October 20, 2008
Did Sarah Palin just come out in support of the federal marriage amendment?
She says: "[I]n my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage."
Somebody please ask her the follow-up question about the constitutional amendment. There are other things that can be done "on a federal level" to oppose same-sex marriage, and she only refers to amending the Alaskan constitution. These are important distinctions, because it is very hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and equally hard to repeal an amendment.
Nevertheless, this expressed desire to operate "on a federal level" shows no concern for the conventional conservative idea of leaving it to the states. In sliding from talking about what she's done in Alaska to the subject of federal law, she doesn't seem to have any instinct for federalism or perhaps even any awareness of it. And quite aside from any concern about the specific issue of gay marriage or the more general matter of federalism, there is a real absence of structured thinking here.
It's genuinely dismaying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
278 comments:
1 – 200 of 278 Newer› Newest»You're dismayed that she's not conventionally conservative or that she does not, to your view, display the proper amount of structured thinking?
Structured like when Joe Biden thought we joined the French to kick Hezbolla out of Lebanon? Or when BHO said he was going to go through the budget line-by-line. (Really? Anyone know what that means?)
I would suggest that everyone will disappoint your standards if you want to cherry pick through.
-XC
All three states which have legalized gay marriage have done so through judicial "discovery" that it was always a constitutional right.
It is hardly a stretch of the imagination that the federal supreme court might make similar "discoveries" in the US Constitution, especially once they have been fortified with a couple of Obama appointments.
That's Sarah. She's an anti-intellectual candidate. More of a visceral than thoughtful one.
Often well-described as "Bush in a skirt."
"State rights" are for suckers. The moment that principle is inconvenient, it is jettisoned.
Ann,
You would have voted against Lincoln because although he was a lawyer, his pre-presidential writings were more of the common folk you "intellectuals" deride as being incapable of leading. Though he communicated well, he was vastly inferior to the magic wordsmith's he ran against. No one would have predicted Lincoln's eventual elegance and grace in communication that resulted in his Second Inaugural or the Gettysburg Address.
It wasn't his communication skills that won him the admiration of America - it was his demonstrated leadership abilities - something sorely lacking in Barack Obama.
Soory Ann, but you are a voter in search of a reason to support your insecure feelings about Obama. Attcking Sarah Palin may make you feel better, but you will never sleep fully well at night becuase of the "chance" you are taking on somebody who has never demonstrated leadership outside a campaign
Again for the latecomers:
Ann Althouse reason for supporting Obama:
He talk real good.
That's it, folks.
For the rest of you, don't let a person who lives inside the bubble of Madison and doesn't know what even the majority of Americans are actually like - hell, she doesn't even know personally one of the more than 40 million American evangelicals - influence your thinking about this election.
Obama inspires "hope".
Can someone tell me what that means?
I thought not.
"this expressed desire to operate "on a federal level" shows no concern for the conventional conservative idea of leaving it to the states."
Except the conventional conservative idea is washed away by the judiciary who discovers rights and then imposes them.
Leaving it to the states has essentially meant leaving it open for judges as voters tend to not open the door to such. California voters specifically addressed this issue and were 'corrected'.
It will be interesting to see what the voters do with Prop 8, and the response to that, whether it will actually be allowed to stand if voted in.
It's not a rejection of conservative states rights principles as much as a realization that the assertion of such principles are being repeatedly undermined by non-democratic responses, leading to exactly the kind of situation that should be addressed at the Federal level if continued.
Absent a Federal policy aren't the states that do not want to authorize gay marriage obliged to recognize marriages from other states (including gay marriages)?
I would like to hear the explanation to the follow-up question before reaching any conclusions. Bill Clinton operated at the federal level when DOMA was signed in 1996, but that doesnt seem to be what she's referring to here. OTOH, I believe a federal marriage amendment would give the Republicans some of the highly anti-gay African-American vote. That'd be if The One weren't running.
Oh, and I hate when my muddled comments show how distracted I am. Random sentences are cobbled together without any art.
I agree with dbp. I'm a federalist. And if I could believe that federalism was feasible when it comes to gay marriage, I would be against the Federal Marriage Amendment. But Federalism is not feasible when one side is against it. And the pro-gay marriage side will get the federal courts to rule that the U.S. Constitution guarantees gay marriage the first chance they can, or at least rule that every state has to recognize the gay marriages from other states. It makes sense then to preempt this if you are anti-gay marriage even if you are a federalist.
Of course, one could envision a different, better amendment that left the issue to the states, but you have to play the cards you are dealt and the current proposed amendment is the only one on the table.
You were fishing for a reason to dislike her, Althouse. And now, I guess, you've found one.
Enjoy the "structured thinking" of your chosen candidate's vice presidential nominee. Hell, why bother with the nominee bit? Have fun with the structured thinking of your vice president, Mr Biden.
Ann Althouse is more worried about a Sarah Palin Presidency but has nothing to say about Joe Biden's real world scary divide Iraq (and whoever) into more nations vision.
Or Biden telling Israel to live with a nuclear Iran.
Or Biden believing that Hezbollah was ever kicked out of Lebanon.
Seriously, that last one alone should have disqualified Biden from ever being President or Vice President. The man is dangerous for America and it's security.
Exactly how is the process of amending the Constitution anti-"states rights?"
The very process of amending the Constitution is designed to balance those rights against assertions of federal interest. To assert otherwise is the ultimate anti-intellectual canard.
Congrats though, Ann and AlphaLiberal! John Calhoun must be pleased to have such stalwarts on his side now.
Hmm. I'm less worried about whether Palin grasps the state/federal issue than the issue as a whole, by far. I just don't agree with the majority (and I don't think it is a whopping majority, btw) of Republicans who want gays to be barred from marriage.
The state/federal issue is always thrown out there when conservatives are perceived to be inconsistent. This from liberals who believe that the government - both federal and state, it doesn't matter - should be involved in every meaningful part of an individual's life.
I forgot the mandatory PBUH next to His Imperial Majesty's name.
And let me clarify: I have no problem putting Palin on the grill over her contradictory statements. But I do have a problem that you apparently have no issues with the same behavior in Obama and Biden. Biden was completely conflicted on this issue as well during the last debate. So where is the post about that?
I'm closer to Althouse than Palin on this. Marriage is a state matter, and if Palin wants to define it in the federal Constitution, I can't agree with that.
I will say, however, that dbp is correct: it is by no means unimaginable that the Supreme Court would invent a Constitutional right to gay marriage, a fortiori if Obama wins this election. I understand the concerns conservatives have about this.
As I see matters, however, there is a moderate middle way on this. While I don't support the FMA, I would consider supporting a carefully-worded Constitutional amendment that expressly clarified that the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about the definition of marriage, that the matter is reserved to the states. That would preserve the ability of states to allow gay marriage vel non, and alleviate any concern that the Supreme Court might come in and impose a national answer.
I believe a federal marriage amendment would give the Republicans some of the highly anti-gay African-American vote.
I don't think that's a very good reason to amend the Constitution.
I also don't think it's a great idea to amend the Constitution for a problem that might arise. Imagine, for example, what would have happened if anti-miscegenation laws had been codified into the US Consitution.
If the widespread acceptance of "gay marriage" becomes troublesome, then I think a Constitutional change can be considered. I don't see a very clear argument for doing so beforehand.
this expressed desire to operate "on a federal level" shows no concern for the conventional conservative idea of leaving it to the states."
It was left to the State of California where over 4 million people had their votes overturned by a few judges. This is why, at the State level, people are trying yet again with Proposition 8.
The whole issue of gay marriage and equality is a joke anyway as long as the Federal Government in the institutions of the IRS and Social Security Administration have their existing structures. It doesn't matter WHAT the States do. Gay married people still can't file married joint, inherit SS benefits, among other things.
Good cop/bad cop.
The base needs a boost.
Marriage is de facto a federal issue because of the income tax- I can't imagine the IRS deferring to each state's definition of marriage in determining who can file jointly. Gov Palin has a personal belief against same sex marriage, and a personal desire to prevent its further judicially mandated insinuation into the fabric of the American culture. What's wrong with favoring an amendment? It's very difficult to pass one, but may be the only way that the majority can get attention paid to its desires.
Rocketeer said...
"Exactly how is the process of amending the Constitution anti-'states rights?'"
Setting aside the false conflation of federalism with "states' rights,", the answer to the question is obvious: Because it constricts the ambit of issues over which the states have control. Even if the states accede to that contraction of their powers, their powers have been contracted.
So where is the post about that?
Palladian, you are sounding just like alphaliberal (or is it integrity?) with the topic demands on posts.
"I'm closer to Althouse than Palin on this. Marriage is a state matter, and if Palin wants to define it in the federal Constitution, I can't agree with that."
I'd go further than that. As I've argued here before, I believe that marriage should not be a matter for the State (federal, state or local) at all. It's the only workable solution to this nonsense.
"Palladian, you are sounding just like alphaliberal (or is it integrity?) with the topic demands on posts."
Nope, just curious about the "cruel neutrality". I don't care if she posts about it or not, but I think it's fair to question and comment upon the lack of such posts.
"there is a real absence of structured thinking here."
I think that is incorrect as I have it on good authority that Governor Palin wore both a Prima Donna Deep Plunge Bra and Spanks during her appearance on Saturday Night Live.
Highly Structured indeed!
But I do have a problem that you apparently have no issues with the same behavior in Obama and Biden. Biden was completely conflicted on this issue as well during the last debate. So where is the post about that?
Excellent question to ask of an "intellectual" professor.
But that would cause Ann to have to think more deeply about her vote. And even for accomplished people, that can be a frightening thing to do.
Tax laws notwithstanding, in that once in a blue moon occurance where Palladian is right, he is right in this case, or at least his view makes the most sense to me. If there is no equitable way to solve the issue without the states v. feds nonsense and who has the over-riding interest, the best thing is to just "butt out" and let those who wish to enter the marriage area go do so and be well and prosper.
Ms. Palin's observations are only relevant in that there is the off chance that she will hold national office and frankly I am more afraid of her than I am about a gay couple tying the knot.
AA: is agog at Palin's take on sexual politics meanwhile Joe Biden says:
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Joe's the Big O's foreign policy expert and he smells a shit storm coming. But, I digress, let's get back to homosexual marriage and Palin's lack of federalist fervor.
I apologize high-jacking the thread..please continue
I think Ann has lost her edge. Her posts and her thinking seem to have deteriorated in the last 2-3 weeks.
Anybody see any pods around her house recently?
Nevertheless, this expressed desire to operate "on a federal level" shows no concern for the conventional conservative idea of leaving it to the states.
Conservatives only care about federalism when it matches their policy desires. They want abortion outlawed, not left to the states, and they want queers kept in line, and they'd prefer it happen in one big fell swoop, at the federal level. Federalism only comes out when some court or local lawmaking body fails to "save marriage" as they define it.
I with Simon on this. I think state legislators should amend the laws to allow gay marriage but that states should be free to do what they want here.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court makes shit like this up as it goes along (Kennedy v. Louisiana), then those who don't want 50-state gay marriage imposed by 5 judges should probably try and amend the Constitution. I'd prefer if they do this to just say something along the lines of marriage, death penalty, euthanasia, contraception, abortion, and parental rights are solely up to the States. Congress, the President, and the federal judiciary shall have no authority here and no authority with regard to any unenumerated rights or any protection of individuals other than on the basis of race.
Oh how quickly the conservatives' loyalty fades when Ann dares make but one tiny observation of a Palin flaw. And I thought only the liberals were so fickle!
Oh, as if I haven't been criticizing Obama and Biden. Please.
The thing with Obama/Biden on gay marriage is they've spent so little time discussing it because they don't believe it's the role of the executive branch to decide. McCain seems to be with them on this one. Here Palin prefers to distinguish herself. If Bat Pukehanon's fleas haven't found a new host to swarm around, it looks like they'll have a symbiote in Gov. Palin.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
"It was left to the State of California where over 4 million people had their votes overturned by a few judges. This is why, at the State level, people are trying yet again with Proposition 8."
Well, that's California's fight and California's concern. I want to leave it to Californians to deal with, and while I don't approve of such judicial policymaking, it's not my state and not my business. The whole point of resisting the federalization of the issue is to let states resolve this issue their own way, not to impose any particular solution in the federal constitution. If states find themselves having it imposed by their state courts, that's impetus for them to rethink their institutional settlement and/or amend their constitutions, just as California is doing, something I think quite salutary.
The real problem with structure is that Obama's structure is a house of cards.
Oh, as if I haven't been criticizing Obama and Biden. Please.
That's about as good as the lie Obama said in the last debate about he supported tort reform and went against trial lawyers.
The unbalanced always somehow beleive that they are fair.
Pesky follow-up questions just aren't permitted on the Palin bus.
My brother, shockingly a huge Obama supporter but I love him nonetheless for it, asked me why I thought well of Sarah Palin.
I explained that I don't really have that much positive to say about her except that she is not a Washington insider. That means she wouldn't be able to get much done, and that's a good thing.
I'd much rather have someone more philosophically grounded in not getting anything done than someone who cannot get anything done, but I'll take what I can get.
As with Obama, she is mostly a blank slate and I can project onto her whatever traits I like. It's all moot anyway. Sadly, it is not moot with Obama.
A constitutional amendment to protect us from the insanity of homosexual "marriage" should be unnecessary, but the excesses of people insisting on redefinitions and increased rights for some over others makes federal meddling almost seem appropriate.
Beth, the shoe fits perfectly well on the other shoe. Federalism has only been invoked by liberals in this case for political gain. When Katrina hit New Orleans, they all forgot federalism and demanded the central government to act. Liberals love national programs and national standards and national everything. Let's not be blind here.
Why haven't all state laws against gay marriage been ruled unconstitutional as violating the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
And how could a constitutional amendment be passed that would violate this interpretation of the 14th amendment?
I hate law.
Seems to me Biden agreed with Palin on the issue - don't think they mentioned the specifics, during their debate. He was unequivocal.
"Course what he says to get elected, and what he'll actually do - it's like the left's antipathy towards religion, but they tolerate their candidates going to church with a wink and a nod, because they believe they have to do it to be electable.
Would Biden have been more honest if he had said they supported politically correct judicial activism? Ahhh, but then, could they get elected?
And what happened to all of us who didn't think we needed 'that little piece of paper' - all of us who lived together, who had 'significant others?'
Now that 'little piece of paper' is the only way to go? I thought we were more creative than that.
Beth said...
"Conservatives only care about federalism when it matches their policy desires."
"People use the Constitution when they like what it says, but when it's in the way, they're not very respectful of it." Ann Althouse, 82 ABA J., Oct. 1996 at 79 (emphasis added). Still, while I think you're painting with too narrow a brush in that regard, I must point out that some of us are respectful of federalism, even when it doesn't match our policy preferences.
publius, there were plenty of follow-up questions Couric's and Gibson's interviews.
It was left to the State of California where over 4 million people had their votes overturned by a few judges. This is why, at the State level, people are trying yet again with Proposition 8
If they didn't want their votes overturned, they shouldn't have voted for an unconstitutional proposition. If judges find a proposition to be unconstitutional, they get rid of it. Sorry, that's the way things work.
Now, all the lovely people from Utah who are behind California's Prop 8 are doing things the "right" way by making inequality permanent with this amendment. If they were committed to their cause, they should have done the amendment back in 2000. Better late than never. The voters will have the final say in 2 weeks.
For people like my friend Palladian who believe the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, well, it is. And since it is and it's not going anywhere, you have to pick the lesser of two evils, so to speak, and make it available to all. Stop complaining and be rational!
P.S. Douche With The Bouche: You would have voted against Lincoln because he wanted to free the slaves, so what's your point?
I agree with Ann on this one. It is genuinely dismaying.
The reason it is dismaying is not that I disagree with Palin (which I do), but that I hope for better.
She's a governor. She could demonstrate some appreciation for federalist issues. But she simply ignores them.
If you watch the rest of the clip, she segues from the constitutional issue into a traditional defense of traditional marriage. This is clearly her anchor; the constitutional issue is subordinate.
Palin has conservative viewpoints and positions but she does not have a conservative philosophy of government. This is troubling, especially as she is paired with McCain whose conservativism is horribly compromised by his activist impulses.
Palin is no Reagan and it doesn't seem likely she will develop into one.
Personally I have no problem with gay people getting married. Civilly
of course without forcing any religious tradition to perform the ceremony. They are in for a surprise let me tell you.
But you can't trust politicians as they are lying sacks of shit. Look at Nanny Bloomberg who is trying to overturn term limits even though the people have voted for it twice in referendums.
Let both the proponents and opponents of gay marriage put forward their own amendments. Let the legislature vote. Then bring it to the states. It is important enough an issue to enough people that we should let the people vote. Or is that too crazy? Should we just let our overlords dictate the answer?
You know all those smart people like journalists and college professors.
Not regular people. They should just sit down and shut up. Right?
AlphaLiberal said...
That's Sarah. She's an anti-intellectual candidate. More of a visceral than thoughtful one.
Often well-described as "Bush in a skirt."
"State rights" are for suckers. The moment that principle is inconvenient, it is jettisoned.
Considering that in all 3 instances where Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California courts all somehow found 'The Rights' to homosexual marriage in their State Constitutions and subverting voters wishes against such, it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to say that there should be a federal amendment to establish that which the courts can so simply overturn on a state level. Therefore, any state Supreme Court, in the face of a Federal Constitutional Amendment against homosexual marriage.
But you just go on ahead with your emotional rhetoric since that's all your arguments really amount to anyway. All fluff, no substance. Hey just like the guy you are going to vote for. How consistent.
jdeeripper said...
"Why haven't all state laws against gay marriage been ruled unconstitutional as violating the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?"
Well, the obvious reason is that they don't violate the equal protection clause, but if you're asking why, as a matter of realpolitik, the court hasn't struck them down on the basis of the understanding it adopted in cases like Lawrence and Roemer, the answer can only be that it hasn't yet.
"And how could a constitutional amendment be passed that would violate this interpretation of the 14th amendment?"
A constitutional amendment, ex vi termini, can't be unconstitutional, and in the event of an irresolvable conflict, the last in time rule (leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant) gives preference to the more recent enactment.
I think Ann has lost her edge. Her posts and her thinking seem to have deteriorated in the last 2-3 weeks.
That's not it at all.
The reality is that Obama is taking some excessive IQ points from smart people and spreading the IQ wealth around to everyone else.
That way people who aren't very bright won't have to think as hard, and the upper-IQ types will be happy knowing their sacrifice has been for the good of the peoples, even though their IQs have been diminished in the process.
Just a small piece of trivia:
The Missouri anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment passed with 70% of the vote during a Democratic Party primary in 2004.
Now, please resume your hyper-partisan BS, it's amusing.
Simon said...I'm closer to Althouse than Palin on this. Marriage is a state matter, and if Palin wants to define it in the federal Constitution, I can't agree with that.
Marriage is NOT a state issue. That claim was ruled unconstitutional in 1967 in Loving v Virginia.
Palin wants a constitutional amendment against it because she is a social conservative not a federalist/judicial conservative.
She believes if something is fundamentally wrong in one state it should be wrong in all.
She's not concerned with legal process and interpretations of original intent.
If it's wrong, it should be illegal. Nationwide.
Rose said...
"Seems to me Biden agreed with Palin on the issue"
But Biden has never pretended to be a federalist, has never claimed to have the slightest respect for the Constitution and its underlying principles, so no one would expect it of him. Palin ought to.
Palin does not have law professor orientation. It's more a PTA orientation.
It's just a matter of clarifying the rules to her and she'll be okay.
jdeeripper said...
"Marriage is NOT a state issue. That claim was ruled unconstitutional in 1967 in Loving v Virginia."
That is not what Loving held. Perhaps you should try reading it instead of simply linking to a Wikipedia article about it.
It has become a national issue under Sections 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the Constitution.
It has always been the intent of same-sex-"marriage" advocates to gain official status in several states and subsequently use Article 4 to force the result on others, less willing.
Ann, I'll take your federalism argument about any putative FMA seriously when you state loudly and publicly that on the same basis Lawrence and Roe were badly decided.
A constitutional amendment to protect us from the insanity of homosexual "marriage" should be unnecessary
I'm going to start putting heterosexual "marriage" in quotes from now on. In fact, whenever I see the word "wedding" or "civil union" or "engagement," I'm busting out the quotes. Oh, and I'll use air quotes if I happen to be talking about "marriage" instead of writing about it. Quotes around words indicate to people that the words don't really mean what they say they mean in context with the other "words" in the sentence. Oh yeah, I'm also going to be putting the word "words" in quotes now too, because nothing I say really means anything.
but the excesses of people insisting on redefinitions and increased rights for some over others makes federal meddling almost seem appropriate.
What exactly is two guys or two gals loving each other redefining? And what increases in rights are they seeking? Because they want the same rights as "straight" people, these are considered increases? Please explain your "logic."
Mixalhs said...
"Oh how quickly the conservatives' loyalty fades when Ann dares make but one tiny observation of a Palin flaw. And I thought only the liberals were so fickle!"
Tell me about it. But that's quite a broad criticism. I don't think that it's fair to count reasonable criticism a la Palladian in with rank anti-althousiana a la HWTM.
Not regular people. They should just sit down and shut up.
Not if they have dresses to sell to the two brides.
Two brides should wear (a) the same dress. (b) Coordinated dresses or (c) Completely different dresses. I say (b). (a) would be really really weird.
Zach said...
"What exactly is two guys or two gals loving each other redefining?"
Time out of mind, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. It's obvious on the face of it that allowing one man to marry one man, or one woman to marry one woman, is a redefinition of marriage, and I don't see how one can resist that conclusion even while thinking the change is all to the good.
I'm not especially troubled by gay marriage, to be frank, but I am worried about the prospect of throwing overboard the role of tradition in defining marriage. Once we say that tradition doesn't provide the exclusive definition of marriage, the door cannot be closed again: we cannot say that tradition wasn't enough to stop that claim but is enough to stop this claim. A century ago, another movement thought to subvert the traditional understanding of marriage, and we squashed it. My question, Zack, is why Reynolds v. United States survives the understanding you would foist on us?
I mean, let me put this another way. If you can tell me why we can say yes to gay marriage without requiring that we later say yes to polygamy, I have no dog in this fight. But it seems to me that the only rationales offered for allowing gay marriage compel the result that polygamy is okay too, and that is flatly unacceptable. How can you ask me to accept something I'm indifferent to today while conceding that it will lead to something I abhor tomorrow?
I am currently drafting a constitutional amendment to ban heterosexual "marriage" in the state of California. I'm tired of "straight" people destroying the institution of "marriage" with their divorces and adultery. All I need is like 100,000 signatures, and I've hired a bunch of gay guys from Holland to collect signatures from me at their Pride Parade next month. For additional help, I've also recruited a bunch of former ACORN employees who say they were fired for being "too good" at their jobs collecting signatures, so I think I've got my bases covered.
GOD HATES STRAIGHTS
We have already sold wedding dresses to a gay couple. They both chose the same dress. The "bride" chose an ivory Tadashi dance dress and the other "bride" chose a turqouise one. They both looked great.
"there is a real absence of structured thinking here."
We agree, but I see that you are the one with the deficit as well Ann!
I have not met anyone who REALLY gets that states' rights means that the states will do some pretty stupid stuff. We (myself definitely included) think of states' rights when we disagree with the feds, but rarely stop to think of the possible unintended consequences.
Here in Tennessee they could paint the roads a horrible UT Orange, they could pour MORE money into a stupid drug war, they could outlaw having Spanish speaking translators at the hospitals and police departments. They would do stupid stuff just as likely as the sublime. I try to remind myself of that whenever I think of states' rights, but it is difficult.
Now this is a lack of structured thinking, and it applies to every post or article I have seen on the issue since the Federalist Papers! OK, an exaggeration to make a point.
You would have noticed this if you were engaging in structured thinking yourself. "She is not consistent on states right. But wait, nobody is" would have been more structured and accurate.
One of the commenters suggests that it may be her spirituality that is pushing this as a federal issue. That is completely plausible.
I cannot support gay marriage. Marriage is a sacrement and the Bible says that homosexual conduct is a sin. Easy decision tree for me since as a Christian I am called to be obediet to God as revealed in his Holy Word.
Civil unions are a matter of the state and I would not vote against civil unions because it is not a marriage and elimintates the spiritual aspects.
Lots of us serious Christian's feel that way, even the Governor. Marriage, nope. Civil Union, whatever floats your boat as long as the parties are of age and consenting.
The real and best hope of America is not in political change but in another Spiritual awakening. I find that I have to remind myself of that several times a day lately, and I think I am just getting warmed up!
Trey
I do want to say that I will be happy to sell a beautiful wedding dress to any of our gay fellow commenters so they might feel special on their wedding day. Heavily discounted of course.
Oh how quickly the conservatives' loyalty fades when Ann dares make but one tiny observation of a Palin flaw.
I don't have "loyalty" to Ann. I agree with her when she's right, and criticize her when she's wrong. When I have defended her in the past, it was against accusations that she was a mindless toady of the Right. Her recent behavior has proven that my earlier defense of her was justified.
But I do find it amusing that she is accusing Palin of unstructured thinking; in all honesty, I think that's a label that fits Ann, too, at least in her blogging persona.
Trey, you've met me (so to speak), and I fully understand - and expect - that states will do dumb things with the freedom that federalism gives them. I can't remember it, but there's a quote from Rehnquist to the same effect. You do not have to tell me or anyone else that left to their own devices, the majority of Californians will enact some pretty dumb stuff.
When Roe is overturned, the vast majority of states are going to enact abortion laws that I think are too liberal. Beth worries too much; this is a country where the pro choice argument has essentially won, and just overruling Roe isn't going to change that. Some states will have tighter regulation than others, but in the vast majority of states, abortion will be safe (for the mother), legal, and rare. I think that's a horrible outcome, but overruling Roe is still the right thing to do.
Same dress, different color is the same as different dress to me. But what do I know, I'm not in fashion! I think if both dresses were the same color: that would be weird.
I think a double-wedding where both brides wear the same dresses is weird too. I'm very judgemental! Every one should be an individual!
If you can tell me why we can say yes to gay marriage without requiring that we later say yes to polygamy, I have no dog in this fight.
You make this too easy Simon. People are born gay. People are not born polygamists.
Now give your dog to Althouse.
Revenant said...
"I don't have 'loyalty' to Ann. I agree with her when she's right, and criticize her when she's wrong."
I do. But even so, loyalty doesn't mean unquestioning sycophancy. It certainly doesn't mean agreeing on everything, but it does condition how that disagreement is put.
Wow, we're witnessing the transformation of Zachary Paul Sire into downtownlad. Start your popcorn poppin'!
Simon said...That is not what Loving held. Perhaps you should try reading it instead of simply linking to a Wikipedia article about it.
I understand Loving v Virginia was about interracial marriage but the ruling was based on the more general point of non discrimination.
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In the Loving case this meant no person of any race but why doesn't the Equal Protection clause apply to any person not referring to race, that is a person who is homosexual marrying another homosexual.
Why doesn't the 14th amendment refer to individual rights? The Equal protection clause doesn't say "no state shall… deny to any person of any RACE within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". It simply references "any person".
So back to my point - Why aren't state laws against gay marriage unconstitutional?
There is nothing specific in the constitution that refers to homosexual marriage. But there is the 14th amendment.
I think the most reasonable position is that currently states have no right to restrict gay marriage because it is clearly a violation of the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
So, anti gay marriage proponents should favor a constitutional amendment against it.
The later amendment would ex vi terminileges posteriors priores contrarias calimari don guido abrogant vidi cici house of vendi orianna falachi in the about ruling.
"You make this too easy Simon. People are born gay. People are not born polygamists."
Where is the scientific support for either of those assertions?
And I'm not denying the genetic basis of homosexuality, just pointing out that you can't make an assertion like the one you made with what little we know about genetic determination.
Pretty weak sauce, Professor.
"I [b]wish[/b] on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage."
So, her wish is suddenly a complex statement of her fundamental beliefs regarding federalism and constitutional law?
I guess I can see how you'd end up supporting Obama...wishes are kinda like hope. In the real world, we differentiate between what we desire and pragmatically what is both attainable and good for the country.
I cannot support gay marriage. Marriage is a sacrement and the Bible says that homosexual conduct is a sin. Easy decision tree for me since as a Christian I am called to be obediet to God as revealed in his Holy Word.
I cannot support "straight" "marriage". "Marriage" is a "sacrement" (sic) and the "Bible" says that "divorce"and "sex" before "marriage" is a "sin." Easy "decision" for me since as a "Christian" I am called to go on a obe"diet" to "God" as revealed in "His" Holy "WORD."
"Tell me about it. But that's quite a broad criticism. I don't think that it's fair to count reasonable criticism a la Palladian in with rank anti-althousiana a la HWTM."
Oh I still love Althouse. But sometimes I think she's a dope. I'm sure it's reciprocal as well. We're all dopes sometimes.
Anyway, she can take the heat.
MadisonMan said...
Not regular people. They should just sit down and shut up.
Not if they have dresses to sell to the two brides.
Two brides should wear (a) the same dress. (b) Coordinated dresses or (c) Completely different dresses. I say (b). (a) would be really really weird.
To my (limited) experience with civil unions (Vermont), neither of the "brides" wore a dress of any kind. They both wore suits.
Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic. If you have a problem with this, please go outside and play with the dinosaurs like you did 5000 years ago.
MadisonMan said...
So where is the post about that?
Palladian, you are sounding just like alphaliberal (or is it integrity?) with the topic demands on posts.
I may be a dick, but I never make topic demands. Ever.
Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic.
But not polygamy? Historically, it's very common.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
[...] If you have a problem with this, please go outside and play with the dinosaurs like you did 5000 years ago.
2:41 PM
Don't try to compete with the trolls, dear, it is unbecoming of you.
I don't understand how gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage. People made the same argument when interracial marriage was a hot topic. Ever since national governments began recognizing marriages, interracial couples have been just as illegal as gay ones. So why allow one and not the other? And if gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage, why aren't Mormons and Traditional Muslims supporting it?
Every single piece of data?
And if gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage, why aren't Mormons and Traditional Muslims supporting it?
You don't know much about Mormons, I think.
I do think that Althouse should think about some structured garments.
Ann Althouse said...
Oh, as if I haven't been criticizing Obama and Biden. Please.
Exactly, she has been brutal to each of them. I nearly had a handful of heart attacks during my tantrums while she was attacking them both non-stop for months.
Palin has a similar non-republican view of abortion. Where the feds override the states and force women to have the baby of their rapist or daddy.
I believe she made the abortion comments during the Gibson interview.
I am very conservative, but I don't give a rats ass about who marries whom, so long as they are consenting adults. This is an issue that needs to be put to rest - legalize gay marriage and move along. There truly isn't anything to see here.
As the comedian said - why shouldn't gay people know the bitter pain of divorce?
"Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic."
Wow, that's impressive. I guess being unemployed does give one a lot of free time.
ElcubanitoKC said...
I forgot the mandatory PBUH next to His Imperial Majesty's name.
Too late! Keep watch for the nondescript van outside your home. They'll come for you now.
Palin doesn't want to sit in the seat of judgment, but she does have judgments she wants to the federal government to enforce. Unstructured thinking, for sure.
The country is built on strong families, but the Constitution never says the word "family", does it? The Declaration? Any founding document?
When did the federal government finally get around to dealing families, anyway? Was it before or after they ended slavery? (Now that was a strong, fundamental institution, wasn't it? Not to change the subject.)
While I have no dog in this fight, I think that if we jettison tradition over what makes marriage between one man and one woman we are jettisoning everything about why we even have marriage.
Why not just allow syndicalism? Abandon any idea of tightly bound couples and just go with what feels good for the moment?
Tradition isn't always right. But it's not always wrong, either.
How do you decide what's right? Convenience? Spirit of the age? Whatever Palin's against?
"If you have a problem with this, please go outside and play with the dinosaurs like you did 5000 years ago."
Weak. Do better.
The average person's take on the clip will be...she doesn't support gay marriage. That's it. The rest is for intellectuals to argue about.
If she's dismaying, so is the loin girding Sen. Biden. He forewarns us of an international crisis if Sen. Obama is elected. Our enemies will use his election to "test his mettle." Great.
(Shades of the Scottish play!)
Next Michele Obama will tell us to screw our courage to the sticking-place.
And can we point out that we don't have to agree 100% with our potential leaders? This is another thing that makes democracy the most human social system that has ever existed.
Apparently that's not the case with The One's (PBUH)* followers, but it is for the rest of us.
*Triangle Man, they can pull the strike force back now.
As a gay who is not going to get married I support gay marriage.
The gay will not get married in a church that doesn't want to perform the ceremony.
There are plenty of other churches that will marry the gay.
Now throw the other side a bone so they can feel safe again.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic. If you have a problem with this, please go outside and play with the dinosaurs like you did 5000 years ago.
If by "genetic" you mean transmitted from parent to offspring through a heritable trait encoded in a DNA sequence (i.e. determined by genes), then you are mistaken. If you mean something else by genetic, then you are confusing the issue by using this term.
"Next Michele Obama will tell us to screw our courage to the sticking-place."
When does she start scrubbing her hands?
Don't try to compete with the trolls, dear, it is unbecoming of you
Don't try to compete with me, dear, it is unbe"coming" of you as well. And please enlighten me, what does PBUH mean? You trollishly end all of your comments with it and while I assume it is some racist or homophobic or anti-Muslin acronym against Ayers/Obama, I don't know what it stands for, exactly.
Chicken burrito for dinner tonight.
Probably an Oktoberfest beer.
Maybe . . . two.
You make a large assumptive leap when you accuse Palin of ignorance of federalism. I trust her understanding of this principle more than I trust the understanding of McCain or Obama or Biden. I accuse you of looking at Palin through a clouded lens which obscures her true understanding and wisdom. It is the same lens through which you viewed Pres. Reagan. We accuse each other, probably. But I am more correct.
I have gone to gay weddings in Mass. I have gone to straight weddings too.
I actually hate going to weddings. I know they are are all special and loving and beautiful but I really hate them.
The food, the clothes, the vows, the flowers, the bad drinks, the music, the bad dancing (at the straight weddings). The whole thing is depressing.
You make this too easy Simon. People are born gay. People are not born polygamists.
Of course they are. Most men have an inborn desire to have multiple sexual partners.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic. If you have a problem with this, please go outside and play with the dinosaurs like you did 5000 years ago.
2:41 PM
How then do you account for the fact that there are identical twins where one is gay and the other straight? ZPS, I am beginning to suspect you are not a scientist.
What exactly is wrong with wanting a Constitutional Amendment?
There are already federal laws providing for the primacy of heterosexual marriage (tax code, DOMA, etc.). Those laws are valid only to the extent that they're upheld by the Supreme Court. Would passing another law prove that they really mean it this time?
Do you think the Pro-Life movement wishes it had a Constitutional Amendment on the issue of abortion before the Roe decision?
Marriage has been a traditionally state issue, in that marriage licenses are issued locally. That said, there has been an increase in federal legislation on the topic (same examples as above), at least suggesting an intent to occupy that field. Moreover, as transportation systems improve, and peoples' residences are increasingly mobile....the potential for activist judges to find a non-existant right continues to increase.
Interestingly enough, I found this 2006 story in the Washington Times pointing out that Utah and Arizona's statehood rested on the Federal Government imposing a ban on polygamy.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2006/jun/06/20060606-090944-4652r/
Assuming one is hostile to activist courts, as Gov. Palin and most Republicans are, why wouldn't someone hope to have their agenda set in place in a manner that is unreachable by those who would seek to reverse course?
Kirk KM, Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG.
Queensland Institute of Medical Research and Joint Genetics Program, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. kathE@qimr.edu.au
Multivariate structural equation modeling techniques have been applied to examine the causes of individual differences in responses to several items concerning sexual orientation. To minimize potential ascertainment and response biases, the study sample involved a large (N = 4901) community-based cohort of Australian twins aged 18-52 who answered an anonymous questionnaire on sexual behavior and attitudes. The statistical power of the analysis was increased by the availability of multiple measures of sexual orientation (behaviors, attitudes and feelings), providing stronger evidence for the existence of additive genetic influences on this phenotype than in a previous analysis (Bailey et al., 2000). Estimates of the heritability of homosexuality in this sample ranged between 50 and 60% in females but were significantly lower (heritability of approximately 30%) in males.
PMID: 11206089 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic.
Note that this statement is technically true even if ZPS has read absolutely no research on the matter. Just sayin'.
I have always kinda thought that dogs are gay. I mean they always interested in other dog's asses and liking their own balls.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
"PBUH" == "Peace Be Upon Him"
Zachary Paul Sire said...
[...]
Don't try to compete with me, dear, it is unbe"coming" of you as well. And please enlighten me, what does PBUH mean? You trollishly end all of your comments with it and while I assume it is some racist or homophobic or anti-Muslin acronym against Ayers/Obama, I don't know what it stands for, exactly.
2:56 PM
How am I competing with you?
On the (PBUH) issue, I'm just paying my respects to The Messiah (PBUH) as it should be expected.
Now cats are always lesbians.
It's all about the pussy.
I took "People are born gay" simply to mean the opposite of "People choose to be gay". That could mean it's genetically determined, but it doesn't have to.
I have never gone to a wedding where a gay man wore a dress. That just sounds wrong.
None of my gay friends would wear a dress.
I have gone to a beaver bumping wedding though where one woman had a tux on and another had a dress. I didn't like that. It looked weird.
I've read some data that says it's genetic, and some that says it isn't, and some that says it's a combination of factors, and some...well, you get the drift.
I don't know how one can read only data that supports one's position, but to each his own. (How lucky to find only convenient data! The dream of every scientist.)
I'm curious how a gentically determined feature which would seem to lead to non-reproduction would get passed down through genetics. That is, if there is such a disposition, why hasn't it been bred out of the system by now?
Pardon the pun, but it's like releasing sterilized male fruit flies to control the population. The more sterile matings there are, the less flies overall.
Wouldn't this apply to any thing increases the number of people taken out of the breeding population?
Assuming one is hostile to activist courts, as Gov. Palin and most Republicans are, why wouldn't someone hope to have their agenda set in place in a manner that is unreachable by those who would seek to reverse course?
That argument works *if* you word the amendment in something like the following manner:
(1): Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as requiring either State or Federal governments to recognize any marriage other than that between one man and one woman, or as requiring them to extend to such arrangements comparable benefits to those granted to marriages between one man and one woman.
(2): Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as forbidding State or Federal governments from recognizing marriages other than those between one man and one woman, or as forbidding them from extending to such arrangements comparable benefits to those granted to marriages between one man and one woman.
That covers the "activist court" angle without doing anything to prevent the will of the people from determining the proper definitions of marriage. I'd enthusiastically endorse such an amendment -- if anyone ever offered one. But all the amendments I've seen contain sneaky language that could easily be read as forbidding gay marriage and/or benefits Constitutionally. That's dirty pool.
Sorry, that should read:
"I have always kinda thought that dogs are gay. I mean they always interested in other dog's asses and licking their own balls."
Of course I would imagine they have to like their own balls if they were going to lick them.
Troop, did the chick on SNL wear the dress you wanted her to wear?
Lesbians like whale watching too. They like all sea life.
Gays like to dance. They have some gift in them like the black where they know how to shake their booty.
"PBUH" == "Peace Be Upon Him"
Well that's real mature.
Nah, she wore her own stuff. Returned everything to the store without trying anything on or even looking at it. You win some and you lose some.
My mom told me she thought I was gay when I started walking.
She said I already had a little swish.
Thankfully, I have learned through practice, practice, practice to hide that swish now.
NewScientist: How gay sex can produce offspring
Hmm. Something tells me this mechanism doesn't transfer to humans.
Not all gay people can dance. I mean sure John Travolta is great but Tom Cruise is a terrible dancer.
Don't stereotype Titus.
Bambi's got a highly inflated sense of importance.
Adding PBUH to his name is a way to remind him that he, too, is a mere mortal.
It's all very Mideastern and ancient.
Granted, it can be tough to remember that homosexuals are born, not made, when you have to hear about every damn time Titus gets made.
Ann, I have a three-letter word for you: "J-O-B-S". How's that for structured thinking?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is inborn (which I think it is).
How do you get from an inborn attraction to members of your own gender, to a right to marry members of your own gender? Do you say "you have the right to marry anyone you're born with an innate attraction to"? There's an obvious slippery slope there, not only because most men are innately attracted to having multiple partners (i.e., polygamy) but because there is considerable evidence that pedophilia is inborn in some people, too. So we'd be stuck recognizing polygamy AND child marriage, if we took that route.
Simon's point is a good one; it is hard to think of what right a court might find that would necessitate legal recognition of gay marriage and not other, less-desirable forms of marriage. That is one of many reasons why it is better to let gay marriage be recognized democratically, as it likely will be within the next generation.
I think birds are often gay. I know my grandmother had some gay parakeets. They were always fussing and fighting and singing show tunes.
I have no problems with the idea of gay marriage. I do have a problem with those who insist that it is "gay marriage" or nothing, totally dismissing the idea of civil unions. Frankly, I've always thought that getting people accustomed to gay couples through civil unions would naturally morph into acceptance of gay marriage. To demand the much more contested "gay marriage" just now strikes me as more of an FU to people of faith than a genuine attempt to change the acceptance of gay couples. I don't like FU laws. Pelosi does, I think.
I love to spoon my rare clumbers.
They fit perfect along my entire body-when they are stretched out.
Sometimes when spooning with them I get a hard on. Is that wrong?
But it doesn't go any further than that.
Mr. Blackwell was into dresses...and hogs.
My Whole Family Thinks I'm Gay
How can there be any doubt the Sarah Palin is in favor of the marriage ban, anyway? She wants to avoid saying it but her base knows it's the truth.
That's the kind of thing the wink is for.
Revenant said...
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is inborn (which I think it is).
How do you get from an inborn attraction to members of your own gender, to a right to marry members of your own gender?
The same way you get from an inborn attraction to members of the opposite gender to a right to marry members of the opposite gender.
Now your turtle is staight. I mean I know he likes to lay in the mud and all but he is very lazy and doesn't care what he looks like. He's kinda shy your turtle. Always pulling his head in where you can't see it.
You could never get good head from a turtle.
I was a very sexually active child.
I remember when I was 5 or 6 sword fighting with some of the neighbor boys.
I also did girls all the way through the time that I remember them getting hair on their coochs. I did the neighbor girls, my cousins, the girls at the town swim pool. I think I realized then that women, too, can be pigs. Those young girls really wanted my hog back then.
MEthadras responds to me:
, it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to say that there should be a federal amendment to establish that which the courts can so simply overturn on a state level. Therefore, any state Supreme Court, in the face of a Federal Constitutional Amendment against homosexual marriage.
To the first part, the question is whether the decision of when a candidate wants to decide an issue federally or at the state level.
Option A: Following some framework of principles grounded in history or conviction or something.
Option B: Whatever works to move the agenda forward. This seems tpo be the Palin framework. a.k.a. "opportunistic".)
To the second part, I have no idea what you're saying.
The whole marriage ban issue is not meant to be "won" by Republicans. They just use it as red meat for their bigoted base. It's good for distracting and dividing.
I think Spong Bob Square Pants is gay. I mean he is living in a fruit under the sea with Patrick.
The pink star fish.
Not that theres anything wrong with that.
They should get married.
I have never done an animal though.
Simon said...
When Roe is overturned, the vast majority of states are going to enact abortion laws that I think are too liberal. Beth worries too much
I suspect that is right with respect to state legislative bodies. However, if you can enact a partial birth abortion ban which survives a commerce clause analysis, why do we think that the laws impacting abortion are going to be made at the state level. Admittedly, a ban on partial birth abortion is easier to get passed than a ban earlier in pregnancies but I still think that Carhart opened up a federalization (legislatively) of the issue which will be grappled with if Roe is overturned.
Rich B said...
Absent a Federal policy aren't the states that do not want to authorize gay marriage obliged to recognize marriages from other states (including gay marriages)?
Yep, and that is what makes Althouse's Federalism argument disingenuous.
States can not control who they recognize as married. Percy and Dirk show up fresh from their Vermont vacation with a marriage certificate, and States and voters within states are powerless to stop it. As apparantly voters within the 3 states whose judges "magically" found gay marriage buried wordlessly in the Constitutions are powerless to stop it, or other packs of judges "magically" finding a Constitutional Right to polygamy, or Muslim marriage to 11-year old girls.
Unless of course they rebel against judicial supremacy, and lawyers dressed in robes usurping roles voters and their elected representatives should do in our system.. I have a new appreciation for civil disobediance like civil rights boycotts or ostracizing any nurse or doctor that does an abortion clinic in a State whose voters would reject it.
Revenant wants to parse rights:
How do you get from an inborn attraction to members of your own gender, to a right to marry members of your own gender?
This puts the onus on the wrong side. If you want to pick out a minority of the population to decide to strip of rights, why?
Why do you want to make gays and lesbians second class citizens?
Here's my solution:
1) Churches should be free to make their choices of who they marry, in regard to their church doctrine on how people manage their personal lives.
2) Church doctrine should not be imposed upon the rest of society by the government. There, we "let freedom reign." If you want to get married by some church that will do so or by a judge or otherwise empowered person, that's you businesses and not for our government to dictate.
The idea that it's okay to control people's personal lives this way is outrageous. It's the opposite of what the Republicans yammer on and on about - freedom.
ZPS said,
Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic.
Then you are an idiot. There are some "maybes" and "evidence suggests" but there is no scientific consensus.
Simon LeVay, a pioneer in the attempt to provide a genetic link to sexual orientation states, It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.
I had to go out and visit a client, but an example for Beth popped into my head while I was out. Small government conservatives tend to be federalists and vice versa, but what do you do when the two conflict? You tell us that conservatives sell out federalism when it's inconvenient, but what do you do with the Printz case? There, the conservatives plus Justices O'Connor and Kennedy struck down a section of a bill that commandeered state executive branch officers to carry out certain federal reporting requirements as violative of federalism. The predictable (and predicted, in the dissent) result was obviously a bigger federal bureaucracy, but the conservatives said, no, this is what federalism requires. They were right, by the way. Not only was the law bad federalism, the case showcases why federalism is a separation of powers doctrine, and Althouse wrote a really terrific article backing the doctrine.
Palladian said...
"Anyway, she can take the heat."
To be sure. It never ceases to amaze me that you get liberal trolls (and now increasingly conservative trolls) coming here and being brutally rude and disrespectful in ways that - and here's the kicker - would never survive at their usual haunts. If you went to Atrios or somewhere like that and called him a drunk and an idiot, your comment would disappear. For all their shouting, she's astonishingly tolerant of criticism and even outright abuse.
AlphaLiberal said...
"This puts the onus on the wrong side. If you want to pick out a minority of the population to decide to strip of rights, why? "
No one's stripping anyone of rights. What they're asking is an expansion of rights: right now, anyone has the right to marry any one consenting adult of the opposite gender. You're arguing for an expansion of the right to allow any consenting adult to marry any one person of any gender. That's an expansion, it's a change. I don't understand why the people defending this feel that they need to make these disingenuous arguments that they're not actually changing anything; is there something wrong with changing the definition of marriage or expanding the rights of homosexuals, do you think?
Although, I do have to admit there have been a couple of otters that I have been attracted to.
And there is this particular squirrel I see at the park that is especially cute.
I love his tail.
Triangle Man said...
...The same way you get from an inborn attraction to members of the opposite gender to a right to marry members of the opposite gender...
Except that isn't where marriage comes from. Societies, like organisms go through natural selection. Those that did not find successfull ways of caring for their young--and having children, did not survive. Marriage forms a stable relationship in which to care for children. Successfull societies have therefore encouraged it.
Too many jims said...
"Simon said... 'When Roe is overturned, the vast majority of states are going to enact abortion laws that I think are too liberal. Beth worries too much....' I suspect that is right with respect to state legislative bodies. However, if you can enact a partial birth abortion ban which survives a commerce clause analysis, why do we think that the laws impacting abortion are going to be made at the state level."
I don't believe that we can enact a federal ban on partial birth abortion. In my view, the commerce power doesn't generally support abortion regulations. (Interestingly enough, Althouse has argued that it does; that puts her, as someone who is pro choice, in the position of defending the constitutionality of a law she opposes, and me, as somone who is pro life, in the position of attacking the constitutionality of a law I support!) Justices Thomas and Scalia filed a concurrence in Carhart expressly noting that the question of Congressional power to pass the law was not argued or briefed and that the court's decision reserved that question for another day.
Oh and doves. Doves can be very sexy.
The same way you get from an inborn attraction to members of the opposite gender to a right to marry members of the opposite gender.
But that's just it: there is no such right. People of opposite genders have the right to marry because the legislature granted them that right. The legislature has denied all sorts of "people of opposite genders" the right to marry.
There is no Constitutional right to marry.
There is something appealing about the large mouth bass too.
TitusIranSoFar said...
"I have never gone to a wedding where a gay man wore a dress. That just sounds wrong. None of my gay friends would wear a dress."
What about a kilt? Would a kilt fall under Althouse's rule about shorts (or at least a penumbra thereto)?
This puts the onus on the wrong side. If you want to pick out a minority of the population to decide to strip of rights, why?
You can't be stripped of a right you never possessed. What gay people are asking for isn't the right to marry -- they already can -- but the "right" to receive the government benefits the government grants to heterosexual marriages. They've never had those benefits, ergo those benefits aren't being "stripped" from them.
Commenting on Roe v. Wade, Palin said, “I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.”
By being a federalist it seems to me she supports state right to make the decision rather than the federal government.
from wikipedia for "fedealist":
In contemporary usage, as articulated by president Bush's New Federalism, federalists advocate the principle of greater regional autonomy within the United States—usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution.
i do not read her statement as suggestive of a US federal marriage amendment
I wouldn't worry too much about Althouse's dismay.
Remember, she was outraged (OUTRAGED!) by the 22 senators who voted against Roberts and said "I hope no one on that list is running for President."
But ultimately that didn't carry very much weight as far as is detectable.
I like Palin with her hair up better than down.
I dream of her having her hair up and then we are starting to get all down and dirty and she releases her bun and her hair flys everywhere.
Then while she is on top of me mounting my hog her head is going every which way and her hair is flying left and right and back and forth and up and down. And then she takes some of her hair and puts it in her mouth and sucks it and then she takes her middle finger in her mouth and sucks on it taking it all the way down and then she grabs my middle finger and sticks it in her mouth too.
Then she sticks both of our fingers in her cooch and sticks them in my mouth.
Oh dear.
What gay people are asking for isn't the right to marry -- they already can -- but the "right" to receive the government benefits the government grants to heterosexual marriages. They've never had those benefits, ergo those benefits aren't being "stripped" from them.
A quibble with your wording here, but one which amplifies your point: homosexuals actually do have access to exactly the same government benefits surrounding marriage as heterosexuals do.
It just requires marrying a member of the opposite sex to receive them.
In a way, fighting for the rights of gays to marry is kind of like fighting for the rights of men to get pap smears. It's not enough that we can get prostate exams, damnit, we want pap smears!
Revenant said...
You can't be stripped of a right you never possessed.
Perhaps what gay-rights activists think is that even if it is a right which has never been granted by their government, it always existed. Sort of an "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" kind of thing.
I think this is called natural law, in that it comes by the very nature of Man. In a sense, they invoke natural law to validate what used to be called un-natural acts.
Ann Althouse wrote:
It's genuinely dismaying.
Perhaps for you and others. Still others will be impressed with a clear-headed expression of her personal beliefs and relieved that she has good sense to talk about limits of those beliefs. That's much more than we get from the other candidates, including her running mate.
BTW, I wouldn't expect this to go far except perhaps here in California.
Both sides have made that a non-issue at the national level this cycle (you saw the VP debate right?)
Well, I'll continue to drop by from time to time, but it appears that Althouse has gone the whole nine yards now. "Let's start attacking Palin."
Perhaps what gay-rights activists think is that even if it is a right which has never been granted by their government, it always existed. Sort of an "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" kind of thing.
I think that is what they mean, yes, but they can't seem to explain what exactly the "right" is, and why -- as Simon asked -- it doesn't extend to polygamy and other "undesirable" forms of marriage.
There is something appealing about the large mouth bass too.
Unless it's nailed to a wall and sings Don't worry, Be happy when it detects motion.
Revenant said...
"There is no Constitutional right to marry."
Right; I mean, maybe there's some natural right to marry, and who knows what the contours of that right are, but constitutional rights are not coextensive with natural rights. There are many natural rights that the Constitution doesn't protect, and several Constitutional rights that aren't natural rights. Anecdotally, this is more of a conservative fallacy than a liberal one, I must admit, but there seems to be a misapprehension of Jefferson's observation in the Declaration of Independence that because some rights come from God, ergo all rights come from God. Not so. There's no God-given right to escape prosecution because of double jeopardy, for example.
Legitimate question here re: polygamy:
Why do people bring up polygamy as some really awful thing? It's all over the Bible and God never ever EVER condemns it? How does polygamy not square with Christian beliefs?
IIt's not enough that we can get prostate exams, damnit, we want pap smears!
Why men shouldn't take messages:
"Honey, someone from the Gyna Colleges called. They said the Pabst Beer was normal. I didn't know you even liked beer".
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Mixalhs said...
"Why do people bring up polygamy as some really awful thing? It's all over the Bible and God never ever EVER condemns it? How does polygamy not square with Christian beliefs?"
I don't know why Christians are opposed to it, and I'm sure some here can answer that, but for my part, I'm against it because it is deeply immoral and - worse yet - inherently and connately misogynist.
If by "genetic" you mean transmitted from parent to offspring through a heritable trait encoded in a DNA sequence (i.e. determined by genes), then you are mistaken. If you mean something else by genetic, then you are confusing the issue by using this term.
Maybe he meant "congenital." That has the added advantage of being a pun.
Mixalhs,
I believe people--anti-gay marriage people, that is--bring it up because it's anathematic.
Some quantity of people who don't object very strongly to gay marriage, have stronger reactions to polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc., hence it's good rhetoric.
I think the genie is out of the bottle, though. Heterosexual marriage lost its cachet with no-fault divorce. There is no reason, now, to respect it at the government level over other domestic arrangements.
The logical thing, proposed by both Palladian and hdhouse (! what a combo!) is to eliminate it completely.
Of course, I'd say the same thing about most things the government was in, like education, medicine, food, etc.
It's all over the Bible and God never ever EVER condemns it?
This is not, in fact, the case. Obviously polygamy occurs in the Bible and there even seem to be some cases where it is accepted or at least tolerated. But there are a number of explicit statements for monogamy or against polygamy in Scripture; e.g. Deut 17:17, Malachi 2:15, 1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:6, etc... and there are plenty of examples in Scripture of the problems polygamy causes as well.
I'm not saying it's totally clear-cut but to say it is never condemned or commanded against isn't the case either.
What gay people are asking for isn't the right to marry -- they already can -- but the "right" to receive the government benefits the government grants to heterosexual marriages. They've never had those benefits, ergo those benefits aren't being "stripped" from them.
Baloney. Gay people, in California at least, had/have all the rights of married people that the STATE could grant to them. Health benefits, right to pass property, adoption. They and hetero couples who chose to could register as civil unions. They didn't have some of the downside of marriage either, alimony, child support, community property and community property sharing of debts.
What the STATE could not do is change FEDERAL tax code regarding taxation of health benefits, property, social security and other items. So a STATE granting Marriage as opposed to Civil Unions, does doodely doo squat in changing the actual benefits.
All it does is force a change in the definition of marriage and piss off a bunch of people who don't think that Homosexuality is a mainstream idea.
I could not care less if two people want to have a civil union or even if they want to get "married" as long as they don't try to cram that marriage down the throats of an unwilling church and as long as the preaching that homosexuality is nifty fine dandy etc is not indoctrinated in the schools.
It is up to the parents to decide moral values.....not some special interest group. This is the main beef people have with Gay activism. Forcing their ideas upon the unwilling. All in good time, people will change their attitudes as long as they aren't coerced. The attitudes have already dramatically changed in the last 50 years.
Oh, and I forgot Jesus' own words about divorce, which are often argued are also a reaffirmation of monogamy (see, e.g., Matthew 19:3-6).
I don't like constitutional amendments.
*applies heavy eyeliner*
*pulls covers over head*
*videos self*
LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALOOOOOOOONE 11!!!11!"
Although I share your concern that the concept of Federalism is dead, you can hardly blame Sarah Palin for it. Our Supreme Court, under FDR, and under fear of court packing, so expanded the powers of the federal government that everything, from truck mud flaps to education is, and has been, for generations, under the control of the feds. Sarah Palin doesn't pretend to be a lawyer. Biden cheated to graduate from law school.
Chip Ahoy said...
"I don't like constitutional amendments."
I agree. I've articulated a very high standard, one so demanding that even an amendment I thought I'd like to see enacted falls short.
blake said...
"I think the genie is out of the bottle, though. Heterosexual marriage lost its cachet with no-fault divorce."
You're assuming that the project doesn't encompass rolling back (or at least, modifying) that, um, development.
Our Supreme Court, under FDR, and under fear of court packing, so expanded the powers of the federal government that everything, from truck mud flaps to education is, and has been, for generations, under the control of the feds.
FDR had every (Constitutional) right to add justices to the High Court. If the Legislature had gone along with it, it would have happened.
I don't think the Supreme Court fears something -- court packing -- that is entirely constitutional.
I think the court should shrink in size. Why have 9 justices do the work when 7 could? Is there any evidence that the 9 there now are overworked?
"I think the genie is out of the bottle, though. Heterosexual marriage lost its cachet with no-fault divorce."
You're assuming that the project doesn't encompass rolling back (or at least, modifying) that, um, development.
Actually, what I'm thinking is that the rollback has to come first.
What is the purpose of marriage? To create the next generation and provide a stable platform for it.
Make that the basis of the rewards offered by society, and see what happens.
MadisonMan said...
"I don't think the Supreme Court fears something -- court packing -- that is entirely constitutional."
Come now. You know the history better than that, surely.
"I think the court should shrink in size. Why have 9 justices do the work when 7 could? Is there any evidence that the 9 there now are overworked?"
What's the argument for changing it? The present court could comfortably take another thirty cases on the plentary docket per term and do them well, Scalia and Souter have said, but once you get much over a hundred, quality would start to suffer. I tend to agree with him that it's a good thing that the docket is now smaller than it was by the 80s.
One of Larry Sabato's nuttier proposals, by the way, is to grow it by three. He thinks more 6-6 ties would be healthy.
It's genuinely dismaying.
---
But totally irrelevant in your case. You will vote for Obama. That's been clear from the get-go.
"There is something appealing about the large mouth bass too."
I believe that sex with fish is strictly prohibited under a 1869 ruling of the South Carolina Supreme Court when famed Civil Way General Wade Hampton was caught having sex with an underage sturgeon. This precedent know as Roe vs. Wade was the basis for all subsequent litigation in the area of man on fish sexuality.
It's genuinely dismaying?
Honey, genuinely dismaying is like when you're in line at Walmart and your debit card is declined, and you're buying food for your family.
Genuinely dismaying is when you see gas at almost $4.00 a gallon and you know you'll never be able to afford that sporty little gas guzzler now.
Please rethink this, Althouse. We like you (but not in that way). Don't wanna see you get beat up on over something so silly.
A reminder to commenters to ignore Michael.
per host with the most at 1:28:
Can anyone answer the rhetorical question I ask? I'll hit the return key twice while waiting for any replies.
None? I thought not.
I am an awesome debater.
Michael_H,
There are indeed sites where I feel dumber after reading them, but Althouse is certainly not among them!
Palladian,
"Wow, we're witnessing the transformation of Zachary Paul Sire into downtownlad. Start your popcorn poppin'!"
Being DTL is a difficult and unpleasant job. It's no wonder that the current office-holder might want to pass the mantle on, Dread Pirate Roberts style, to someone else.
Although same sex liaisons have often caused controversies, inter-species liaisons have often been ignored as long as no one got hurt. Bullwinkle was well known as a flagrantly homosexual moose although he did on occasion like to dip into a fish when he had a few too many drinks. So it was no fluke when he woke up in bed lying next to a bottom fish. Of course he was only into anal so he stuck to bottom fish. So to speak. Of course he was very good at it which is why he was always getting fan mail from a flounder.
(Jay Ward and Alex Anderson, Rocky and Bulwinkle, E True Hollywood Story)
Simon:
A reminder to commenters to ignore Michael.
There's someone named Michael that comments at Althouse?
Michael,
Freshman Senator Obama's fiscal policies will increase the federal deficit.
He will increase troops in Afghanistan. We don't know what he'll do in Iraq because he hasn't figured it out yet but it'll probably be the same policy McCain has.
How is increased federal deficits and two wars different than W. again?
I don't think we need another underqualified double Ivy in the WH again, do you?
I wonder where BHO is campaigning today?
Post a Comment