. Is it your assertion in post 51, where you say that the 14th Amendment doesn’t extend to relationships?
Courts have already ruled repeatedly to the contrary. Again, I know you don’t have much regard for how trained judges and legal scholars are interpreting the constitution. Your contempt for the judicial branch and those who dare disagree with your somewhat underdeveloped assertions is plainly evident. But surely you’ve got a couple of citations you could throw out there to people or organizations who are more provably credible than you are.
I quote case law so much because I’m willing to admit that I’m not a legal scholar. I don’t think I know more about law than trained jurists or SCOTUS members, so I prefer to reference their rulings since I’m firmly of the belief that their opinions matter more than mine. Apparently you don’t share that sense of humility. Please enlighten the rest of us with a more detailed probing of your groundbreaking 14th Amendment argument. Thanks.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 06, 2010 at 0012 hrs
I’m still torn on the whole issue. I voted against gay marriage, although I have no problem with gay marriage. I do have a problem with gay adoption, which is why I end up voting the way I do on this issue. I’m pretty libertarian, and have no problem with two guys or two gals marrying, i just don’t think children should be exposed to that.
But while i’m somewhat conflicted on the issue, i think it was certainly withing the rights of the California voters to pass this law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0024 hrs
Federal Judge overturns Law of Nature wearing hubris-colored robes.
More at 10:00 PM.
Posted by dad29 on August 06, 2010 at 0726 hrs
Holy cow, what a blowhard!
I’m serious. To call Prop 8’s yes voters bigots is a deliberate, unsubstantiated lie.
Back to the dictionary you need. It’s a fact.
You’re as anonymous to me as I am to you.
Unless you count the fact that I post under my full name and that my name goes directly back to my website, where anyone can see exactly who I am. Speaking of dictionaries…
I have no idea if that’s your real name or not. I have no idea what your website proves to me. For all you know, my name is Anon. You’re some random name on a forum to me, just like I am to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0836 hrs
Calvin, student at tiny liberal arts school in Michigan: No it doesn’t
That explains a lot, actually…
I’m pretty libertarian, and have no problem with two guys or two gals marrying, i just don’t think children should be exposed to that.
Exposed to the facts of life? Loving couples?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0847 hrs
In the interest of paying Mr. Freiburger the attention he seems to demand, I clicked on his link.
Very happy to see my intentionally sarcastic post here reposted on his blog as “Leftist Condescension on Full Display”. Perfect! I was also described as “conservative-hating”, which couldn’t be further from the truth. And to be called a “leftist”...golden.
That leads me to the next thing I learned…
An undergrad at Hillsdale? C’mon, buddy. No wonder you didn’t catch on.
Post that as “More Leftist Condescension on Full Display”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0857 hrs
RS, you appeals to authority are amusing, but I utterly reject the premise that the particular concepts in the issue of marriage are so complex that they can’t be resolved without following case law. We don’t need case law to make claims about what “rights” are, what “individuals” are, and what “marriage” is, and then explain and debate these three concepts amongst ourselves. Further, argument by “look what more important people say!” is something I find to be utterly useless, and more often than not an attempt to discredit people without refuting their arguments.
Although, if you really want judicial authority backing up my side, let’s look at what some other courts have ruled on state same-sex marriage bans:
- New York Court of Appeals? Upheld: The majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, who was appointed by Gov. George Pataki, found that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on rational social goals, primarily the protection and welfare of children. “Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals,” Judge Smith wrote in his 22-page opinion. For example, he wrote, it could be argued that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, a mother and a father, rather than by gay or lesbian couples.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/nyregion/06cnd-marriage.html)- US 8th Circuit Appeals Court? Upheld in Nebraska: Loken noted “historical fact – the institution of marriage has always been in our federal system, the predominant concern of state government. … This necessarily includes the power to classify those persons who may validly marry.” Citing the recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, the circuit court found two justifications for Nebraska’s marriage law. First, it noted that the state had a legitimate interest in inducing opposite-sex couples, who could unintentionally bear children, into stable relationships. Second, the state could base its law on the traditional notion that children do best when raised by two parents of the opposite sex. The court found that both these interests were rationally related to Nebraska’s constitutional amendment. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that this case was controlled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Romer v. Evans. Romer involved a state constitutional amendment that invalidated certain local ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Romer Court held that the amendment was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest, but was clearly the result of “animus.” (http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11147/LEGAL/family/index.htm)
- Maryland? Upheld: In an opinion signed by four judges, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr., citing a Supreme Court holding on judicial restraint, wrote that, absent evidence of discrimination, “judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted. In declaring that the State’s legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structures in which children are born are related reasonably to the means employed by [the law banning same-sex marriage], our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the reasons,” wrote Harrell, who is retired from the court but participated in the decision because he was a member when the case was argued. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2007/09/maryland_high_court_upholds_sa.html)
- California? Upheld before Walker: California’s historic 2008 ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald George, repeatedly invoked the words “respect and dignity” and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.
- For what it’s worth, the LA Times notes that “Gay rights lawyers had no solid legal precedent on their side, and some of the court’s earlier holdings on constitutional revisions mildly undercut their arguments.”
- Washington state? Upheld: Johnson wrote that the Legislature had “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts.” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205743,00.html)
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 0910 hrs
But Anon, how do you know that I really am a Hillsdale undergrad? According to you, I could be concealing my identity just as easily as you are…..
The only thing rich here is you dismissively mocking accurate descriptions of your own conduct.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 0915 hrs
I don’t know. That’s another part of this one-sided joke. And really, it doesn’t matter.
I’ll ask you to be realistic here, for a change…and I know that may be hard for you to grasp…but isn’t it possible you’re completely misinterpreting the tone of my posts?
I doubt you’d view that as possible…it’s the nature of a loudmouth undergrad from a joke of a college with an unread blog who looks like a nerdier Harry Potter.
“Even More Leftist Condescension on Full Display.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0926 hrs
It’s a fact.
So you KNOW that all 7 million people voted for Prop 8 NOT because they have an understanding of civil marriage that you don’t share, but because they hate gay people?
You apparently don’t know the definition of “fact,” either. Or care.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 0930 hrs
...but isn’t it possible you’re completely misinterpreting the tone of my posts?
Next you’re gonna tell me that calling millions of people bigots is merely satire.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 0932 hrs
So you KNOW that all 7 million people voted for Prop 8 NOT because they have an understanding of civil marriage that you don’t share, but because they hate gay people?
You apparently don’t know the definition of “fact,” either. Or care.
I didn’t say they hated gay people. I said they were bigots. You know, “a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.”
Even your little Hillsdale College has to subscribe to OED, right? Learn to use the library’s resources, pal!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0939 hrs
Once again, your condescension misses its mark. I was going by Merriam-Webster: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
This seems like a recurring theme with you: the need to feel superior to whoever you’re debating. Wanna talk about it?
But to humor you, let’s go by your definition: you KNOW that ALL 7 million people were motivated by fanaticism, intolerance, and partisanship? you KNOW that none of them were motivated simply by an understanding of civil marriage’s societal purpose you don’t happen to agree with?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 0946 hrs
I don’t know about anyone else, but I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the vast majority of people who supported prop 8 did so out of bigotry, intolerance, prejudice or ignorance rather than a sophisticated understanding of marriage laws or the constitution.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 0951 hrs
I feel pretty comfortable in asserting that the vast majority of people who supported prop 8 did so out of bigotry, intolerance, prejudice or ignorance rather than a sophisticated understanding of marriage laws or the constitution.
That’s because you’re a partisan character assassin.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 0952 hrs
It’s because I have a realistic idea about the level of sophistication of American voters.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 0954 hrs
And let me be quick to add: those who voted against it did so probably out of a basic sense of sympathy and fairness rather than any kind of sophisticated understanding of the laws involved.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 0955 hrs
OED is the preferred academic dictionary, my friend. If providing you with an accurate definition in light of your incorrect claims and assumptions means I need to feel superior, so be it. Isn’t that the typical Republican / Conservative claim these days…something about the “elitist” Democrats / Liberals? You know, facts & education are about superiority!
We can keep breaking down definitions here, but you’ll keep coming up on the losing side. Yes, I do believe 7,000,000 (way more than that, actually) people are at the very least fanatical, which can be defined as “eager or enthusiastic in any pursuit.”
Step up your game, Calvin!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 0959 hrs
So anything the majority hold as sacred is proof of their bigotry? Does this hold true in reverse for the beliefs of Liberals? Your majority beliefs revolve around disdain for all that American society is based on, ergo Liberals are bigoted and prejudiced against the laws, customs, and beliefs that make up the fabric of American society, and are the acid determined to eat it away. Unfortunately for the American people, there are many willing to allow their beliefs to be compromised for fear of being labeled by people dedicated to the goal of undermining American society. If we continue on this course there will be no standards of conduct, nor barriers to what is acceptable. Keep pushing the envelope, keep crossing the line, soon enough nothing will be beyond the pale of society except civility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1023 hrs
I didn’t understand one thing you just wrote. Seriously.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1028 hrs
“The sky is falling!” - Scott(I-C), hater of his daughter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1029 hrs
Anon, you might want to refrain from references to elitism, inasmuch as your posts - contempt for millions of Americans you’ve never met, fixation on the “right” dictionaries, obsession with comparative education levels - all of which serves no other purpose than to steer the conversation away from the issues - positively drips with the stuff. Suffice it to say, I’d love to see people like you and Scott actually have to defend your character assassination in a defamation of character suit someday. If you think your performance is likely to impress many people besides yourself, I think your sadly mistaken.
Better luck next time…and you have my pity.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1030 hrs
Refrain from references to elitism? That’s my point! You think anyone who is more educated than you are, who has a stronger grasp on the issues, and knows how to use a dictionary is apparently condescending and “elitist”. It’s been my stance to gladly accept that label, in light of what you think it means.
That would be an interesting suit. You used the word “tree” appropriately, so I’m going to sue you! It’s not my fault words have these meanings.
And, you know, referring to somebody as “lowly” and extending my sympathies and then thanks is also very lawsuit worthy.
Good job ignoring the definitions that proved your half-baked ideas wrong, again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1038 hrs
scott:
I didn’t understand one thing you just wrote. Seriously.
A sad commentary on your comprehension abilities
anon:
Scott(I-C), hater of his daughter.
Is this the best you’re capable of, lies? Your perversion reaches beyond sexual.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1039 hrs
Lies? I don’t think it’s much of a stretch that the word you choose to use to describe homosexuals is anything other than hateful. Didn’t you claim your daughter was a homosexual? Perhaps that was not you, in which case I apologize for the confusion.
1+1=2, regardless of how you try to twist it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1043 hrs
And I think scott was simply saying your little tirade there was nonsensical. Because it was.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1044 hrs
You think anyone who is more educated than you are, who has a stronger grasp on the issues, and knows how to use a dictionary is apparently condescending and “elitist”. It’s been my stance to gladly accept that label, in light of what you think it means.
Wow. This statement has no relationship to anything that actually transpired in this debate. Congrats on proving that you just make things up as you go along.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1047 hrs
Wow. This statement has no relationship to anything that actually transpired in this debate. Congrats on proving that you just make things up as you go along.
Is this just an attempt to have me copy / paste the other parts of the “elitism” discussion or are just unwilling to re-read the past comments here? That’s a pretty lazy way to post, buddy.
I can’t help but notice you’re STILL not acknowledging the fact that you don’t know the meaning of certain words. An apology would suffice.
I mean, I know you purport to be an undergrad at a small liberal arts college, but you could at least PRETEND to post as an adult.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1052 hrs
I appreciate your passion, Calvin, and at this point I think we can agree to disagree. I do think, for all the same reasons that James Taranto laid out today in the WSJ, that Kennedy’s vote on this issue is predictable. So we can disagree but I think the likely outcome is apparent.
Assuming those opposed to gay marriage will continue appealing, SCOTUS will probably get this case in 2012. The vote will be 5-4 in favor of gay marriage. Kennedy will write the opinion, in part because he will be the deciding vote, in part because he will be the most senior justice in the majority, and in part because his opinions in Romer and Lawrence lay the groundwork for this case. Scalia will tilt at windmills, as he often does in his dissents, and he will probably write a preening dissent that congratulates himself for predicting this all would happen when he dissented in Lawrence.
And then it will be done, because there’s no way on Earth 38 state legislatures will ever approve an amendment to the constitution that defines marriage.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 06, 2010 at 1052 hrs
Fair enough, RS. We’ll see what happens. Though I don’t think a federal amendment is so far-fetched. 41 states currently preserve marriage legislatively, and 30 have put it directly in their constitutions. It seems to me the states are a good chunk of the way there, and an increased perception that the courts won’t let them make their own decisions could be enough to push them the rest of the way. Ironically, the biggest wild card I see is the likelihood of the GOP establishment running away from the issue out of perceived political expediency.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1109 hrs
You tend to presume quite often anon, as well as ignore things that have been clearly stated, but that is no surprise coming from a person so corrupted fantasy has taken over their life. What ever it takes to tear American society is of no consequence to Liberals as long as the goal of perverting America’s culture is accomplished, is it? In any case, it’s liars such as yourself who have solidified my belief that American culture is in danger bastardization from the Liberals and their agenda. This has been made crystal clear by this so called (homosexual) judge’s opinion. Legislating into law that which the people unanimously rejected is a perversion of the justice system, and if it’s allowed to stand we may as well stop the pretense of being a nation laws and allow us all to do as we please. If the laws are of no consequence then all actions are acceptable, which may end up not being so great for those forcing their “opinions” on the majority.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1117 hrs
People’s 14th amendment rights are not decided by popular opinion.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1120 hrs
People’s 14th amendment rights are not decided by popular opinion.
And as has been explained, people’s 14th amendment rights are not in dispute here.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1122 hrs
Yes you do keep saying that.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1127 hrs
To put it another way Scott might understand: he knows how I feel about abortion. I consider it a clear-cut deprivation of all human beings’ basic right to life without due process of law. I want Roe overturned to restore to the states their right to decide abortion policy for themselves, and I’d like to eventually see a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.
However, I’m objective enough to recognize that the 14th Amendment refers to “born” and “naturalized” persons, and admit that whatever else fetuses may be, they are neither “born” nor “naturalized.” Therefore, I recognize that the courts do not currently have the legal authority to overrule democratically-enacted state laws allowing, or even subsidizing, abortion.
If conservatives can maintain their fidelity to the Constitution on something as huge as abortion, you’d think liberals would be able to do the same with a state that merely says they’re not going to formalize certain relationships.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1130 hrs
Yes you do keep saying that.
Because you keep saying otherwise despite not having refuted the argument.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1132 hrs
You tend to presume quite often anon, as well as ignore things that have been clearly stated, but that is no surprise coming from a person so corrupted fantasy has taken over their life. What ever it takes to tear American society is of no consequence to Liberals as long as the goal of perverting America’s culture is accomplished, is it? In any case, it’s liars such as yourself who have solidified my belief that American culture is in danger bastardization from the Liberals and their agenda. This has been made crystal clear by this so called (homosexual) judge’s opinion. Legislating into law that which the people unanimously rejected is a perversion of the justice system, and if it’s allowed to stand we may as well stop the pretense of being a nation laws and allow us all to do as we please. If the laws are of no consequence then all actions are acceptable, which may end up not being so great for those forcing their “opinions” on the majority.
I presume you are a very unhappy, uneducated, and hateful little man.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1134 hrs
I wish Calvin wouldn’t have taken his toys and ran home after I gave him a brief lesson in how to use a dictionary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1135 hrs
I wish Anon wasn’t a petty, dishonest demagogue who isn’t man enough to let the millions of people he ignorantly demonizes know who he really is.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1143 hrs
Too much pride to admit when you’re wrong, huh, little guy? Doesn’t that invalidate any other argument you can make? You’re not definitely not interested in an honest discussion.
You’re worried about my anonymity on an unknown, regional, wingnut blog, pal. Think about that for a second and see if it helps you get a grip on what you just posted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1153 hrs
Too much pride to admit when you’re wrong, huh, little guy? Doesn’t that invalidate any other argument you can make? You’re not definitely not interested in an honest discussion.
I invite all who are interested to read this thread in its entirety and ask themselves if this is a truthful, reasonable assessment of what’s transpired here.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1157 hrs
And I am still inviting you to apologize for your weak vocabulary. Why are you even trying to avoid or deny that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1204 hrs
As I presume you to be the garishly painted fairy with the magic wand, wearing the pink tutu in the gay pride parade. But what does that have o do with the discussion?
You haven’t, nor do I believe you can prove what I’ve stated as being incorrect. What I’ve stated, and your inability, or refusal to comprehensively refute them point to my assertion as being true.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1205 hrs
Because the fact that you consider using an accurate, widely-recognized definition of a particular word evidence of a weak vocabulary demonstrates that you’re either a moron or a liar.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1208 hrs
You’ve been to the gay pride parade? Why do you know so much about it? How did they take to your hateful references to them?
I also can’t “prove” there is no god, but there isn’t. And that burden isn’t on me. After all, they’re YOUR misguided beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1209 hrs
Because the fact that you consider using an accurate, widely-recognized definition of a particular word evidence of a weak vocabulary demonstrates that you’re either a moron or a liar.
At what point did you get this twisted? I posted the accurate, widely-recognized definitions that you didn’t recognize. This is your shortcoming. A dictionary isn’t some mythical book.
Words have various meanings. If you’re uncertain of the meaning implied, perhaps you should ask instead of attack.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1212 hrs
Careful, Anon. You may think this is clever, but you’re only embarrassing yourself in the eyes of normal people. But then, I imagine they already know you pretty well around these parts.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1237 hrs
Careful, Anon. You may think this is clever, but you?re only embarrassing yourself in the eyes of normal people. But then, I imagine they already know you pretty well around these parts.
Gee Calvin, you must have taken “Attempted Insult Lessons 101” from Tax Payer supported Son of Liberty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1306 hrs
Careful, Anon. You may think this is clever, but you’re only embarrassing yourself in the eyes of normal people. But then, I imagine they already know you pretty well around these parts.
Weren’t you the one who was arguing against factual definitions of words?
Seriously?
You’re a really poor troll, buddy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1310 hrs
You’re a really poor troll, buddy.
And you’re a really unconvincing liar.
Trading insults is fun, but a waste of time. Anyone else have something substantive to say about the original topic?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1325 hrs
You’re right. Because I haven’t lied.
All of the proof is here in this thread. You argued on a topic based on the fact that you didn’t know the definitions of the words being discussed. Simple fact.
Typical of your type, though. You’re not willing to admit that you are wrong. You’re not interested in real discussion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1330 hrs
And by “your type”, I mean young undergrads without much life experience. It’s easier to do what you’re told than to think critically.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1339 hrs
Just remembered why I had take time away from the discussion boards. Jesus Christ - anon, I actually agree with your position on this issue and I still can’t stand reading the garbage you spew. For whatever else he is, Calvin is at least resisting personal attacks & trying to present an argument in good faith (even if I think he’s misguided). I have a lot more confidence that at some point, Calvin might change his position than I do of you not being such a tool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1511 hrs
Totally. This thread has devolved to a very low discussion indeed.
Although I must add this: Don’t give Calvin a pass on being a class A tool himself.
Posted by scott on August 06, 2010 at 1518 hrs
I am concerned greatly with your feelings on this matter. Thanks for taking the time to let them be known.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2010 at 1528 hrs
I try to reserve my tool-ness for the Scotts and Anons of the world
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 06, 2010 at 1703 hrs
Remember, Calvin, I looked at your blog once. Your tool-ness is on full display over there, too! Consistency is good.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 0959 hrs
Just out of curiosity, what do you think you’re accomplishing at this point other than self-amusement?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 07, 2010 at 1033 hrs
Self-amusement has been the only reason I ever posted here.
Does anybody seriously post here for any other reason?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2009 hrs
Just as long as we’re clear that you’re not offering substance. Thanks!
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 07, 2010 at 2043 hrs
Having lurked here a while before posting, I was under the impression NOBODY was offering substance. Since I’ve been posting more regularly, I’m convinced I was right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2010 at 2045 hrs
This is why I, as an attorney, never have legal discussions with non-attorneys. Because they always devolve into policy discussions that have little to do with the law. Many of the posters here, especially “Calvin,” should come to the realization that courts don’t give a flaming rat’s ass what you personally think, nor does anyone else in the entire world except you. Courts only care what higher-level courts have ruled in the past. That’s pretty much it. They will take into account public policy when it’s a novel case or one without much precedent, but that’s fairly rare.
The problem with law is that everyone seems to think he’s an expert on it, simply because he has an opinion. But just as I wouldn’t have the arrogance to tell a surgeon how to perform heart surgery, non-lawyers shouldn’t presume to tell those in the practice of law how laws are to be interpreted or how courts “should” rule. Or, if they do, I hope they will be prepared to be laughed at, just as a doctor would laugh at me if I started to tell him how to remove tonsils.
If you’re upset by the ruling, write a strongly worded letter to your state senator or federal representatives. Your opinion about the law is of no interest to anyone but yourself and possibly your mother if you’re lucky.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2010 at 0603 hrs
So Zorky,
If we non-lawyers are too stupid or incompetent to understand a law, how can we be expected to perform under the law?
Believe it or not, getting through law school or elected/appointed to the bench does not come with a direct link to Oliver Wendell Holmes. There are plenty of idiots with law degrees who shouldn’t be allowed to render decisions just as there are surgeons who end up committing malpractice.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2010 at 0801 hrs
Funny thing about “Lawyers”,...............................................seems they’re always bending the law to suit their purposes at the expense of those they’re designed to protect. We have a Government full of “Lawyers”, and I don’t see where we are any better off for it. It’s one thing to create laws that benefit the governed, quite another to interpret them to the governed’s detriment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2010 at 1124 hrs
t’s one thing to create laws that benefit the governed, quite another to interpret them to the governed’s detriment.
You mean, “...quite another to interpret them to a select group of the governed’s detriment” I’m sure how a law is interpreted always will benefit some over others. An example is how the Supreme Court interpreted that a corporation is the same as an individual.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2010 at 1224 hrs
Zorky’s a beautiful example of what’s wrong with the legal profession these days.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 14, 2010 at 1253 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 107
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 09:16 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).