Andrew Sullivan and others twisted and contorted to assure readers that what happens in Massachusetts stays in Massachusetts. He’s wrong. Gay marriage will be imposed not by the peoples representatives, but via the bench. Funny I was saying the same thing last month when it was New York, today it’s California.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A judge ruled Monday that California’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state’s highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
“It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,” Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state’s historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.Judicial activism – it’s whats for dinner…
Update: Law professor Eugene Volokh notes that what some have, in the past, called “hysterical,” “emotional scare tactic[s],” or “canards” may well have been quite reasonable predictions. Interestingly he’s not referring to the standard denials of same sex marriage advocates, rather he’s looked back to the Equal Rights Amendment era.
It is patently wrong for the majority to treat a minority differently just because it disapproves of some characteristic that the minority has, be it race, sex, religion or (GASP!) sexual orientation.
And, it’s a lie to state all discrimination is (GASP!) illegal. And, it’s another lie for you to misrepresent the objections to redefining marriage as bigotry.
The equal protection clause states that ALL people should be treated equally by the government, unless there is at least a rational basis for treating them differently.
A more than over simplification of the necessary analysis and burdens required. But, hey! Don’t let constitutional law get in your way.
The only basis for not allowing gay people to marry is that “it says so in the Bible.”
Another lie.
None of the other arguments dreamed up by the conservatives make any sense (as shown by the thoughtful opinion of Judge Kramer). ((BTW, how many of you have actually READ the opinion??))
I have. His arguments are almost as simplistic as yours. Which makes me think that you haven’t read it.
Julie — what you said!!!!!!!!
Way to go.
We have a situation where a state is offering opposite sex couples perks that same sex couples are not able to receive, by offering a special status under law called a marriage. That is the constitutional case.
What is the rational basis for same sex couples receiving these said perks as opposed to single people? I want my perks! Seriously, where’s my tax break?
– Aside from all the other pertinant statements clearly showing what is and isn’t “rights” and what is and isn’t considered acceptable discrimination there is another basis to all of our laws from the very beginning of our Federal Republic. Namely the idea of “legislative concordence with the wishes and greater good of the majority of the electorate as a whole”….
– If someone can tell me why its good for me to take my 7 year old daughter julie to Universal studios so that in between kissing Minnie Mouse and riding “back to the future” I have to explain the reason two Men or two Women are sitting on a park bench, hugging and kissing in obviously passionate embrace’s, then I will take a different view. Until then I will continue to resist the obvious atempts by the left to “normalize” something I find patently offensive in public…….
Bullwinkle, the blind person can’t have a driver’s license because in the California State constitution, the legislative branch can deny priviledges based on the public interest. That is the state level. At the federal level, I guess a strict constructionist would look to the general welfare clause in the long list of ennumated rights
Nevertheless, I happily concede that my argument presented in the last post is one sided and can be countered, including some good points that haven’t been presented yet. As Julie mentions, the equal protection clause in the US const. has been construed by loose constructionists (i.e. those darn judicial activists) to make exceptions for the public interest. I intended it only to inspire thought, and in the end, I expect and hope that the US Supreme court leaves gay marriage up to the states as it should most matters. Of course, that is the very situation we have today that everyone is complaining about — a dispute that is solely among the California constitution, legislature, and juciary branch.
About bigamy/polygamy and consenting incestual relationships, you are talking with a libertarian so that isn’t going to be as easy for me as you had hoped. (Let’s remember now that the US Supreme court recently struck down state sodomy laws.) Certainly one would look to the same sources that block the blind man from driving, in other words, make a public interest argument.
Mr. Hunter, you have an easy outlet for that predicament: Ask Universal Studios to ban smooching in their park, and if they won’t, then tell people who offend you that they are making asses of themselves. Obviously, one would not advocate that the state legislature ban smooching on private property, right?
Voyeurism (on either side of the act) offends my sensibilities as well. Our parents generation was offended by interracial lip locks. Of course, this thread is about civil marriage rather than noogie, so we are getting off topic.
And Julie, I think you are perky enough already, but I’ll give you one example: should your spouse die someday, your perk is that you are eligible for social security survivor benefits. Just turn your question around and ask what is the rational basis for not allowing that same perk for same sex relationships.
And indeed, race and gender discrimination are treated differently under law. So if you are conceding that the discrimination exists, but that it is okay because it is discrimination based on sex, then at least we have a foundation for argument. Under the California constitution, however, the document goes to great pains to make race and sex discrimination equivalent sins.
– McCain – you make light of My intended point. I don’t give a flying rats ass what anyone does in the privacy of their own surroundings whether thats the back seat of a Volkswagon, flower beddecked, min-bus, or their bedrooms. My beef with the rainbowers is they want to press their proclivities into the general public. They insist on doing that in fact. Thats what I have a problem with, and what I believe offends most people of any persuation. And all this legal tap dancing is aimed at the “normalization” I spoke of. I’m assuming they’ll feel less freakish if its commonly accepted in any public setting. Which to put bluntly, sux…….
Yes, I am making light, but it honestly offends me as well. But a lot of things offend me that aren’t illegal. We don’t have a right to be un-offended. Nonetheless, I don’t have a problem with banning certain behaviors in public places. But your example is a private business location, at which you are a guest and should follow their rules. But you can also speak up for yourself. It is a wonderfully empowering feeling to tell kids with pants halfway down their cracks that they look like morons. I’ve done it, and recommend it highly for your example.
BBH,
Then what do you say to all of the homosexuals who have no desire to make public displays of sexuality or affection? What about the many, if not most of, homosexuals who do not think the parades are tasteful, who don’t like the caricatures that represent gay people on television? I know quite a few of these people, and most of them are in long-term, committed relationships. Most people, gay or straight, are decent, civilized people who have no desire to throw their sexuality around. But gay or straight, there is a portion of the population that feels sex should be front and center all the time. Take a look at television and movies for evidence of this. Should the rest of the population be demonized because of those with little dignity or shame? If your real problem is with public displays or entertainment/media, then why deprive all of the decent and modest homosexuals out there? What, I ask, have they done to you?
Mantis, that all sounds very nice, but there is an unhealthy portion of the gay population that are consumed with their gayness. My gay friends are frank enough to call it a gay personality trait. Too many really DO like to throw their sexuality around in public, which is why the complaints that people have about getting the gay agenda thrown in their faces is a valid complaint to recognize.
And yes, of course, all humans are capable of voyeurism, but it is disproportionate in the gay community. And I don’t understand your comparison of art (television) to life.
Too many really DO like to throw their sexuality around in public, which is why the complaints that people have about getting the gay agenda thrown in their faces is a valid complaint to recognize.
I agree it’s a valid complaint, and many of my gay friends also agree that this personality trait is too common. Of course I don’t think my friends, or those like them, should be discriminated against because of the actions of others. But I think we are probably in agreement on this. As far as art/television/entertainment goes, I was just trying to make the point that sexuality is more prevalant than ever, gay and straight, and to ignore one and demonize another is misguided. But BBH didn’t really mention homosexuality in the media per se, so I guess I was arguing with nobody there.
I’ll give you one example: should your spouse die someday, your perk is that you are eligible for social security survivor benefits.
That’s nice, McCain, but your example sidesteps my question.
Just turn your question around and ask what is the rational basis for not allowing that same perk for same sex relationships.
Because it will increase other people’s benefits while increasing my obligations. While everyone is handing out benefit to everyone, who’s going to be stuck paying for them? What is the rational basis for treating same sex couples differently from me? Because they are a couple? How is that rational? And don’t tell me I can always get married. They can always get married to a member of the opposite sex, too. Therefore, we should be treated equal!
And indeed, race and gender discrimination are treated differently under law. So if you are conceding that the discrimination exists, but that it is okay because it is discrimination based on sex, then at least we have a foundation for argument.
Oh, you make it sound so dirty! Term of art: A word or phrase that has a precise meaning in a particular subject area.
When someone is claiming an EP violation, i.e., discrimination, the court applies different standards of review and burdens of proof depending on what is being claimed. Claims of gender discrimination have a different standard of review (intermediate) than race discrimination (strict scrutiny).
Now, I got to get to bed. Good night.
all right, julie… let’s take away the whole “sexual orientation” discrimination formulation, which only gets rational basis.
try this one:
man 1 cannot marry man 2, whereas woman may marry man 2.
in this formulation, a man is not allowed to do what a woman can.
gender discrimination. intermediate scrutiny.
Bertie:
You can say, “let’s take away the whole sexual orientation discrimination formulation,” but all you’re doing is calling something what it is not. The ban on same sex marriages does not give women any more rights than it does to men, and vice versa. It is not gender discrimination. This is what I object to – this game of the Emperor’s New Clothes. No matter what you say, the guy is still buck naked.
Oh the painful contortions one must go through to offer an argument against gay civil marriage. I got a good chuckle out of the revelation that it costs tax payers more money. That of course would be a great argument for no marriage for anyone, which would satisfy Julie’s other concerns as well. No perks for anyone, no tax burden for anyone, no problem. Shacking up is the answer; heterosexual marriage is the problem.
And I find that Julie’s differentiation of sex and race discrimination is a wonderful semantic excuse for discrimination. She is saying that the law looks at the things differently, and she is right, but so what. The standards of proof are irrelevant to the central point. A state can easily change the law by changing the definition of marriage, something that has been done often throughout our history. And something Massacheussetts has done and California is in the process of doing. So the definition of marriage varies by state, and varies over time, and therefore our ability to discriminate also varies.
What is the legal argument against California changing the definition of marriage in that state?
(In an effort to catch up on a discussion here…sorry, I am still recovering from me move and now have a mild case of pneumonia, waiting for my antibiotics to gain higher ground):
To McCain: yes, I agree with what you write, as to the marriage (I am also a Catholic and share in your perspectives and definitions there); I recognize the huge difference from a civil ceremony (bestowing a “marriage” certificate on two persons) and that of marriage as sacred, as sacramentel relationship, but the very attempt by “gay marriage” proponents (again, I write, “gay marriage” is an oxymoronic expression and yet some in society seem to glom onto the nonsense implied as if it was truth, and that’s part of the problem of the oxymoronic discussion about this issue), the very attempt to force a rework of the terminilogy, the relationship that is, by definition, one that involves one man and one woman into being something that has sliding parameters, is the issue.
And, as julie pointed out, and I tried to earlier, this thread, other day, the entire attempt to rework the relationship to include whatever modifications someone is attempting to make believable is the issue.
As in, as to “gender,” a person can modify their morphology but they can never modify their chromosomes. You are born male or female and that’s that, despite whatever treatments, surgeries and/or costumery you engage in later. You can pay a great deal of money to people to plump up the fantasy that by modifying your physiology, you’ve magically transformed but the reality is and remains to most the rest of us that a person remains male or female by way of their birth — even those few conflicting morphologies among humans born with birth defects still are characterised by one form of chromosomes or another (even some among those).
But, about confusing and confused sexual behaviors, I am finding it far more plausible if and when those with confused sexuality and even insistence on rejecting their own chromosomal definitions by one rationalization or another, that they simply accept their actual personhood and stop with the attempts to force a false understanding of who they are upon everyone else, because everyone else isn’t believing the false understandings. Just taking a lot of those in stride.
Where marriage is concerned, the very arrangement is one between one man and one woman and cosmetics and various surgeries aside, a man and a woman are defined by their chromosomes. About the various fantasies and needs by some to rework those definitions, that’s the problem here, and the attempts to further fantasize about just who is what and who is to do what.
But, as cleary available, anyone with any property or desire or request can easily, already, make those arrangements by law. So, it isn’t marriage for the sake of some social necessity that ‘gay marriage’ proponents are pushing here, but their demand to force a rework of a social relationship onto others.
And, about protections from the majority for the minority, so far as the voters have determined, even the minority rejects the concept of ‘gay marriage.’ It’s only a few on the bench and a handful of activists who are creating and motivating this issue — but to my experience, this is one case of the need to protect the majority from the tyranny of the few. Society has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman and for many reasons why (otherwise, the relationship would not even exist nor be as popular and traditional as it is), and to force society to rework that definition because a few people demand that it be is the actual tyranny here. It’s also a great example of a disturbed psychology demanding that society make acceptable that which society has found unacceptable — again, tyranny by the minority here.
And, to everyone who attempts to continue to equate the issue of homosexuality and/or as “gay marriage” with racial differences, that’s another great example of disturbed psychology grabbing at straws. There’s more than enough evidence that racial types are an aspect of DNA; there’s more than enough evidence that homosexuality is not an aspect of DNA — and, a racial type is not a sexual behavior, nor vice versa. An illogical attempt to use the issue of racial differences to equate and promote homosexuality, which equals another example of illogical reasoning.
Race isn’t sexuality and vice versa. And, in my experience, a lot of humans with racial characteristics of one type or another find it entirely sickening to be equated with homosexuality by one way or another. It also demeans the issue of racial inequality to attempt to equate that with homosexuality — the attempt to correlate these two issues needs to stop because whenever anyone relies on this false correlation, it only adds to the illogic of the entire ‘gay marriage’ pleas.
mantis: then you need to admit that you reject all of the United States Constitution because when you reject the issues of sanctity and religious idealism, you then reject all the laws and legislations that were inspired by those.
It’s completely blind to attempt to allege that idealism of the religious kind (among other types) has “nothing to do with the law.”
Being admitted to practice law involves an oath, a pledge of honor and fidelity to a set of principles. As just one example of inspiration and organization of just what “the law” means and is to our society.
The entire country, democracy itself, our republic, were founded upon idealism inspired by religious ideology. As was that “law” you attempt to falsely frame as being santized from any/all religious inspiration.
Unfortunately, it is still a premise of and by the homosexual community that religion is the souce of their banes — SusanC acknowledges that, also — and what it comes back to time and time and time again is that inorder to justify homosexuality in various social acceptances, those who need this acceptance must first denigrate religious ideology/ies. It is the foundation point, the actual bed upon which the entire movement amplifies outward.
And THAT is at the heart of this whole “gay marriage” thing, in my opinion. Just trying to cut through the b.s. and get to the heart of things.
However, the discussion on less specific areas related to this issue is still possible, I recognize. It’s just that the entire premise of ‘gay marriage’ (an oxymoron) promotional movement is oddly targeted to and about the very thing that defines most human adult and familial relationships, a sort of force that targets that which remains the most idealized. And not for mere homosexuals themselves, but to denigrate a cornerstone of our society.
Again I write, however, that there is no “right” to homosexuality. There is nothing there in our society that alleges or even legalizes anyone’s “right” to sexuality beyond holding as forbidden certain acts with certain protected human classes. As to marriage, it is not a sexual “right” but a privilege of relationship intended for a socially and to most folks, a spiritually, religiously defined purpose.
Kevin: Kerry’s not a Catholic by value, by acceptance of Church (required) teaching and instruction. Kerry’s one of those people (and you seem to be, too) who thinks that by attending a service with some regularity, that makes for a a holiness that those who do not fail to meet.
Kerry speaks out against and actually campaigns upon issues that OPPOSE what the Catholic Church teaches, and then has the audacity and deceit to rely on his “but I’m a Catholic” salespitch. Kerry is no Catholic any more than King Henry V was. King Henry founded his Church of England so “the church” wouldn’t hold him responsible as sinful for repeat marriages and, more significantly, putting various wives to death. Kerry hasn’t quite reached those proportions in acts but his sin is, in my view, of equal offense as was King Henry’s.
You can stand in a pew all you want and then brag about it later but it still won’t make you “a Catholic” and a Christian. When you speak out and endorse, actually encourage others to support your efforts, in acts and premises that oppose what the Church and Christ instruct, you’re not a Catholic, you’re not a Christian. There are many occultists who share in this behavior and they tend to be very “spiritiual” too, liking church attendance, like to present themselves as “church” members and can often even be found on church boards and such. They tend to sorta glom onto the idea of church as a social affiliation.
If you denounce what the Catholic Church instructs, even if you’re standing in a pew doing it, you’re not a Catholic in practice nor in reality. Sin is a terrible thing and separates us from God — even when we’re in a pew.
Oh the painful contortions one must go through to offer an argument against gay civil marriage.
It requires no contortions at all, McCain. And definitely, no pain. Granted, I didn’t give case cites, but every argument I’ve made here was based on the holdings of USSC case law.
I got a good chuckle out of the revelation that it costs tax payers more money. That of course would be a great argument for no marriage for anyone, which would satisfy Julie’s other concerns as well. No perks for anyone, no tax burden for anyone, no problem.
Oh, yeah? And, I’m chuckling now because you are avoiding answering my question. You argued it was unfair to give married people a tax break and not do the same for gay couples. Why isn’t it just as unfair to not give unmarried people one, too? And are you saying that by lessening the tax burden on one segment of the population, it will not increase the burden on others?
And I find that Julie’s differentiation of sex and race discrimination is a wonderful semantic excuse for discrimination.
Actually, it’s Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist.’s differentiation.
She is saying that the law looks at the things differently, and she is right, but so what.
So, what?? It’s one of the basic premises of constitutional law. You seem to think the law can be anything you want it to be. That you can pull out a legal phrase, think, Hey, that sounds good! I think I’ll use it! But you’re using it in a entirely different way and giving it an entirely different meaning, than the courts.
The standards of proof are irrelevant to the central point.
Are you kidding me??? It’s a very big deal and often determines who will ultimately prevail.
A state can easily change the law by changing the definition of marriage, something that has been done often throughout our history.
Well, obviously not, since I’m unaware of it having ever been done before.
And something Massacheussetts has done and California is in the process of doing.
Uh, no and no. The state of Mass. did not change the law – a court did. The state of Calif. did not change the law, one superior court judge made a ruling. And in California, superior court, unlike NY, is your lowest level court. The opinion carries no weight outside of SF.
So the definition of marriage varies by state, and varies over time,
Hasn’t varied in almost 40 years and has never varied to the point of same sex marriages. What I am seeing is more and more voters going to the polls and amending their state constitutions to prevent judges from changing the definition of marriage. California already voted a few years ago to define marriage as between a man and a woman and it won big. What I see ultimately happening is that voters will have the opportunity to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
and therefore our ability to discriminate also varies.
Do you mean discriminate as in people are treated legally different? Or, do you mean discriminate in that denial of gay marriage is akin to slavery and jim crow laws? Because, not only is that a lot of hooey, all it does is piss people off.
What is the legal argument against California changing the definition of marriage in that state?
What is the legal argument for California changing the definition of marriage? See where that pesky burden of proof comes in?
SUSAN C WROTE:
>>>”Federal benefits. Most of the 1000 benefits that same-sex couples are denied are FEDERAL. Civil unions do not and will not achieve those rights. Now, if the US Gov wants to rewrite all of the code and change it to “spouse of civil partner”, then you’ve got an argument, but until then, the answer to your question is just what you say: The 1000 or so Federal rights that come about the instant someone signs a marriage certificate….Until this injustice is righted, the same-sex marriage crowd is not going to roll over and play dead. Britney Spears and her 8-hour marriage in Vegas does FAR more to harm “the institution of marriage” than any gay couple”
You see, there’s the illogical leap right there (^^): alleging as truth that which is not true. To allege that what you describe, even in regard to federal benefits, is “injustice” and needs to be “righted,” is the issue here.
It’s not “injustice” to deny a privilege to someone. Society has defined marriage as what it is for good reasons and it’s not likely that sexual-behaviors-not-being-rewarded-by-taxpayers is “injust” just because you allege that it is.
You can allege, also, as many people do, that homosexuality is some rightful state from birth, and yet it isn’t proven to be so. SOME individuals are so, many are not. A lot of homosexuality is proven to be, also and to the contrary, due to behavior and environment. Therefore, the whole “homosexuality” issue as birth right and therefore some sort of “natural” state is bogus to everyone except, say, homosexuals.
Homosexuality is still classified as a form of mental/emotional illness, it just can’t necessarily on a clinical level be “cured” and so many clinicians stopped seeking/trying to cure those with the problem. But still a classification that is outside the concept of normalacy, even to clinicians, despite the social insistence on normalacy.
The two areas are separate. Most adults have long since trying to run anyone else’s personality and so remain indifferent to others as to choice, selection, particularly as to private behaviors. Which can be interpreted as acceptance when, in fact, it’s more like indifference but on an individual basis only.
As to social systems, however, that’s a different area. Society represents communal opinion about these issues and society creates (or should be, except in places like San Francisco and Massachusetts, among others) the legislature that defines what and who the society is.
So, again and again, as has already been mentioned here, there’s no “right” or “injustice” for and about homosexuals that this individual within our society recognizes. Because of that, there’s no “discrimination.” If two gay people cohabitate, make certain dedications to one another, fine, that’s their business (most people respond as I do), but when you start to present those persons as being deprived of “rights” and being the recipients of “injustice” by society becuase they can’t as same-gender individuals “marry,” suddenly there are so many comingled issues there that the very assumptions involved seem convenient only for a special purpose and not for the greater society. If society benefits from this assumption of issues…I don’t think it will, but that’s my vote, my opinion, my (actual) right as a voter to pursue…then that’s yet to be proven.
But crying victim and calling everyone else offensive names, among other bad behaviors, about this issue only makes homosexuals and “gay marriage” proponents look even more unrealiable intellectually, emotionally and, yes, spiritually to my view.
Boy, Suzy, in the time it takes me to peck out one response, you manage to post three long ones with time to spare. :p
julie: you rule.
~:-D
Sorry, typo, earlier (^^): that’d be King Henry VIII, not the V.
Sumpin’s wrong with Wizbang’s index. page…thus, julie, only those with direct link to threads are commenting on them (and, thus, more isolation than is usual here). I really enjoyed reading your comments, this thread.
-S-
The fact that a person can’t change their sex isn’t really relevant to the definition of marriage. A person also can’t change their race, and yet the definition of marriage was changed to accomodate mixed race couples. Race and sex are both in the DNA, a point that you made later in the very same post. Whether or not sexual orientation is nature, nurture, or choice is unknown to science, so you can’t present your opinion about it as fact. My opinion about it is all of the above, and that it varies by person. And I agree with you that race and homosexuality are an apples and oranges comparison, but I don’t think you read that comparison in this thread. I am equating race with sex, and mixed-race couples with same-sex couples. Each have chosen their mate, and neither has chosen their DNA.
Your thought that anyone with any property or desire or request can easily, already, make those arrangements by law is a common urban myth. Among many examples, deal with the fact that social security survivor benefits can ONLY be given to surviving spouses.
Actually Julie, the courts didn’t “change” the law. They struck down laws during their very constitutional process of judicial review. You may not like the constitutional process, but judicial review is the way things work. What that actually changes is the definition of marriage itself in those states, again, following the constitutional process.
I am glad that you mention “burden of proof,” because obviously the burden of proof was met for this judge, and the state supreme court in Mass. So try again: what is the legal argument against gay marriage in these states, given that the burden of proof was met?
And just because you aren’t aware that states have never changed the definition of marriage before, you’ll agree that lack of knowledge isn’t determinate . Rather than give you a list, I invite you to google the topic yourself. Bigamy laws are well known, as are race requirements, but you’ll find many more examples of states changing the definition of marriage. California did that in these laws that were just struck down.
I’ll deal with the other list of trees in your post later, but it is sometimes worthwhile to also see the forest.
Actually McCain, the Massachussette’s supreme court pretty much dictated the law the legislature had to pass.
Unlike Vermont, which ruled that there was a problem, and left it to the legislature to work out in law-they still had to remedy the difference, but the supreme court let the Vermont Legislature decide how to remedy it.
McCain: I realize (all that you suggest you are recapping from my earlier comments, etc.)…it was an aside issue, something written to make a point in conjunction with the thread issue.
Not a specific point pertinent to the thread issue, which I’d assume most readers could easily recognize (the additional point I was making, the amplification of information), but, woefully, you missed that.
While I’m not quite sure what the highbeam critical beam is that you continue to point toward my comments, whatever they are, you tend to often, if not consistently, criticise some aspect about what I’ve expressed that is entirely, well, tangential. Hint: you’re standing too close, I can smell your cologne.
Homosexuality is still classified as a form of mental/emotional illness,
Are you still on the DSM I? They’re already up to IV now. Maybe it’s time for an update. Take a look under H and see if you find anything.
And, McCain, you might try to be specific when attempting to use specifics as your references: if you refer to “sex” (as in, “a person’s sex”), you’re referring to a person’s behavior(s) (what they do intimately with another person, persons and/or themselves), which is a misnomer entirely when what it is you then continue to discuss as being a person’s gender.
Which CAN be changed in a morphological and behavioral sense. Just not as to their chromosomes, which determine their gender.
And, gender and “sex” (the activity/ies) are aspects to the “gay marriage” issue, at least as to that issue as a socio-political movement.
So, both these areas bear discussing, just with more specificity than often takes place. A person who modiifies their morphology and appearance and probably their behaviors to a certain degree can modify their “gender” APPEARANCE and IDENTITY on a social and political sense (and that can be done confidentially, to a degree), but they will never be able to modify their gender biologically (if a man is born a male, has an X and a Y chromosome, or even those that have double YY chromosomes [a rarity], that individual will remain a male biologically even if he later undergoes “gender reassignment” surgery that modifies his morphology alone, combined with certain hormonal therapies that temporarily alter certain manifestations by those unchangeable chromosomes) (and same theoretically for females engaging in that process, who will continue to possess two XX chromosomes even if they are induced by surgeries and hormones to display other outward manifestations)…all that, because any human remains whichever gender they received after conception based upon chromosomal characteristics, etc.
Anyway, the point being that some persons can manifest, display one (false) gender through cosmetics and medical procedures and yet still be another gender contrary to what they’ve adopted as display and behavior…still an aspect to the “gay marriage” issue, since transgender individuals are a part of that movement.
My only complaint is with the terminology used, as in “sex” isn’t gender. Gender is male or female, determined by chromosomes, all that. “Sex” is a behavior.
But, socio-politically, no, I don’t at all agree intellectually that “race” is equatable with gender, or with sexuality.
Unless you want to suggest that one race or another is compelled to engage in more sexual activity than others, or something strange like that (which I don’t think you are intentionally, but that’s the conclusion of that argument whether intended or not, and that’s racist in nature, as most would readily recognize, and as do I)…or that one race or another suffers one type of discrimination about their sexual behaviors or does not…etc. (it’s all a racist line of reference to my read).
The “gay marriage” (an oxymoron) movement attempts to equate their demands for ‘gay marriage’ to certain/various social changes in human society/ies as to racial types and racial understandings, which I find an indication of desperation, something akin to someone flailing away without ideas, without capacity to reason and recognize subtleties and complex issues, the reasoning of the unreasonable.
A person is born with a racial characteristic as manifested by their chromosomes, yes. As they are/we all are as to the gender we have. The ‘gay marriage’ movement alleges that their homosexuality is some ‘natural’ manifestation of their own chromosomal nature, which it is not, that they are “born that way” and that, therefore, they have no control over their homosexuality, that the behaviors are an aspect of who they are biologically. My point is that there’s no evidence that this is so on a chromosomal basis, and if it IS actual biologically, it has yet to be proven (no one has yet to identify the ‘gay gene’ or the ‘gay process’ biologically as it could be identified via developmental physiology), and so because of that, we see again yet another version of the “it’s so because we say it is” argument by proponents of ‘gay marriage’ that makes no sense biologically.
There is, however, a lot of evidence to explain homomsexuality in a behavioral, emotional and environmental sense. But, as to being “born that way,” there’s no biological evidence to suggest the actual formulation of homosexuality, although there are some studies that I am aware of that provide some evidence of males who later engage in homosexuality as having a different shape of brain than other males — but it’s not consistent (meaning, it’s not a consistent difference among all males who engage in homosexuality, just shared by some of them and usually shared by those who characterise the ‘I was born that way’ line of reference to the behaviors).
Racial differences are not sexual differences. The two areas even in socio-political perspectives are not related in issue nor in dilemma. Unless, of course, a person needs us to believe that the use of race bating and racial stereotypes is, um, “progressive.”
JustMe, it is true that the Mass. state supreme court set boundaries for what would be constitutional or not, and set a timeline for remedy. In fact, the legislature requested that guidance after the first ruling. All of that is within the function of judicial review, so I don’t understand the distinction you are making.
mantis: I realize by now by my own perceptions that you aren’t a physician (nor am I) but I’ll try to respond as one layperson to another about your comments about my comments, as to homosexuality as a disorder.
It is. Psychology is a social science, not an area of study or practice born out of the physical sciences, and so relying on areas of psychology (and many psychologists) is akin to suggesting that one economist can accurately interpret the National Debt (or any other area of conceptual economics)…my point being that these are subjective fields that allow for individual opinion to be ‘fact’ but only in a subjective sense, based upon the individual perspective and references.
But, yes, as to homosexuality, basically medical science declassified it as a mental illness ONLY because they had to effective treatment for it. Medicine is based upon providing treatment for conditions. If you have no treatment to provide, it’s not something you can offer treatment for (and, thus, a physician declines to provide treatment).
However, that fine line of what and how medicine is practiced was completely overlooked by ardent pro-homosexual sources and taken to be an “acceptance” of the condition. Not at all, just a reclassification, one that provides a clear indication that homosexuality was not a condition for which medicine offered treatment, as to a cure, as to a healing, a reversal of the condition.
Another example of just how awry on a socio-political sense the entire issue about homosexuality is.
The objective of medicine is to induce persons to recover from a condition or at least to make a non recovery as comfortable as possible. If you can’t offer any treatment or assistance toward that process, you can’t treat anyone. Thus, the reclassification of and about homosexuality, the offers to gender reassign, ease and abet, etc. (all of which are indications to make a non recovery as comfortable as possible).
As to psychology, however, it’s a social science, can and does mean just about whatever it often can and does based upon the imagination and/or personal attitudes of the social scientists involved, and is another source of social engineering often by persons with a mission. Not a physical science.
All a “disorder” means is that it’s different than the norm, the mean, within a population.
Our human species is a population. One, two, maybe three percent act out homosexual behaviors. Which represents a disorder when compared to the population. It’s an abnormality of behavior based upon what the normal is within our human species.
How we consider and regard those with disorders is the issue. Unfortunately, if you write about concepts accurately in our present times, someone grabs the accuracy and runs with it into emotionaly hysteria, interpreting and applying and projecting all sorts of ogre qualities to the information.
And, so far, homosexuality has yet to be diagnosed on anything other than behavior. Not like people are born with a “homosexual mark” or appendage on them. It’s still an area of human behavior, not an inherent one.
Actually Julie, the courts didn’t “change” the law. They struck down laws during their very constitutional process of judicial review.
Oh, yada yada yada. It’s sort of like how you wrote: A state can easily change the law.. . A state doesn’t change the law. The state legislature enacts laws. Striking down a law results in a defacto change in the law.
You appear to assume that a court’s judicial review results in an opinion that is always constitutional. If that were true, we wouldn’t need higher appellate courts now would we?
You may not like the constitutional process, but judicial review is the way things work.
Honey, I love the constitutional process! And I live and die for judicial review!!
What that actually changes is the definition of marriage itself in those states, again, following the constitutional process.
Let’s see, you said: Actually Julie, the courts didn’t “change” the law. They struck down laws …. [which] actually changes is the definition of marriage.
And the definition of marriage is codified. So, if they changed the definition of marriage they did so by changing the code by striking it down, which resulted in a de facto change in the law. So, it all comes back to the court changed the law. Got it. :p
So try again: what is the legal argument against gay marriage in these states, given that the burden of proof was met?
Gee, mcclain, download the cases and read them for yourself. Because if you insist that I do it, I’m going to have to see the cash first.
And just because you aren’t aware that states have never changed the definition of marriage before, you’ll agree that lack of knowledge isn’t determinate .
Better read what you wrote, snarky. Which states have ever changed their definition of marriages to include same sex couples?
Rather than give you a list, I invite you to google the topic yourself.
No thanks.
Bigamy laws are well known,
Your analogies suck, mcclain. Bigamy laws never changed the definition of marriage. Just because some code somewhere has some tangential relationship to marriage doesn’t mean it has changed the definition of marriage. That’s really pathetic.
as are race requirements,
You wrote: So the definition of marriage varies by state, and varies over time,
I responded: Hasn’t varied in almost 40 years
anti-Miscegenation laws were truly laws affecting marriage. Not your crappy bigamy analogy. My answer – hasn’t varied in almost 40 years was a reference to Loving v. Virginia, which clearly flew over your head.
but you’ll find many more examples of states changing the definition of marriage.
I doubt it.
California did that in these laws that were just struck down.
But, but, Mcclain, earlier you were absolutely emphatic that the judges did not change the law instead they struck down the law which changed the definition of marriage. Now you’re saying the states changed the definition of marriage in striking down the laws. So which is it? (See what happens when you insist on playing stupid word games. )
You also demand answers to questions but never answer questions put to you.
I’ll deal with the other list of trees in your post later, but it is sometimes worthwhile to also see the forest.
Don’t bother. The only dead wood in this forest is you. After, you leave, everyone will have a clear view.
S-
I was responded to the content of your 1st of 3 posts from earlier today. I responded to the heart of your post, and you do your excellent argumentative skills a disservice to claim that the issue of free-will versus DNA was an aside, or that your urban myth was an aside. They are key to the discussion and repeated often on this thread. I am challenging the entire content of your first post, after the Catholic church part, simply because I find it weak and that is what we do on blogs. You can handle that challenge without getting defensive, whether or not my cologne is attracting you.
About the word “sex”, I should have clarified my term in a discussion like this, since it may have been confusing. Of course I am referring to your definition of gender, which is the recent term of preference to distinguish the two things. That distinction has NOT been absorbed into the mainstream of our language yet, but I recognize that change would be advantageous when and if that eventually happens. Since you think I confused things with the traditional use of the word ‘sex’, let me clarify that I am comparing race and gender, and not race and noogie.
About the nature versus nurture line, there just isn’t enough evidence to know, but I’ve already offered my opinion about it. Unfortunately, visceral reactions from either side of the debate will cause any evidence to be scorned, like the studies that have documented trait differences between the races. You’d think that adoption studies could shed light on this topic.
Oh Julie, sophistry may be valued in a freshman debating class, but I am confident we can get beyond it.
The reason that conservatism has triumphed over liberalism in the past 40 years is through the power of conservative ideas. Present the ideas and let them stand on their own weight. But instead, your approach is to play little semantic games and word traps rather than present a powerful argument, and when that doesn’t work you want to complain on a personal level. Obsession with unimportant detail is a domain normally reserved for liberals, lawyers, and accountants.
Here are my answers to your questions contained in your last post:
Q.”Which states have ever changed their definition of marriages to include same sex couples?”
A. Massacheussetts. However, my actual point that you didn’t respond to is that the definition of marriage changes from time to time, for many reasons. Some peopl incorrectly claim that civil marriage has a sacred definition that has been chiseled in stone since eternity.
Q. “You appear to assume that a court’s judicial review results in an opinion that is always constitutional. If that were true, we wouldn’t need higher appellate courts now would we?”
A. I don’t assume that, and it could easily be that the ruling is overturned on appeal and then overturned again. As I said, we all know this whole issue will be heard by the US supremes someday. I do believe it is the correct ruling for the reasons I have stated, which is mainly an equal protection argument.
Oh Julie, sophistry may be valued in a freshman debating class, but I am confident we can get beyond it.
You mean sophistry like in you attacking me or the arguments or making up legal standards?
But instead, your approach is to play little semantic games and word traps rather than present a powerful argument, and when that doesn’t work you want to complain on a personal level. Obsession with unimportant detail is a domain normally reserved for liberals, lawyers, and accountants.
Well, I started out making EP arguments based on federal constitutional law and all I got in return was a snarky little semantic nitpicking post from you. So don’t whine when it’s done back to you. And, what you ignorantly label as unimportant details are *very* important legal standards.
Q.”Which states have ever changed their definition of marriages to include same sex couples?” A. Massacheussetts. However, my actual point that you didn’t respond to is that the definition of marriage changes from time to time, for many reasons. Some peopl incorrectly claim that civil marriage has a sacred definition that has been chiseled in stone since eternity.
So, one state now qualifies as “often”? That’s what you originally wrote: “something that has been done often throughout our history.” And you’re using the fact that Mass changed their law as support for Mass changing their law? Color me unimpressed! I answered the point you did make, or, actually you did: States have not changed their laws throughout history to define marriage as that which includes same sex couples. In fact, they have done the exact opposite. And I cited the anti-miscegnation laws which were declared unconstitutional 40 years ago.
Q. “You appear to assume that a court’s judicial review results in an opinion that is always constitutional. If that were true, we wouldn’t need higher appellate courts now would we?” A. I don’t assume that, and it could easily be that the ruling is overturned on appeal and then overturned again.
You certainly act like it’s chiseled in stone. You’re quip that challenging a judicial opinion means that I must not like the “very constitutional process of judicial review” as you put it. And again, “You may not like the constitutional process, but judicial review is the way things work.” Or, is this one of those free speech for me, but not for thee, things? Judicial review okay for thee but not for me?
As I said, we all know this whole issue will be heard by the US supremes someday. I do believe it is the correct ruling for the reasons I have stated, which is mainly an equal protection argument.
No, we don’t “all know” this. And no, you never made a cogent argument. And certainly not a coherent legal one.
Since this has been a long thread, I’ll summarize my position here and will be pleased to debate the general principles with you:
Civil marriage and religious marriage are different and independent of each other. One is facilitated by the state while the other is facilitated by private religious organizations.
Civil marriage is not a sacred tradition. Religious marriage is an important sacred tradition within each church, something I would NOT what to see redefined in my Catholic church. The religious definition of marriage varies between churches and is wholly the responsibility of churches to define.
This creates an obvious distinction between these two things, which is often confused because our language has only one word to describe civil and religious marriages.
The word “marriage” is further confused by describing what gay partners are seeking. I support those who are seeking the same perks that are available to opposite sex unions. Others are indeed using the word “marriage” to create friction by throwing their lifestyles into the face of our culture, and also to try to gain acceptance for themselves. This tact dismays me because it offends my senses and confuses the legitimate equal protection argument, but it is irrelevant to that argument.
So I would prefer to see a different word used for what gays are seeking, and am fine with civil unions, schmarriage, or whatever, as long as these unions have the opportunity to receive the same perks. I am fine with separate but equal, as it only creates a distinction without a difference.
Civil marriage bestows certain perks on individual who qualify for each state’s definition of marriage. It is true that some of those perks can be obtained in other legal ways, but it is error to claim that all can be obtained. Regardless, placing extra burdens on those who seek those same perks also creates an equal protection problem.
The definition of civil marriage varies between states, and changes over time within each state. Therefore, one state changing the definition of marriage (to include same-sex unions or mixed-race unions) is only shocking when it is new. It is error to claim that marriage definitions don’t change. [incidentally, Julie, that is the point I made — that marriage definitions change, obviously NOT that marriage definitions with respect to gay marriage change often. I read back through the thread and do not see how you misconstrued: –A state can easily change the law by changing the definition of marriage, something that has been done often throughout our history. — 3/16]
Judicial review is part of the process that defines law. There is nothing weird about a judge declaring laws unconstitutional, including marriage laws. The argument that judges are “legislating from the bench” is therefore imprecise and begs the point. Instead, one must explain why the judicial decision is unconstitutional, or one must revisit Marbury-Madison to argue against judicial review.
This issue is similar to the debate about mixed-race couples in important ways. In both, neither partner can choose their physical characteristics (race or gender), and each chooses their mate (opposite race, or same gender). In both cases, a different choice was technically possible (choose the same race, choose the opposite gender). Those who argue that gay couples have the opportunity to choose an opposite-sex mate are ignoring this simple fact.
The only legitimate argument against gay unions/marriage that I recognize is a common good argument. Nobody has made that argument directly here. Make a powerful argument about why excluding gay unions is good for society, and then we would have something challenging to discuss. [Julie, you are on to something here when you say that single people don’t have the same perks as married folks. The state promotes marriage, but why? The answer to the common good question is here. As a libertarian, I think these perks are unfair to all, but that’s a different topic.:)]
Well, McCain, it was an interesting work of fiction, a story, what you wrote. I can’t say that I found much of substance in there, other than you rown opinion about what the world means to you.
Marriage, no, is not limited to or merely something spiritually defined by various churches on various scales of various religious tenets. Were that so, there would be no license involved, nothing contractual of a legal definition.
You like others with similar sorta’ SIMS-environment creations that represent what society means to the individual (as in, whatever you can craft is what it is), fails the social standard mechanism. Socieity is an ugly, bumbling, awkward, sometimes very badly functioning thing but eventually you end up with social norms and social requirements and social customs and more that is what the most people have decided works best for everyone.
Marriage is a corner stone relationship that society (ours, others, most) have established and continue to enforce and recognize as building block to what society (ours, others, most) believe best organizes families and individuals in relationship to those families.
That it is a licensed, legally contracted thing in and of itself bespeaks just to what extent society (ours, others, most) have gone to to ensure the protections for and about what family is and what relationships are expected and even demanded of those involved in families, in human relationships. Otherwise, we’d still all be roaming from cave to cave, without a thank you, without an expectation, without a reliance, without helps, helpers, donors for our love and affections, caregivers for those we value, all of that…
So, it comes down to marriage as a thing that society wants/needs to protect, defend and ensure or does not. “Reworking” how marriage is defined is not likely to occur since it’s a complex social arrangement that does bode of family, the rearing of children, the ensurance to society that someone specifically is there to assume responsibilities for someone or those who are vulnerable and in need. Society has a right to make these expectations and demands since the alternatives are very grave and mostly ensure socialism and/or communism, some sort of society that is to be relied upon for the care of the vulnerable (for the care of any/all) instead of a family, to, literally, replace by social requirement or allowance, at least, the reliance on self and individuals by the state, by the larger society itself.
But, no, race and gender are not related issues in this discussion about some who need marriage to be redefined to allow for same-gender individuals to pose as husband/wife, to literally rework the definition of what we now know to be marriage as between one man and one woman.
The issue of race is an easy cop-out, however, by people who need a sort of social threat in this argument, to attempt to intimidate others into assuming that if they defend the definitiion of marraige as being between one man and one woman, that they are somehow irrationally motivated (“bigots” and such, which is a case of actual bigots calling everyone else by a pejorative for the sake of attempting further intimidations).
There’s just no correlation between the two areas of race as considerations for all things and genders as considerations for all things, and particularly where the definition of marriage is concerned. Trying to further that is so far-fetched that it’s illogical as to the issue/s involved, here and elsewhere.
Race is an inherent aspect to any individual. Gender is also. However, as to the gender-manipulations and all that goes along with that, no, it’s not an inherent aspect to individual life, just a recognized variation for a few individuals within the greater species, the greater, if you will, society.
So far, from my experience, people with these various conditions including homosexuality and gender affecting desires have been given a great deal of consideration and extended a great deal of extra special care by the greater society. Not like everyone’s lives aren’t complicated enough, and yet there is still time and concern by nearly everyone to extend special understandings to those with certain concerns that are not shared by most individuals. I think what it indicates is more of a problem by those with the concerns than by society itself…it’s a case of there never being enough provided to them for their needs, and to now assume that the very definition of marriage be modified is, well, something that goes way beyond normal to my view.
No, McCain, you and other proponents have not made an argument FOR such a thing as “gay marriage,” an oxymoron again I write.
Society has no obligation to rework such a grave definition simply because someone makes a demand to do so. The argument has yet to be made that is convincing or even motivating as to why the definition of marriage should be modified.
Julie
You just made the same argument made in 1967 against interracial marriage: you have said in 1000 words what could be summarized in very few — “marriage traditions are important.”
And I agree with you about that in a religious sense but not in a civil sense. Otherwise civil society could never change. Just as our parents’ generation is still uncomfortable with interracial marriage, you will be personally uncomfortable with same sex unions, but our children won’t give a damn. This is the world of the future, since western society generally progresses toward more individual freedom rather than less. After all, liberty is THE important tradition in our culture.
On race versus gender, let[‘s try this from a different angle. I invite you to xplain why the 1967 ruling which struck down all laws against interracial marriage was the correct decision. You have the floor, and let’s stipulate that marriage traditions are important.
And wow, congratulations on usage of the word “bespeak” in a sentence!!! My publisher would be mightily impressed, and I would insist on leaving that baby in context. By the way, I think you are totally cool and so it dismays me to disagree with you so on this issue.
Mmmm, that last one is meant for -S-. So sorry.
no gay should be allowed to marriage. get those faggots away from children…