Althouse: "Instead of offering a quick answer and moving on to another subject, Mr. Santorum began a Socratic lecture..."

January 5, 2012

"Instead of offering a quick answer and moving on to another subject, Mr. Santorum began a Socratic lecture..."

"... repeatedly asking the students questions."

A Socratic dialogue?! Oh, no. It's like he actually cares about educating students! The very idea! When he could have offered a quick answer and moved on to another subject...

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»

MayBee said...: The students either went there to hear Santorum, to discuss this with Santorum, or to boo him.

They did such a poor job listening or discussing, my guess is they went to boo him.

My favorite part of the write up:
But the testiest part of the exchange came when an audience member suggested that gay people should be allowed to marry because they have a right to happiness.

In response, Mr. Santorum asked whether she thought that more than two people should be allowed to marry, apparently trying to suggest that the questioner was advocating an extreme position.

Ha!
It would be interesting to hear Obama's answer to these students.; 1/5/12, 10:39 PM
Rick said...: While I understand Santorum's commitment to the right side of these social issues, I expect that they will drag him down as if he were in quicksand. I think Mitch Daniels had it right.; 1/5/12, 10:41 PM
KCFleming said...: Next time he should just say, "You inspire me".; 1/5/12, 10:41 PM
minimus said...: God forbid that he ask them to think about their position on an issue.; 1/5/12, 10:42 PM
JAL said...: MayBee -- don't hold your breath.

Uhhhmmm. Uh. Uh. Uhmm.

It's above his pay grade.

And the students didn't want a discussion. They wanted a gotcha.; 1/5/12, 10:43 PM
PackerBronco said...: For me it comes down to whether the definition of marriage belongs to the individual or to society. If you think it belongs to the individual, then of course you support gay marriage, but by the same token, you also cannot withhold support (or toleration) of polygamy and incest.

If that is too great of a bridge for you to cross, then you will find yourself in the camp that believes it is up to the society to define marriage. But in that case, the will of society should be determined by elected representives or by referendums. It should not be up to the courts.

The problem with that position lies in the treatment of marriages which were once illegal, but which now, no one would considering making illegal - such as inter-racial marriages.; 1/5/12, 10:45 PM
Right is right! said...: I know Santorum's position on this issue. Does anyone know Romney's position? I know he has flip-floped a couple of times. So, I don't know. Though this is true with most of the issues in relation to Romney.; 1/5/12, 10:51 PM
chickelit said...: A Socratic dialogue?! Oh, no. It's like he actually cares about educating students! The very idea! When he could have offered a quick answer and moved on to another subject...

But it didn't seem to work because either:

(a) He couldn't maintain control of the narrative, because the students lacked basic manners.

(b) His questions, which were designed to accelerate the students arriving at different points of view, were in fact, untenable points of view.

(c) Something else.

Too little data for me to tell.; 1/5/12, 10:52 PM
PackerBronco said...: But it didn't seem to work because either:
========
I'll take Option c) that students very rarely have the ability to reason out the ramifications of their positions. Santorum is bad. Santorum hates gays. End of discussion - why are we even having a discussion?; 1/5/12, 10:56 PM
chuck b. said...: Shorter Santorum: If gay marriage, then polygamy. It's within the realm of possibility that they've heard that argument before, right?

Santorum gets the benefit of being vaguely persecuted for his religious beliefs. That's good for him! Ka-ching, etc.; 1/5/12, 10:56 PM
MayBee said...: Dane County Taxpayer- when it comes to gay marriage, the going thing isn't to say one has flip=flopped.

One says, "my position is evolving".; 1/5/12, 10:57 PM
MadisonMan said...: Everyone over the age of 40 has flip-flopped on the question of Gay Marriage.

Either the government should be in the Marriage-Sanctifying business or it shouldn't be in the Marriage-Sanctifying business. In either case, it's not the business of the Government to discriminate.; 1/5/12, 11:05 PM
Patrick said...: I keep waiting for Garage Mahal to join his lefty friends in ripping Santorum for how he grieves for his dead son.

Lots of class there. I hope Garage rises above that pitiful level.; 1/5/12, 11:08 PM
chickelit said...: PackerBroncho wrote: Santorum is bad. Santorum hates gays.

How do you know he doesn't just hate gayness? Did you ask him?

As for why are we having this discussion--I thought Althouse raised the question of the Socratic method, so take that point up with her.

I like chuckb's point that Santorum benefits from persecution of his beliefs. I think you help him.; 1/5/12, 11:11 PM
chuck b. said...: "Everyone over the age of 40 has flip-flopped on the question of Gay Marriage."

So true. Even I have flip-flopped on gay marriage (in the comments on this very blog). And I'm gay. And gay-married!

And, crucially, 42.; 1/5/12, 11:12 PM
chickelit said...: Mad Man wrote: Either the government should be in the Marriage-Sanctifying business or it shouldn't be in the Marriage-Sanctifying business.

Government should never be in the business of sanctifying marriage-for anyone. Legitimizing is their business. Even the Dutch recognize the difference between civil and church unions and they don't muddle them.; 1/5/12, 11:17 PM
MayBee said...: In either case, it's not the business of the Government to discriminate.

What if we called hetero marriage an Affirmative Action preference for women. To make up for all the centuries men (both gay and straight) were able to hold us down and keep us from voting. That would make the discrimination ok, right?; 1/5/12, 11:18 PM
MayBee said...: How many of the people commenting at the New York Times remember that Obama and Biden both are against gay marriage?; 1/5/12, 11:22 PM
PackerBronco said...: chickenlittle said...
PackerBroncho wrote: Santorum is bad. Santorum hates gays.

How do you know he doesn't just hate gayness? Did you ask him?
========
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my comments. I should have put those lines in quotes to indicate that that was the mindset (IMHO) of the students that Santorum was trying to engage in a Socratic dialog.; 1/5/12, 11:24 PM
YoungHegelian said...: I admire Santorum's pluck in taking on the crowd.

What I don't admire is just how stupid the Times & the students seem to be. So, the student supports gay marriage & is supposedly educated and yet has never heard the "what about polygamy?" argument? Does these students live under a bridge?

The polygamy argument is anti-SSM boilerplate. If you can't deal with that argument, you've never engaged the opposition AT ALL.

Which is probably the case.; 1/5/12, 11:52 PM
gadfly said...: Santorium needs to get some brass balls. Instead of asking "How about three men?" - he should have asked, "How about a man and his mare?"

Hmmm ... PETA would be between a rock and a hard place.; 1/5/12, 11:52 PM
bgates said...: It's within the realm of possibility that they've heard that argument before, right?

Yes, it's within the realm of possibility that they've heard that argument before, thought about it, and came up with a devastating rebuttal, which, when faced with a nationally recognized opponent of gay marriage, they chose to keep to themselves.; 1/5/12, 11:56 PM
bgates said...: whether she thought that more than two people should be allowed to marry, apparently trying to suggest that the questioner was advocating an extreme position

Look at the NYT, apparently trying to suggest that advocating for allowing more than two people to marry is an extreme position.

wv "rings". So we know where Google stands.; 1/6/12, 12:00 AM
Beth said...: A Socratic dialogue presumes the interlocutor is the educator, whose job is to lead the other participants to his position. When someone goes into Socratic mode in response to a question about his own position, it's because he doesn't want to state an argument and expose it to other arguments. He want to manipulate the argument with his own terms, and claiming the hierarchical position of educator gives him the edge in doing so.; 1/6/12, 12:07 AM
bagoh20 said...: ". So, the student supports gay marriage & is supposedly educated and yet has never heard the "what about polygamy?" argument? "

They gave the only answers I've ever heard for this inevitable, logical extension of the argument: 1) "I'm not talking about that." or
2)"I'm OK with that too."

The first is just holding your ears while you debate, and the second is fine if there is no government involvement or benefit in marriage, but then it instantly becomes untenable.

Therefore, I support government disconnecting from marriage completely, or only supporting traditional marriage, which is probably the longest and most widely held standard in human history. That's a good basis for a law, I think.; 1/6/12, 12:16 AM
bagoh20 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/6/12, 12:16 AM
YoungHegelian said...: @Beth,

A Socratic dialogue presumes the interlocutor is the educator, whose job is to lead the other participants to his position.

Well, so much for Platonic aporia then, eh?

No, how about Socratic dialogue is an attempt among multiple parties to discover the truth about a subject by examining various assertions in turn & examining the assumptions and conundrums underlying each assertion.

There's a lot more to Socratic dialogue than law professors making class difficult for their students.; 1/6/12, 12:17 AM
MayBee said...: Beth:It's because he doesn't want to state an argument and expose it to other arguments.
====

But he did. He stated his own opinion. Then he asked why the laws should be changed in the way the students want it changed.; 1/6/12, 12:18 AM
Beth said...: Maybee, an opinion is not an argument.; 1/6/12, 12:20 AM
bagoh20 said...: "He want to manipulate the argument with his own terms,"

No, they know his position, and he knows theirs. He's taking the next logical step in the argument. They have no interest in exploring it further. They just want him to make statements they can boo at. It's childish and close minded, period.; 1/6/12, 12:21 AM
Beth said...: Young Hegelian,

That's the ideal. Hard to find in the wild.; 1/6/12, 12:22 AM
Beth said...: bagoh20,

So the whole thing is "vote for me!" "no, we won't" and the rest is farce.; 1/6/12, 12:25 AM
MayBee said...: Maybee, an opinion is not an argument.

Did you read the linked article, Beth? What is your criticism of what happened? Should Santorum just have stated his opinion and stopped?; 1/6/12, 12:34 AM
Palladian said...: As a Pennsylvania native, a faggot and a lover of liberty, Santorum makes my skin crawl. He's nothing more than a statist in vestments.

I certainly do not support the puerile tactics and opinions of the ever-repugnant Dan Savage, but Santorum is exactly what we don't need right now (or ever), Socratic dialogue or not.; 1/6/12, 12:42 AM
Anonymous said...: "Soc. I will try and tell you why, Meno. I do not retract the assertion that if virtue is knowledge it may be taught; but I fear that I have some reason in doubting whether virtue is knowledge: for consider now. and say whether virtue, and not only virtue but anything that is taught, must not have teachers and disciples?"; 1/6/12, 12:44 AM
Alex said...: The point is Santorum didn't state his opinion, he tried to obfuscate. He just couldn't come right out and say "no I do not support homosexual marriage". He's scared to death of saying that out loud. That's Beth's point.; 1/6/12, 12:44 AM
MayBee said...: I do not support Rick Santorum for president and I do support gay marriage. But that doesn't excuse people who can't express their opinions well and so resort to booing the person who tried to engage them. That's just lazy.

Perhaps these students didn't argue enough with their parents.; 1/6/12, 12:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I do not think Santorum is teaching virtue.

my two cents.; 1/6/12, 12:48 AM
MayBee said...: But that's not true, Alex. He made it clear that he does not believe the laws on marriage should change from being man/woman.

He engaged with the students for an hour and a half.; 1/6/12, 12:52 AM
Chris Althouse Cohen said...: Oh, look at this:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/03/distinguishing-gay-marriage-and.html

I'm not going to do the blogger-link thing, it's too annoying.

I've always thought the obvious distinction is the way in which polygamy hurts children. Isn't that the main argument against polygamy anyway?; 1/6/12, 12:54 AM
Alex said...: But that's not true, Alex. He made it clear that he does not believe the laws on marriage should change from being man/woman.

He engaged with the students for an hour and a half.

Except he took the weasel way out. He said he doesn't support changing the law, but he refuses to say the words "I do not support gay marriage", because even HE knows a majority of Republicans are not anti-gay anymore.; 1/6/12, 1:00 AM
bagoh20 said...: "I've always thought the obvious distinction is the way in which polygamy hurts children. Isn't that the main argument against polygamy anyway?"

I don't know if that established any more than it is for gay marriage, and regardless, what if there are no children? As Santorum asked: "What about three or five men?"

Sanatorium position is clear and complete: Traditional marriage + contract protections for the rest. Yes, this may leave some people unhappy.

He accepts their argument. They won't even consider his question of they ramifications of theirs. this isn't even close.; 1/6/12, 1:02 AM
bagoh20 said...: Alex, you're doing the same thing these students were: avoiding the argument and asking for a statement so you can boo at it. That does not suggest confidence in your opinion.; 1/6/12, 1:05 AM
MayBee said...: Isn't it disappointing that Santorum didn't just tell the students that gay people are sinners going to Hell? And then spout some Bible verses?; 1/6/12, 1:21 AM
Ralph L said...: Palladian said...
As a Pennsylvania native, a faggot and a lover of liberty, Santorum...

I don't believe Santorum is a faggot, but I could be wrong.

Polygamy hurts women, just as easy divorce does, and low-status men, because there won't be enough to go 'round. Faggots could pick up more trade, however.

Forty years ago, young people said marriage was just a piece of paper.; 1/6/12, 1:35 AM
Ralph L said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/6/12, 1:37 AM
Revenant said...: The funny thing about Santorum's attempt at a slippery slope argument ("what about three men", etc) is that it serves equally well as an argument against recognizing marriage at all. If we recognize "marriage" between a man and a woman, where does it all end? What if a man wants to marry a two-year-old girl, do we have to let him?; 1/6/12, 1:50 AM
Ralph L said...: Rev, I think his S S argument applies best to courts changing marriage laws, not as well to legislatures.; 1/6/12, 2:04 AM
Lyle said...: This was a great moment of public discourse, I think. Props to Mr. Santorum. I respect him a little more now.

I'm supportive of gay marriage, but there is a slippery slope of sorts and if it's about happiness, then polygamy and polyandry should reasonably be legally too.

Do we want that?; 1/6/12, 2:09 AM
Ralph L said...: Lyle, probably a few people do. As with SSM, how many is enough that we should change the law?

Considering how many SSM advocates won't accept civil unions, and how many opponents don't want to offer even that much, it's clear to me that the benefits of marriage have little to do with the controversy. It's more "Poke the other group in the eye."; 1/6/12, 2:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Santorum seems like an interesting fellow. But he's a tariff fiend who stands contantly against free international trade. That's an absolute non-starter for me. Trade is the most important thing. Without you, your country is North Korea. Seriously.

Why isn't Santorum having a Socratic dialogue about that?; 1/6/12, 2:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Ralph! Are you here? You told me the other day that the federal government used the Commerce Clause as the basis for the slave-state/free-state compromises before the Civil War. I don't think that's true.; 1/6/12, 2:29 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/6/12, 2:43 AM
Ralph L said...: They didn't explicitly need the commerce clause to put conditions on a state's entry or to make slavery laws for territories (what was the constitutional basis for that, I wonder?), that's true, but what about the fugitive slave provisions?

I didn't realize the argument was just about the commerce clause--I was looking at broader Congressional authority over the spread of slavery.; 1/6/12, 3:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Ralph -- No, obviously, the federal government believed it had the power to limit slavery to certain states. I certainly don't argue that. I am speaking specifically about the Commerce Clause, as opposed to other other clauses.

Also, the regime of federal laws in place is fascinating to consider and must have said something about the commerce of slaves going back and forth between the states. So you have potentially an interesting point there.; 1/6/12, 3:39 AM
Ralph L said...: it had the power to limit slavery to certain states.
Suppose a state admitted as a free one had decided to legalize slavery? Did their admission bind them in perpetuity? What would, or could the Feds have done about it? Just as well the votes of the poor prevented it from happening.

The whole subject seems so alien to modern life.; 1/6/12, 4:33 AM
Jim S. said...: He presented a reductio ad absurdum argument, reducing the other side to absurdity by arguing that the same principle would be applicable to results both sides think are absurd. That's why gay marriage opponents sometimes compare it to polygamy. If the same principle doesn't apply, that's fine, you explain why it doesn't. Simply saying, "That's not the same thing" or "That's not what I'm talking about" leaves the reductio in effect.; 1/6/12, 5:17 AM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Marriage is about emotions. Most people get married to make themselves happy. Generally speaking, men do not get down on one knee and list the financial benefits of getting hitched.

The supposed conservative reason for getting married (helping strengthen pair bonding for raising children) applies just as well to gays.; 1/6/12, 5:25 AM
Toad Trend said...: "And the students didn't want a discussion. They wanted a gotcha."

This!

MSM template in 2 concise sentences.

Good work, minimus.; 1/6/12, 5:30 AM
Toad Trend said...: I'm with Ann on this. Santorum challenged their thinking. That's what teachers do. Good teachers. It may be a long time before these young students understand the point of his counter questions.

Mr. Santorum asked the questioners to provide their reasoning (sell it if you believe it, don't ask for consensus!) to change the current laws. He also pointed out that contract law can address many of the 'gay marriage' concerns.

I just finished reading comments that are all over the place on this. Many commenters seem to think marriage is nothing more than a lifestyle choice, like fashion, that can be changed on a whim. No wonder the divorce rate is so high.

The fact is, many people respect and hold traditional marriage in high regard and are put on the defensive by 'new' attitudes. The fact that the term 'traditional marriage' is now used, is telling.

Tradition is often a dirty word to the left; but it is exactly the thing that carried many peoples through years of life on this earth. It is a bond. Not saying that all tradition is good; just saying that challenging certain tradition has shown to have some really bad consequences. Marriage, I believe, is one of them.; 1/6/12, 5:48 AM
Mick said...: Simple. There is no natural law basis for the government to sanction, or give incentive to Homosexual "marriage". Heterosexual marriage is essential for the propagation of the Citizenry, and the legitimization of hereditary legality. Society is sustained by the children of heterosexual marriage. THAT is the ONLY reason that marriage is sanctioned by Government. Homosexual "marriage" has no natural law basis, and brings no benefit to the propagation of the Citizenry.
"pursuit of Happiness" can be used to justify just about any behavior, and is a favorite relativist fulcrum of the Left. There is NO "right" to marriage, just like there is no "right" to vote. "Rights" are given by god, and nature--- See the Declaration of Independence.; 1/6/12, 6:17 AM
edutcher said...: One presumes the maxim is you can tell when you're winning, it's when the little trolls start booing.

Rick said...

While I understand Santorum's commitment to the right side of these social issues, I expect that they will drag him down as if he were in quicksand. I think Mitch Daniels had it right.

No, Daniels is wrong, but the key is what's most important. Santorum can't talk about fiscal responsibility for very long without his own poor record being raised and the big issue is the economy and the necessary budget reform required to fix it.

What the Lefties and Libertarians can't stand is that Santorum has their number on where they want the marriage thing to go.; 1/6/12, 6:18 AM
harrogate said...: "A Socratic dialogue?! Oh, no. It's like he actually cares about educating students!"

Wow. Unironic consideration of Rick Santorum credibly assuming the role of educator to college students. That is seriously jumping the shark.

I do thank ye for the early morning haha.; 1/6/12, 6:25 AM
Cheryl said...: Yes, as Don't Tread just pointed out, Santorum challenged their thinking, and that is interesting. Even better, he showed an ability to forego a script and have a discussion even in an environment he knew would be hostile.

I really like the ability to engage that this showed. It seems that this willingness to have a discussion and to delve into an idea is very absent from most of our "debates" these days.; 1/6/12, 6:30 AM
Tarkwell Robotico said...: Santorum sounds terrific in this clip: calm, reasonable and deeply-thought on the issue. The bag who asked the question sounded like a ideological drone.

But what a loser of an issue.

The more time Republicans spend talking up gay marraige, the more votes they lose.

Let this issue play out at the state level and treat like toxic in the presidential arena (because it is such a distraction from the immediate, pressing responsibilities of a president).; 1/6/12, 6:39 AM
traditionalguy said...: Santorum was also "fervent."

I wonder if Thomas Aquinas was called fervent.

The New Normal is the open and shut issue being thrown into the face of a traditional thinker.

If he dares to say the younger generation is wrong, then they say gotcha. But it is OK for them to be fervent to the point of violence.

I smell a heresy issue here. The free sexual conduct all of the time and everywhere folks are starting another inquisition.; 1/6/12, 6:39 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Can we PLEASE not start down the road of that "intelligence" shit so soon:

The Democrats aren't out of power, just yet, and Oprah's "network" hasn't even tanked.

A little decency, people,...; 1/6/12, 6:42 AM
Issob Morocco said...: I would rather hear a Bielemiac explanation for how a Duck outwitted a Badger.; 1/6/12, 7:05 AM
rhhardin said...: Valéry Socrates and His Physician is the final word.; 1/6/12, 7:10 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: But the testiest part of the exchange came when an audience member suggested that gay people should be allowed to marry because they have a right to happiness.

In response, Mr. Santorum asked whether she thought that more than two people should be allowed to marry, apparently trying to suggest that the questioner was advocating an extreme position.

“If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” he asked.

That angered the audience, which booed his answer.

“I’m happy to engage in a discussion,” he continued, saying that he wanted to “give people a chance to answer, but we’re going to have a civil discussion.”

So it was the audience that was "testy," not Santorum. And yet, the use of the "testy" adjective is obviously in the headline to stick to Santorum. That's how they'll try to characterize him in the public's mind. Expect to see more words like testy, such as peevish, irritated, and petulant used to frame Santorum.

Though I admit, days ago I did ask a Santorum supporting friend, "Santorum versus Obama? What are they going to do in the debates? Sit there and try to out petulant each other?"; 1/6/12, 7:13 AM
KCFleming said...: This is why I can't stand Iowa.

The financial house is burning, and they want to gossip.

Then they vote for the socialist anyway.; 1/6/12, 7:15 AM
harrogate said...: "Santorum was also 'fervent.'

I wonder if Thomas Aquinas was called fervent."

OMG; 1/6/12, 7:17 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: Heh. I'd love to see a candidate answer any questions about gay marriage by saying, "Gay marriage?! Have you noticed the state of the economy and the crisis of the budget? Gay marriage is not the issue of this hour."

There are good arguments for gay marriage. Happiness is not one of them. Neither is equality. Why do people stick with those lesser arguments?; 1/6/12, 7:25 AM
Jose_K said...: He want to manipulate the argument with his own terms... well, that the reason of having an argument in the first place. I hope you are a not a lawyer or a law student or sorry for your clients; 1/6/12, 7:31 AM
Cheryl said...: Freeman--whoever would do that would have my vote. As long as that person isn't Ron Paul.; 1/6/12, 7:34 AM
Alex said...: The fact is, many people respect and hold traditional marriage in high regard and are put on the defensive by 'new' attitudes. The fact that the term 'traditional marriage' is now used, is telling.

Tradition is often a dirty word to the left; but it is exactly the thing that carried many peoples through years of life on this earth. It is a bond.

OMG what flaming bullshit. Any atrocity can be done in the name of "tradition". The fact is Santorum is a pure bigot. It was not up to the students to justify why a civil right should be granted - it was up to Santorum to justify why the government should discriminate against gays. Of course I expect a responsible MSM to not let him get away with this.; 1/6/12, 8:01 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Has been for thousands of years. The govt is not discriminating when it refuses to allow same sex marriages. It is just following historical and biological precedents. On the other hand, I do support civil unions.; 1/6/12, 8:03 AM
Mike said...: Everybody over the age of 40 has flipped on the question of gay marriage? In your dreams!

I think a significant majority of said folks have come to accept civil unions. But acceptance of civil unions does not mean support for "gay marriage". The love that dare not speak its name is now the love that just won't shut up.; 1/6/12, 8:07 AM
Brian Brown said...: “If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” he asked.

That angered the audience, which booed his answer.

Of course it did. These students have not been taught critical thinking, they've been immersed in an environment where to react emotionally to political issues is just & proper.; 1/6/12, 8:10 AM
Scott M said...: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Has been for thousands of years.

Also between a man and women. Don't forget that one. Not the muddy the waters, or anything...; 1/6/12, 8:12 AM
Brian Brown said...: MadisonMan said...
Everyone over the age of 40 has flip-flopped on the question of Gay Marriage.

That would be false.

Also, the people who started the "gay rights" movement wanted nothing to do with marriage.

They were with the feminists arguing that it was an "oppressive institution."; 1/6/12, 8:13 AM
prairie wind said...: There are good arguments for gay marriage. Happiness is not one of them. Neither is equality. Why do people stick with those lesser arguments?

People stick with the lesser arguments because the Age of Reason is dead.

If there are good arguments for gay marriage, I have not heard them. I want someone (besides me) to point out that gays already have the same rights as straights: they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Straights are in the same boat as gays because we cannot marry people of the same sex, either.

As for happiness, marriages and partnerships and roommates are best when happy. There is no right to happiness or love, though. Otherwise, no marriage would be safe. If the woman next door is in love with my husband and can only be happy if she is married to him...tough luck, sister.; 1/6/12, 8:14 AM
KCFleming said...: More, reacting emotionally is the only allowed response.

They accept their dogma uncritically, and when challenged react as if wounded, and so must cry out to Kill the witch!! for threatening their safe and comfy worldview.; 1/6/12, 8:16 AM
harrogate said...: Pogo Effuses:

"They accept their dogma uncritically, and when challenged react as if wounded, and so must cry out to Kill the witch!! for threatening their safe and comfy worldview."

Right. Whereas one of the hallmark's of Santorum's public persona is a grand capacity for intellectual flexibility, for showing an ability to recognize validity in perspectives different than his own. I mean, if you are someone who thinks it unhealthy to remain cocooned in one's "safe and comfy worldview," while demonizing those who would challenge or threaten that worldview in some way..... then Rick Santorum is clearly your man.; 1/6/12, 8:23 AM
Patrick said...: Freeman: The Republican candidate in MN tried to do just that. Guess what the press focused on during the campaign.; 1/6/12, 8:23 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: The more time Republicans spend talking up gay marraige, the more votes they lose.

So true. I am a mere speck of red in a deep blue sea, and my facebook et al. is awash with Santorumisms, such as all of his anti-gay marriage and contraceptive stuff. Santorum is the new Palin, and the left just found their bogeyman for 2012. Hounds of hell unleashed and all that jazz.; 1/6/12, 8:23 AM
Tarkwell Robotico said...: again, the points being made against gay marriage are reasonable and worthy points.

but it is still a losing issue because even people who sympathize with those points won't stop thinking, "yeah, but what does this have to do with the problems we're facing now?" and worse, "why does this person keep talking about gay marriage when I ask him questions about my pension?"; 1/6/12, 8:27 AM
Joshua R. Poulson said...: Mr. Santorum is notorious for his NLP-style speech and arguing style, why would he miss an opportunity to turn an awkward question back at the questioner rather than discuss the merits and move on?; 1/6/12, 8:28 AM
virgil xenophon said...: The point that Mick, above@6:17am makes is very, very, true DESPITE the fact that it's Mick that says it's true..; 1/6/12, 8:32 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: I am a mere speck of red in a deep blue sea, and my facebook et al. is awash with Santorumisms, such as all of his anti-gay marriage and contraceptive stuff. Santorum is the new Palin, and the left just found their bogeyman for 2012. Hounds of hell unleashed and all that jazz.

Same. You'd think he's was running for Pharaoh. Theocracy on the horizon! Women sold as chattel! Fear him! Fear him now!; 1/6/12, 8:33 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: Also between a man and women. Don't forget that one. Not the muddy the waters, or anything...

You made me recall a childhood memory. Polygamy is popular right now as a code word for bad Mormons, but when I was a wee lad I remember being thrown for a loop reading the old Testament. Saul, David, Solomon and all those guys had multiple wives and loads of mysterious 'concubines'. I remember asking my mother about the multiple wives thing because everyone I knew only had one spouse. My mother replied that that was something that 'Jesus outlawed after he was born'. The concubines were merely 'mother's helpers', so to speak.

I wonder if polygamy is still practiced in the Middle East. If not, I wonder when it went out of favor.; 1/6/12, 8:35 AM
Brian Brown said...: why does this person keep talking about gay marriage when I ask him questions about my pension?"

Can you give us an example where that actually happened?; 1/6/12, 8:40 AM
Scott M said...: I wonder if polygamy is still practiced in the Middle East.

Wonder no longer. It's institutionalized over there.; 1/6/12, 8:42 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: Contrast is such a tricky thing. Newt looks 30% more sane now next to Santorum.; 1/6/12, 8:44 AM
KCFleming said...: @harrogate
"Right. Whereas one of the hallmark's of Santorum's public persona is a grand capacity for intellectual flexibility"

You miss my point.

You and the modern left are the new theocracy. Your PC religion is the only dogma allowed, and heretics will be persecuted.

You mock Santorum for his faith and the policies that derive from it, but your faith is far more prescriptive and proscriptive than any current Christian practice.

It's not the Christians reacting like animals when challenged. It's you and yours, and that liberal statist religion.; 1/6/12, 8:45 AM
DADvocate said...: why he did not think that equality required allowing members of the same gender to marry.

One can easily argue that we have equality now. No one, regardless of sexual preferences, can marry someone of the opposite sex, in most places any way. Of course, the students are talking about marrying anyone you have feelings for regardless of gender.

The entire equality issue, as defined in liberalism/progressivism, has become a detriment to individuals and society as a whole. The idea that there should be equal outcomes and the attempts to create that by holding down the higher performers robs people of reaching their potential and denies society from benefitting from what those people would contribute were they allowed and encouraged to fully develop their potential.; 1/6/12, 8:46 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: Once I learned that concubines were mostly sexual partners, I remember thinking "Wow. Maybe Abraham really WAS the father of Israel. Like, literally." How many kids could an Israeli king likely have fathered if they had over 600 concubines alone, let alone scores of wives? That's some serious breeding.; 1/6/12, 8:49 AM
harrogate said...: "You mock Santorum for his faith and the policies that derive from it, but your faith is far more prescriptive and proscriptive than any current Christian practice."

Hey, bud, where did you see me "mock Santorum for his faith" exactly?

Moreover, at what point did you gtet to know me so well you can make such broastroke statements about MY "faith," "PC religion," or anything else about me?

Anyway, I do understand your point, one hears it often, that "the modern left are the new theocracy," and that "heretics" from this dogma "will be persecuted." What absolute cheapening of a word like "persecution" to use it in the context of Christians in the United States! Don't you see that? "War on Christmas" is an overstatement by lkeaps and bounds, but those suggesting on this thread and elsewhere on the web that Rick Santorum suffers "persecution" for his beliefs are trading in some of the silliest rhetoric I have seen in a long, long time.

You say I missed your point but I did not. Indeed, built into the very framework of your point is an attachment of value to being able to think outside of, imagine outside of proscribed ideological boxes. But do you REALLY attach value to this? Because again, of you do, then yeah, Rick Santorum is really the best candidate for you.; 1/6/12, 8:53 AM
Scott M said...: Your PC religion is the only dogma allowed, and heretics will be persecuted.

Political correctness is a child of the left. If you're on that side of the spectrum, either admit the mistake and make moves to eradicate what you gave rise to, or live with the fact that your side espouses the linguistic and cultural tyranny it begets.; 1/6/12, 8:54 AM
Henry said...: I totally disagree with Mr. Santorum on the issue. But I think he did the students a service by engaging them with all of his counter-arguments.

Maybe some of them will actually take the time to figure out a response. Maybe a very few will examine the premises behind the arguments (their's and their opponents).

Certainly, by pursuing the issue, Santorum made his position a lot more clear than, say, President Obama.

Yet Obama's politics of foggy incompetence still have their fan base.; 1/6/12, 8:58 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: Political correctness is a child of the left. If you're on that side of the spectrum, either admit the mistake and make moves to eradicate what you gave rise to, or live with the fact that your side espouses the linguistic and cultural tyranny it begets.

This would be way more profound if not for your avatar of the bear showing us its junk. Which I'm a big fan of, by the way.; 1/6/12, 8:58 AM
PackerBronco said...: harrogate said...

Right. Whereas one of the hallmark's of Santorum's public persona is a grand capacity for intellectual flexibility, for showing an ability to recognize validity in perspectives different than his own.
==========

I think you entirely miss the point. As Chesterton said: "The purpose of an open mind is to close it on something." Santorum believes what he believes, but he also knows WHY he believes it and what the ramifications of those beliefs are.

The students in that auditorium, by and large, don't. That's why they get upset when Santorum challenges them to extend their beliefs to polygamy and (though he doesn't mention it) incest. They don't want to go there because it makes them uncomforable - the poor little dears.; 1/6/12, 9:02 AM
purplepenquin said...: I've always thought the obvious distinction is the way in which polygamy hurts children. Isn't that the main argument against polygamy anyway?

The same thing has been said about divorce.

How many people who support "traditional marriages" only are in favor of outlawing divorce?

That aside, like others have pointed out polygamy is considered acceptable in the Bible...and how much more "traditional" than THAT can ya get?! :D; 1/6/12, 9:06 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: @harrogate

Because the only way someone can think outside the box and be a free thinker is to think exactly like you.

Right.

Political Correctness is the assumption that the correct answer is already known (gay marriage is a basic human right) and all that remains is to use whatever method is necessary and available to force consensus.

Your postings here clearly embody that approach to discourse.; 1/6/12, 9:08 AM
Renee said...: "The supposed conservative reason for getting married (helping strengthen pair bonding for raising children) applies just as well to gays."

Umm but same-sex relations do not produce children, unlike heterosexual relations. I can't get pregnant engaging intimately with a woman. Now, that's a reasonable statement of fact of reproductive function. It's the only reason why government actually cares about marriage, it's to prevent the social concerns that arise when children don't have a supportive father in the home and mothers are left to do everything themselves (which leads to emotional stress/neglect on her and the children). If you want happiness, seek a therapist.

Individuals have a mother and a father, they are entitled to that right to have a relationship with both parents. Due to a number possible factors sometimes we can not be raised by both parents, but as a society we want parents to be obligated to their children.

I'm really more then approving of many issues that affect gay individuals and their relationships, but I draw the line at pretending that an individual has no mother or father, and has not right to know or have a relationship with kin.

I hold this social view, that fathers are equally important as mothers, not out of conservative thinking but it came out of a liberal social justice line of thought. I could press on study after study especially in urban areas with high rates of fatherless homes...... but you know what all I'll get back in response is 'boo', 'hiss', and 'bigot'.

I understand by law, the state can define anything it wants but it's unfortunate that now I lack any form of language to describe the natural family, and be demonized if I try.

Disagree with me the importance of both biological parents is one thing, to avoid the issue and mischaracterize me as a hateful bigot is rather twisted.

How is that a right and why do we make laws that support that position?; 1/6/12, 9:12 AM
KCFleming said...: @harrogate
"...at what point did you get to know me so well you can make such broadstroke statements about MY "faith," "PC religion,""
You use their arguments, one can then assume you agree with them.

"I do understand your point, one hears it often, that "the modern left are the new theocracy"
Agree or just 'understand'. Either it's true or not.

"What absolute cheapening of a word like "persecution" to use it in the context of Christians"
It is not being fed to lions, but it is persecution. The seething hatred the atheist/agnostic left has for Christianity is only beginning, but accelerating. They will merge forces with Islam. It's already happening.

"War on Christmas" is an overstatement by leaps and bounds"
We differ here.

"attachment of value to being able to think outside of, imagine outside of proscribed ideological boxes. But do you REALLY attach value to this? Because again, of you do, then yeah, Rick Santorum is really the best candidate for you."
This sentence makes no sense at all.
I don't support Santorum anyway, hence my complaint above.; 1/6/12, 9:13 AM
Scott M said...: This would be way more profound if not for your avatar of the bear showing us its junk.

That's its pikanik basket.; 1/6/12, 9:17 AM
harrogate said...: Nathan Alexander, you write:

"Political correctness is the assumption that the correct answer is already known [ . . .] and all that remains is to use whatever method is necessary and available to force consensus."

I have listened to a lot of speeches by Rick Santorum over the last decade or so, and by that definition, he is one of the most Politically Correct professional politicians I can think of.

My comments on this thread all have been moved by no other thing except strong disagreement with the idea of Rick Santorum as some sort of model for intellectual inquiry and/or teaching (which idea is at the heart of the Althouse posting). I submit that one hardly need be "Politically Correct," or even agree with gay marriage for goodness sake, to strongly disagree with this idea.; 1/6/12, 9:19 AM
rcommal said...: I wonder if polygamy is still practiced in the Middle East.

It is.

There are some lively debates on whether or not it should be or not within the Mideast itself. They are interesting to Google and read if you have the time.; 1/6/12, 9:22 AM
Known Unknown said...: apparently trying to suggest that the questioner was advocating an extreme position.

Is this fucking reporting? No, it's op-ed BS disguised as reportage. It's speculation, and it does not belong in the article.

And this is why the NYT sucks.; 1/6/12, 9:22 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: That aside, like others have pointed out polygamy is considered acceptable in the Bible.

I'm not sure if that's the correct interpretation. It was the custom at the time. King David was punished by God when he basically sent Uriah to die in battle so that he could marry Uriah's wife Bathsheba. So God drew the line somewhere at polygamy, apparently where it intersected envy. All of the kings of Israel suffered some punishment at the hand of God as a result of their worldly sins; could profuse polygamy have contributed to God's dim view of each of them at some point? I don't know. It was the practice at the time; I don't think there are any scriptural dictums proscribing polygamy.

I'm not a polygamy advocate. I'm very happy in my monogamous marriage. I'm just saying the history of it is much deeper and not as hoary as Santorum may have one believe. As I've now learned, if he's speaking to a crowd of Arabs and retorts "well what do you think about marrying 3 women?" he'll likely get back a "hell yeah" and "why stop there?" Polygamy as a device for a man marrying multiple women has a long and storied history; one woman marrying multiple men is a different story.; 1/6/12, 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: @minimus

"God forbid that he ask them to think about their position on an issue."

I love it.; 1/6/12, 9:26 AM
PackerBronco said...: I have yet to hear anyone articulate why a right to gay marriage does not also imply a right to polygamy and incest between conscenting adults.; 1/6/12, 9:34 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: That's its pikanik basket.

So this pic is the result of someone asking the bear "what's in the pikanik basket too-day?"; 1/6/12, 9:37 AM
Scott M said...: I'm of like mind. The best SSM advocates around here, and elsewhere I roam, have come up with is that we already have legal structures in place for two partners. Opening that up to three or more would create a whole new set of legal requirements for things like inheritance and such. In other words, there isn't a good argument on the subject. They fall back to "it would take too much paperwork".; 1/6/12, 9:39 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: @harrogate:
Santorum is PC, black is white, National Socialism is ultra-right wing.

Yes, we get that as a member of the Left, you can play with words to twist anything you want into anything else you want for the purpose of your own self-righteousness. But thanks for the additional demonstration for confirmation purposes.; 1/6/12, 9:47 AM
KCFleming said...: I thought the bear was just going Ta daa-a-a-a!!.; 1/6/12, 9:50 AM
Nathan Alexander said...: @purplepenguin:

I find your "opponents of gay marriage should also be against divorce" argument fascinating. Another variation of it is the Britney Spears argument, that heterosexuals like Britney Spears do more damage to traditional marriage than SSM ever could.

But that argument is a non-starter, in that *who* advocated for no-fault divorce that damages traditional marriage?

Mostly the same ideology pushing SSM.

Celebrities making a farce of traditional marriage are also almost completely in favor of SSM.

So your arguments about divorce (and others' related arguments about celebrity disrespect of the institution of traditional marriage) are analogous to someone killing their parents and then pleading for clemency on account of being an orphan.

In any case, I agree with Santorum, want marriage to continue to be defined in the US as between one man and one woman (as it had always been), but absolutely want "no-fault" divorce and other incentives to divorce* to be eliminated.

*women in the US have a staggering amount of incentives to divorce and/or have children out of wedlock with different men. Some financial, some legal, some societal. All have been enacted and strengthened by the same ideology that pushes SSM as a human "right".; 1/6/12, 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: PackerBronco said...
I have yet to hear anyone articulate why a right to gay marriage does not also imply a right to polygamy and incest between conscenting adults.
-------------------------------

Me too and after numerous threads no one has addressed this. This includes our hostess.; 1/6/12, 9:56 AM
Lyssa said...: Harrogate said: I mean, if you are someone who thinks it unhealthy to remain cocooned in one's "safe and comfy worldview," while demonizing those who would challenge or threaten that worldview in some way..... then Rick Santorum is clearly your man.

You realize, don't you, that "remainig cocooned in one's safe and comfy worldview" was exactly the opposite of what Santorum did here?

(I support gay marriage, and dislike Santorum for other reasons, but this is just stupid. SSM advocates are so often their own worst enemies.); 1/6/12, 9:56 AM
harrogate said...: NathanAlexander,

*Of course* I know that Santorum does not fit into the term "Politically Correct." But the definition you gave certainly DOES capture him to a tee. Do you deny this?

Corect me if I misrepresent, but seems to me that what you are really saying is something along these lines:

"Political Correctness is the assumption that the correct answer is already known AND REFLECTS A LIBERAL MINDSET(gay marriage is a basic human right) and all that remains is to use whatever method is necessary and available to force consensus."

BTW, I am sure you will agree that sometimes, of course, the correct answer IS already known. Such as, slavery is bad, genocide is bad, the Eagles were not really a Rock 'n' Roll band, etc. But is it not impossible to deny that Santorum represents a contingent among Americans that believes the correct answers about human sexuality are already known and thus not open to substantive debate?; 1/6/12, 10:01 AM
Scott M said...: Me too and after numerous threads no one has addressed this.

See my last comment on the argument that they usually fall back on.; 1/6/12, 10:01 AM
MayBee said...: That's its pikanik basket.

I thought it was Yoga Bear.; 1/6/12, 10:02 AM
Lyssa said...: Scott M. said: we already have legal structures in place for two partners. Opening that up to three or more would create a whole new set of legal requirements for things like inheritance and such.

Slate did what I thought was an interesting piece several years back (when people really started talking about SSM) where they addressed this argument. The writer said that some people say that 2 (people married) seems like an arbitrary number, so why couldn't it just as easily be 3, 5, or 9?

The writer then explained that the important number in marriage is not 2, but 1. As in, I pledge to one person, my husband, and my husband to me. To divide up that promise makes it infinitely more complex.

Is that ironclad? No, not really, but it's a strong argument to my mind why a change allowing SSM would be workable, while a change allowing polygamy would be far more radical. That argument amounts to far more than just "it would be too much paperwork."

That said, I dislike talking about it from the perspective of "rights" and don't think that the courts should rule on it. It would be more fair to say that I think that allowing SSM would be good public policy.; 1/6/12, 10:02 AM
harrogate said...: Lyssa,

You say that Santorum did the opposite of remaining in a safe and comfy worldview. Are you saying this because he actually stayed to argue with the students? If so, then why apply this standard the other way and say that the students also did the opposite thing? They certainly were engaging in discourse with someone whose thinking is far, far, from their own.

Myself, I would say that neither Ricky S. nor the students were straying very far from their "safe, comfy zones."; 1/6/12, 10:05 AM
Scott M said...: I thought it was Yoga Bear.

Oh...groan. Eye-roll. Shooting pain in the abdomen. Ugh!

(well-crafted, by the way); 1/6/12, 10:05 AM
harrogate said...: Lyssa,

Sorry, I meant "why *not* apply this bstandard the other way..."; 1/6/12, 10:07 AM
MayBee said...: Sorry.; 1/6/12, 10:07 AM
Known Unknown said...: I don't understand how polygamy hurts children.

What my kids wouldn't do to have an extra mom around!; 1/6/12, 10:08 AM
Lyssa said...: harrogate said: why apply this standard the other way and say that the students also did the opposite thing? They certainly were engaging in discourse with someone whose thinking is far, far, from their own.

If they were engaging and listening to his response and responding in kind, then yes, I would agree with you.

For the ones who booed and/or refused to consider the issue that RS brought up, then no, even though they were there, they were not there to listen, think, or engage, and only interested in their cocoon.

Since RS was giving a response and asking questions of what the students thought, he was engaging outside of his cocoon.

(See my above comment where I personally, as a SSM supporter, responded to this issue.); 1/6/12, 10:09 AM
MayBee said...: The argument against polygamy is our society doesn't want it.
Marriage is a religious and social construct, and the secular laws regarding marriage are changed from time to time. SSM would be a big change, but it is one that could be made (indeed has been made) if it is something our society decides it wants to do.

This is why my fellow SSM proponents need to be persuasive rather than condescending and dismissive.; 1/6/12, 10:13 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: @Nathan Alexander, you make a good point about divorce, and how those that brought about no-fault divorce now use it as a cudgel.

I've not understood for awhile now how SSM advocates say divorce is a sign of the weakness of marriage, yet they desperately want to be included in the definition of marriage. If they were really progressive they'd want to create a new institution that surpassed our current construct. But in my experience, outside of sexual preference, homosexuals can be a bit parochial, just like heterosexuals.

Divorce is an unfortunate outcome, but it doesn't diminish the power of marriage. To wit, when celebrities (and non-celebrities) divorce, how often do they wind up re-marrying? I've no stats, but it's gotta be more than half the time. Probably staggeringly high. People who've divorced multiple times are viewed as failures of the system, when they should be viewed as exemplars in the faith of the power of marriage. It's not that they have a dim view of marriage; they just have a dim view of who they married. The allure of a good marriage is unbelievably powerful. I can see why homosexuals want in.; 1/6/12, 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: "......The writer then explained that the important number in marriage is not 2, but 1. As in, I pledge to one person, my husband, and my husband to me. To divide up that promise makes it infinitely more complex.
....."

It sounds like the basis for this argument is that they are uncomfortable with fractions....looks like a variant of the 'too much paperwork' rationale mentioned by ScottM; 1/6/12, 10:15 AM
Thorley Winston said...: Heh. I'd love to see a candidate answer any questions about gay marriage by saying, "Gay marriage?! Have you noticed the state of the economy and the crisis of the budget? Gay marriage is not the issue of this hour."
Our 2010 Republican candidate for governor, Tom Emmer, was asked about SSM early on during the campaign and responded with “don’t ask, don’t care, I’m here to talk about fixing the economy” and the issue never came up again during the election. He narrowly lost to Mark Dayton and some suspect that Emmer probably could have benefited from talking about his opposition to changing the definition of civil marriage but he was adamant about running on economic issues.

Ironically enough, after he lost the election, Emmer was latter offered a job at Hamline University teaching business law that was later withdrawn when some of the faculty objected because of his supposed intolerance towards gays (Emmer voted against SSM in the legislature but never ran on it as an issue).

My takeaway from the story: Republicans who ignore social issues are going to be just as hated by the left as those that run on them but the difference is that they’re going throw away a key part of their base which are social conservatives in the process. While I vote solely on economic issues, I’m pragmatic enough to know that successful candidates need both in order to win.; 1/6/12, 10:21 AM
Thorley Winston said...: He presented a reductio ad absurdum argument, reducing the other side to absurdity by arguing that the same principle would be applicable to results both sides think are absurd. That's why gay marriage opponents sometimes compare it to polygamy. If the same principle doesn't apply, that's fine, you explain why it doesn't. Simply saying, "That's not the same thing" or "That's not what I'm talking about" leaves the reductio in effect.

Agree, conversely many proponents of SSM have tried to liken opposition to it to opposition to interracial marriage. If you’re going to wade into this topic on either side then you need at a minimum to be prepared to address the standard rejoiner that the other side makes.; 1/6/12, 10:21 AM
Lyssa said...: MayBee said: SSM would be a big change, but it is one that could be made (indeed has been made) if it is something our society decides it wants to do.

I could be wrong (I practice family law, but not in a SSM state), but it certainly seems to me that the laws that have long applied to marriage are in no way more difficult to apply to SSM. In theory, at least, men and women are to be treated exactly equally in divorce and other legal disputes involving marriage (i.e., both should have the ability to have custody of children, the lower earning person may have to pay alimony regardless of sex, etc.) These translate to SSM with no problem. Additionally, any benefits of marriage (insurance, even social recognition) are equally translatable (a business owner can cover the employee's spouse easily enough, but not his/her spouses; I can invite Bob and guest to my wedding, regardless of whether Bob brings Sue or Mike; I can tell my spouse something and know that he/she will not be compelled to testify about it, but that's a lot harder if it's spouses).; 1/6/12, 10:25 AM
harrogate said...: Lyssa:

For what it is worth, I think your position on SSM makes a lot of sense, though I remain unsure exactly what I think the right approach is.

I strongly disagree, however, that Rick Santorum in this exchange showed any interest whatsoever in what the students think. His "questions" look to me like the same line he's been giving for years as a way to "show them" that SSM sits at the edge of the slipperiest moral slope evah.

And then context. This exchange cannot really be viewed outside the context of Santorum as the guy who has repeatedly likened homosexual consensual sex to man--on-dog sex, and who went into a rage after the 2003 Lawrence v Texas decision. Santorum is not just worried about Same Sex Marriage. He would criminalize homosexual acts.

His contempt for those who do not share his social views, he is of course entitled to. Indeed, I admit I really do wonder how he would really do in a General Election, as more and more clips of him saying things over the last decade were divulged. In the end, are his social views representative of an American plurality, or are they not? I would be interested, yes, to se the answer to that.

But to hold this man up as some kind of pedagogical model, or even as exemplary of civil discourse, is simply ridiculous.; 1/6/12, 10:27 AM
Lyssa said...: It sounds like the basis for this argument is that they are uncomfortable with fractions....looks like a variant of the 'too much paperwork' rationale mentioned by ScottM

Only if you think about it pretty shallowly. Marriage it about a lot more than just a piece of paper or a legal agreement. There are also a lot of social norms, expectations, and obligations, and the spiritual bonding aspect.; 1/6/12, 10:27 AM
Lyssa said...: I'm only discussing this particular incident, Harrogate. Here, he did well, and the students did not.; 1/6/12, 10:29 AM
MayBee said...: I could be wrong (I practice family law, but not in a SSM state), but it certainly seems to me that the laws that have long applied to marriage are in no way more difficult to apply to SSM.

Absolutely.
The big change would be the same gender part. Applying the law would be easy- easier than a lot of the work-arounds people have tried to come up with (partner benefits at work, for example). It's to whom the law is being applied that would be the big change for our society.; 1/6/12, 10:35 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: I gotta run, so thankfully for all of you this is my last post on the subject.

But isn't it always the left saying we need to have big and important discussions about nettlesome issues?

I'm not a Santorum fan, but I'll acknowledge that he at least tried to have one of these BIG and IMPORTANT DIALOGUES that the left is always asking abstractly for (though never really concretely realizing them). I'll also acknowledge that neither side was going to be swayed by the other that day; sort of a Mexican-Italian-American standoff. Each had backed into their corner and were not going to give an inch.

Berating Santorum or his opposition as close-minded doesn't really accomplish anything. When's the last time you won someone over by calling them an asshole and an idiot? (I'm looking at YOU, Crack Emcee.); 1/6/12, 10:45 AM
Methadras said...: Students are their own worst enemies. They posit foolish ideas and when challenged on those ideas they seek to trample the discussion. It is logical to think that if two men can marry, then two women can, and then after that the idea that other mixed marriages of any quantity and connection can and should also occur. Where does it end and Santorum is trying to tell them it doesn't and they don't care, because after all 'rights' are being denied. The most overused and least understood concept in this country is the word 'rights' and how it tries to get applied to everything.; 1/6/12, 10:59 AM
PackerBronco said...: Lyssa said...

The writer then explained that the important number in marriage is not 2, but 1. As in, I pledge to one person, my husband, and my husband to me. To divide up that promise makes it infinitely more complex.
----

That's a terrible argument. I have a pledge to my wife, but I also have a pledge to my 6 children. That's 7 people right there.

Nice try on the part of the Slate writer, but ultimately a total fail.; 1/6/12, 11:06 AM
PackerBronco said...: MayBee said...
The argument against polygamy is our society doesn't want it.
=========

Bingo. And that goes back to my first post on this thread. The definition of marriage belongs not to the individual but to society. Change the definition of marriage at the ballot box but not in the courts.; 1/6/12, 11:09 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: I lied. Just a little. I had to google remarriage rates, and I found this staggering stat. For anyone who tries to use divorce as a measure of the weakness or failure of marriage, just say suck on this:

From this WashTimes article:

In fact, about 75 percent of divorced persons eventually remarry, according to the National Stepfamily Resource Center, a division of Auburn University’s Center for Children, Youth and Families. And, while half of marriages end in divorce, within five years of divorcing, 89 percent of men and 79 percent of women remarry, according to some studies.; 1/6/12, 11:11 AM
Scott M said...: @Joe

I cannot remember the source for the stat, but I do remember reading that the divorce rate among remarried couples, where one of the spouses was previously married, in other words, is very low.; 1/6/12, 11:15 AM
MayBee said...: Change the definition of marriage at the ballot box but not in the courts.

I agree completely.; 1/6/12, 11:20 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: @NathanAlexander, seeing as how approx. 50% of marriages end in divorce, yet then these divorcees get remarried at rates of up to 80+% and then experience low divorce rates after that (ScottM is my witness); then this to me is proof that the current construct is astoundingly effective! It's not that divorce is bad, but that about half the population just needs a mulligan, a do-over. Then they get it right. That's an amazingly effective combination of morality intersecting with basic human behavior that ain't gonna change.; 1/6/12, 11:24 AM
MayBee said...: The stupidest celebrity statement came from Brad and Angelina, who said they would not get married until everyone can get married.

Then they trample all over whatever is important about marriage by leaving their legal spouses, adopting kids together, having kids together, buying property together, doing business together.
They live their lives proving how unimportant marriage is in the name of declaring marriage an important right for gay people.; 1/6/12, 11:24 AM
Brian Brown said...: Santorum is not just worried about Same Sex Marriage. He would criminalize homosexual acts.

You are a hyperbolic liar.; 1/6/12, 11:27 AM
purplepenquin said...: You are a hyperbolic liar.

Or perhaps misinformed.

Fact is that Santorum has said he would allow states to choose for themselves if sodomy should be banned or not, 'cause sexual acts aren't a protected constitutional right.

And "sodomy" isn't strictly for homosexuals either...unless, of course, the ban was specifically written as such.; 1/6/12, 11:57 AM
MadisonMan said...: The students should have asked him if Universal Health Services offers its employees Domestic Partner Benefits.

Santorum is Mr. K Street. Not what I want in a President, even with his hefty Social Conservative Baggage. His re-election defeat was the worst ever in terms of percentage for a sitting Republican. I'm not sure he can overcome that -- the negatives are still there.; 1/6/12, 11:58 AM
Lyssa said...: PackerBronco said: I have a pledge to my wife, but I also have a pledge to my 6 children.

Your pledge to your children may be equally important, but it is not in any way the same thing as the pledge to your wife. The responsibilities, obligations, and committments are in no way the same things.

You could have another child, and your pledge to your other children would not change a bit.; 1/6/12, 12:02 PM
Toad Trend said...: "Political Correctness is the assumption that the correct answer is already known AND REFLECTS A LIBERAL MINDSET(gay marriage is a basic human right) and all that remains is to use whatever method is necessary and available to force consensus.

No.

Political correctness is self-censorship tirelessly promoted and enforced by desperate leftists.

//fixed; 1/6/12, 12:45 PM
Scott M said...: Political correctness is self-censorship tirelessly promoted and enforced by desperate leftists.

If it were only self-censorship, I could abide it. Unfortunately, they were very successful at foisting it upon the rest of us.; 1/6/12, 12:48 PM
Toad Trend said...: "If it were only self-censorship, I could abide it. Unfortunately, they were very successful at foisting it upon the rest of us."

Compliance is voluntary!; 1/6/12, 12:53 PM
Scott M said...: Compliance is voluntary!

PROGRESSIVISM: IDEAS SO GOOD, THEY MUST BE MANDATORY!

(see also: a boot stomping on the face a human forever); 1/6/12, 12:58 PM
PackerBronco said...: Lyssa said
Your pledge to your children may be equally important, but it is not in any way the same thing as the pledge to your wife.
===========
Actually the pledge to my children is more binding than the pledge to my wife. I can abandon my wife; I cannot abandon my children without ending up in jail.

But let's not lose sight of the main argument here. The Slate author claimed that you couldn't have polygamy because the people make binding pledges only to one other person (their spouse). The issue of children shows that is certainly not the case.

In fact our whole society is filled with binding relationships of one degree or another and thus to use that as a basis for denying polygamy is a reach. The author is trying to grasp for some reason - any reason - that would allow for SSM but disallow polygamy (not to mention adult incest.) In that, he or she has failed.; 1/6/12, 1:02 PM
Toad Trend said...: Scott M

Ultimately, its about control. Leftists are very insecure 'folks', hence, they can't stand anyone doing things without their approval or review. PC is just a tool they use to attempt to bludgeon 'unbelievers' into complying with their pathetic worldview.

None of us were born in gilded cages, quite the contrary. Humans crave freedom; the damaged left crave the freedom to control.; 1/6/12, 1:07 PM
ken in tx said...: A few states have something called a Covenant Marriage. Louisiana is the one I know about, but there are others. Among other things, a Covenant Marriage cannot be dissolved with a no-fault divorce. Maybe this is the answer. Let traditionalists have the Covenant Marriage and let homosexuals have the regular marriage, which in essence is a bogus marriage anyway, since it is so easy to walk away from.

EMD, what if one of your moms hates you because you are not her's? Think about Hagar, Sarah, and Ismael.

wv=tushe; 1/6/12, 1:08 PM
Brian Brown said...: Fact is that Santorum has said he would allow states to choose for themselves if sodomy should be banned or not, 'cause sexual acts aren't a protected constitutional right.

Well, they're not.

But that aside, that doesn't in any way reflect that Santorum would "criminalize sex acts."; 1/6/12, 1:22 PM
purplepenquin said...: But that aside, that doesn't in any way reflect that Santorum would "criminalize sex acts."

It would be proper to say that he would allow sex acts (between consenting adults) to be criminalized.

Just like it is proper to actually explain how somebody got something wrong, rather just calling them a "hyperbolic liar."

Seriously - why do some folks automatically assume that other people are being intentionally dishonest rather than simply misinformed? I have my theories why, but would like to hear others...; 1/6/12, 1:42 PM
Brennan said...: Why didn't the NY Times include the portion of Santorum's comments about CONTRACT LAW?

This is the pivot that debases the same sex marriage argument unless it is pursued as it was in Iowa. It's not an equal rights issue. Two people or four people or ten people can enter into any contract they want right now. If you want to call your contract "same sex marriage" go ahead.; 1/6/12, 1:53 PM
Blue@9 said...: The argument against polygamy is a practical one. Marriage confers legal rights, and polygamy would complicate arrangements in a wholly unnecessary way.

If I marry two wives, are Wife 1 and Wife 2 also married to each other? What if Wife 2 takes on Husband 2--am I married to Husband 2 as well? Once you move past a simple bilateral relationship, it gets much much harder. Taxes become much harder, as does inheritance, medical decisions, etc.

Also, polygamy can create conditions for significantly more fraud. If I get a standard deduction for each wife, it would be easy to go down and pay homeless women $100 each to marry me on December 31st.

So let's not pretend that polygamy and gay marriage are the same thing. It's not just about "society doesn't want it," but why society doesn't want it. Obviously incest creates real issues with reproduction, but I wouldn't have issues with consensual incest if they're not having kids.; 1/6/12, 1:57 PM
Scott M said...: So let's not pretend that polygamy and gay marriage are the same thing.

Polygamy and gay marriage are indeed the same thing if you simply consider that they both reside in the group of all possible marital situations outside one man and one woman.; 1/6/12, 2:00 PM
Brennan said...: The questions like these posed to Santorum are simply fastballs right at his head. However, Santorum can hit them. That is the problem for him. He'll ground out to the catcher.

The smart money has already moved onto the Iowa strategy. These cretins asking Santorum these questions are simply trying to drag him down and he'll happily comply because it's not a "belief" to him. It's a fundamental truth.

Recall how he says "I don't believe it. I know it."

This is the reason why I don't think Santorum can win. The population doesn't like truth. They like greek columns and toned arms.; 1/6/12, 2:08 PM
Blue@9 said...: Polygamy and gay marriage are indeed the same thing if you simply consider that they both reside in the group of all possible marital situations outside one man and one woman.

Did you read my post? There is no administrative difficulty with allowing gay marriage as there is with polygamy.; 1/6/12, 2:13 PM
Scott M said...: There is no administrative difficulty with allowing gay marriage as there is with polygamy.

So, you're saying the difference is that there is more paperwork, right?; 1/6/12, 2:20 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Not just more paperwork, but an enigmatic conundrum of ethical and moral issues requiring a level of Solomonic baby-splitting that even the most brazen progressive is unwilling to do.

So I say it's a combination of paperwork + parochial nature of homosexuals (remember: outside of sexual preference, most gays prefer to get married, have homes, have families, have jobs and get compensated/advancement through merit, etc.).; 1/6/12, 2:36 PM
MayBee said...: So Blue, you find incest more acceptable than polygamy?; 1/6/12, 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...: "Blue@9 said...
The argument against polygamy is a practical one. Marriage confers legal rights, and polygamy would complicate arrangements in a wholly unnecessary way.

If I marry two wives, are Wife 1 and Wife 2 also married to each other? What if Wife 2 takes on Husband 2--am I married to Husband 2 as well? Once you move past a simple bilateral relationship, it gets much much harder. Taxes become much harder, as does inheritance, medical decisions, etc. ..."

To summarize, polygamy should be banned because the government can't handle fractions or ratios..the IRS understands 1+1 so SSM is okay.

Now marshall your agruments against incest.; 1/6/12, 3:32 PM
Synova said...: "Marriage is about emotions. Most people get married to make themselves happy. Generally speaking, men do not get down on one knee and list the financial benefits of getting hitched."

And then when they aren't happy any more they feel entitled to gut the other person's finances and future.

Winning!

"The supposed conservative reason for getting married (helping strengthen pair bonding for raising children) applies just as well to gays."

It does. I just wish that anyone would bother to make that argument. The nuclear family is the smallest unit of social welfare. If not for taking care of children, then for taking care of another adult, in sickness and in health, for better or worse.

The notion that it's about being HAPPY is destroying that usefulness to society... for health and better, as long as we both shall be happy.; 1/6/12, 3:33 PM
Revenant said...: Polygamy and gay marriage are indeed the same thing if you simply consider that they both reside in the group of all possible marital situations outside one man and one woman.

That's like saying Republicans and Nazis are the same thing if you simply consider that they both reside in the group of all possible political organizations outside of the Democratic Party.

It is a technically accurate but utterly useless statement.; 1/6/12, 3:35 PM
Synova said...: Polygamy as a legal option has a better legal and historical basis than gay marriage.

Polyandry is more rare, but why the heck not?

And I don't know why I seem to be the only person in creation that is aware of (usually Wiccan) group marriages.

Polyamorists claim it's an orientation.; 1/6/12, 3:37 PM
Scott M said...: It is a technically accurate but utterly useless statement.

So was that.; 1/6/12, 3:38 PM
Revenant said...: Also, the people who started the "gay rights" movement wanted nothing to do with marriage.

And the people who started the modern conservative movement wanted nothing to do with civil rights for non-whites.

Fortunately, both groups learned from those early mistakes.; 1/6/12, 3:48 PM
Revenant said...: So was that.

Well, yes, Scott, when I start a comment with "That's like saying...", feel free to consider that a context clue that I am drawing an equivalence between the two statements.; 1/6/12, 3:51 PM
Scott M said...: I was referring to this;

It is a technically accurate but utterly useless statement which I referenced in my comment.; 1/6/12, 3:54 PM
Revenant said...: To summarize, polygamy should be banned because the government can't handle fractions or ratios

There are three groups here.

Group one claims that gay marriage is a natural right, regardless of what the people want. Many gay marriage proponents are in this group.

Group two claims that gay marriage is flat-out wrong, and must be banned regardless of what the people want. Rick Santorum (who has promised to use the federal government to prevent states from recognizing gay marriage) is in this group, as are many gay marriage opponents.

Group three thinks that voters should be allowed to decide whether, and how, governments recognize marriages. I'm in this group, as are the remainder of gay marriage proponents and opponents.

Members of group one need to explain why polygamists, et al, shouldn't have their marriages recognized. Most can't.

Members of group two need to explain why gay marriage is such a great evil that democracy itself must take a back seat to opposing it. Most can't; Santorum certainly can't.

Members of group three don't need to explain anything. We just vote for our preferred policy. "I like gay marriage and don't like polygamy" serves perfectly well as a reason.; 1/6/12, 3:59 PM
Scott M said...: Members of group three don't need to explain anything. We just vote for our preferred policy. "I like gay marriage and don't like polygamy" serves perfectly well as a reason.

You're rational breaking down of the situation assumes the proponents of SSM will rationally accept a vote denying them what they seek. Recent history proves otherwise, doesn't it?; 1/6/12, 4:08 PM
Alex said...: I do agree that SSM proponents justify banning polygamy on the grounds that SSM is popular and polygamy isn't. Also SSM is considered mainstream now and polygamists are still "icky".; 1/6/12, 4:27 PM
Revenant said...: You're rational breaking down of the situation assumes the proponents of SSM will rationally accept a vote denying them what they seek. Recent history proves otherwise, doesn't it?

If "rationally accept a vote" means "give up" then your first sentence is wrong.

If it doesn't, your second sentence is wrong.; 1/6/12, 4:34 PM
chickelit said...: If "rationally accept a vote" means "give up" then your first sentence is wrong.

Suppose it doesn't mean "give up" but rather "wait and don't resort to the court"?; 1/6/12, 4:53 PM
Revenant said...: Suppose it doesn't mean "give up" but rather "wait and don't resort to the court"?

Then his second sentence is wrong. Recent history does not suggest that gay marriage proponents, as a collective whole, are resorting to the courts.

Certainly many of them are -- but I said that already, didn't I.; 1/6/12, 5:13 PM
chickelit said...: Then his second sentence is wrong. Recent history does not suggest that gay marriage proponents, as a collective whole, are resorting to the courts.

But it only takes one judge or one minority of judges to make a decision affecting everyone in the jurisdiction. I mean that's the whole downside of "legislating from the bench."; 1/6/12, 5:37 PM
PackerBronco said...: Revenant said...
There are three groups here.

Group one claims that gay marriage is a natural right, regardless of what the people want. Many gay marriage proponents are in this group.
=======
As are many liberal activist judges. I'm all for letting the voters decide this issue, but lets be honest, most gay activists are not.; 1/6/12, 5:40 PM
Revenant said...: But it only takes one judge or one minority of judges to make a decision affecting everyone in the jurisdiction. I mean that's the whole downside of "legislating from the bench."

Sure, but that's not a problem unique to supporters of gay marriage. Opponents, e.g. Santorum, have no problem using the same tactic if that's what it takes.; 1/6/12, 6:42 PM
Revenant said...: I'm all for letting the voters decide this issue, but lets be honest, most gay activists are not.

Neither are more opponents of gay marriage. That's why they rushed to pass state and federal constitutional amendments forbidding it -- they know gay marriage will have majority support in the near future, and they want to make it impossible for a simple majority to pass pro-marriage laws.; 1/6/12, 6:44 PM
chickelit said...: I forget the sequence of events in California, Revenent. Did Gavin Newsome's "like it or not" any twosomes stuff precede Prop 8 which then preceded the 9th circuit stuff?

I think an honest chronology (and I'm sure one exists) could sort this out. None of this (both sides)arose from a vacuum.; 1/6/12, 6:56 PM
chickelit said...: Sure, but that's not a problem unique to supporters of gay marriage. Opponents, e.g. Santorum, have no problem using the same tactic if that's what it takes.

Sure, but how does affect the logical fallacy which you were trying to point out?

BTW, I'm not Santorum supporter. But I do find it distubing that the same sort who cheered hanging Palin in effigy cheer Santorum's demise. Or tell me I'm wrong on that.; 1/6/12, 7:02 PM
Revenant said...: Did Gavin Newsome's "like it or not" any twosomes stuff precede Prop 8 which then preceded the 9th circuit stuff?

Yes, that's the correct order, although you left off

I think an honest chronology (and I'm sure one exists) could sort this out.

Sort what out? The existence of gay marriage proponents who don't respect the will of the voters? Is anybody denying they exist?

But if you want to talk chronology, the aforementioned gay marriage amendment (and DOMA, before it), both of which aimed to prevent gay marriage from being recognized by state voters, preceded Newsom's action by years.; 1/6/12, 7:08 PM
Revenant said...: Sure, but how does affect the logical fallacy which you were trying to point out?

It doesn't. Scott's claim was that the existence of anti-voter proponents of gay marriage disproves the existence of proponents willing to leave the matter to voters. That group X is non-null does not imply that group !X is null.; 1/6/12, 7:12 PM
rcommal said...: From the minute that gay folks rose up their heads and decided not to hide themselves anymore, there have been other folks who have objected even to that.

I can't possibly be the only [not-gay] person here old enough to remember that, can I?; 1/6/12, 8:49 PM
rcommal said...: I am not just over 40, I am over 50.

And I think--given every which way in which marriage has been folded, spindled and mutilated (even putting aside gay people, polygamous people an so forth), both civilly and religiously--the time indeed has come for civil unions as the best, though to be sure imperfect, way for The State to interact in terms of those types of alliances. If people want also religion-sanctioned marriage--not to mention a covenant marriage, sanctioned by a specific church or Church--that is also available. How easy that might be, for either straights or gays, is a different matter, a different question and, to acknowledge it, a different battle.

It's time for everyone to be a whole lot more honest with regard to this issue.

And for people--no matter who--to acknowledge the realities (and the obligations).; 1/6/12, 9:03 PM
PackerBronco said...: Revenant said...
I'm all for letting the voters decide this issue, but lets be honest, most gay activists are not.

Neither are more opponents of gay marriage. That's why they rushed to pass state and federal constitutional amendments forbidding it -- they know gay marriage will have majority support in the near future, and they want to make it impossible for a simple majority to pass pro-marriage laws.
=========
You do know the difference between an elected official who is answerable to the will of the people and an unelected judge who is not, don't you?

And the truth is that the SSM gains were largely and almost exclusively advanced not by the voters or their elected representatives, but by unelected judges.; 1/6/12, 9:56 PM
Revenant said...: You do know the difference between an elected official who is answerable to the will of the people and an unelected judge who is not, don't you?

Yes, but it is irrelevant to my point -- which concerned constitutional amendments, not elected officials or judicial rulings.

And the truth is that the SSM gains were largely and almost exclusively advanced not by the voters or their elected representatives, but by unelected judges.

That's a steaming load of horseshit. There are only six states which recognize gay marriages, and in all six states the legislature passed laws to that effect. There isn't a state anywhere in America where gay marriage is legal due to judicial fiat.

Also note that in every one of those six states, anti-marriage activists sued in an attempt to have "unelected judges" declare gay marriage to be illegal again. So spare me your crocodile tears about unelected judges, eh?; 1/6/12, 11:35 PM
Rosalyn C. said...: If you allow two men to marry what about three men or five men? That was the question Santorum asked. The reason his argument does not apply is that gay marriage is not requiring that we move away from the notion of marriage as a dyad, the union of two individuals.

Glenn Beck goes into a discussion of this incident as it relates to basis of the Constitution, the Judeo Christian tradition. This country was founded on the premise of individual rights, as endowed by the Creator with those rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Somehow LGBT are not seen as equals.

Gay people want to be married if they have made a lifetime commitment to each other. It's not about the sex, it's about the emotional commitment two people have for each other.

Gay people who have lifetime commitments to each other, such as friends of mine who have weathered the storms of life together for 35 years, deserve the same respect and legal protections as anyone else. Whether that is upheld in civil unions or marriage is not important to me, however I do favor the idea that government should not be involved in sanctifying marriage. Civil unions for all, and church marriage if that is your choice.

Polygamy is a problem because it doesn't uphold the value of the individual, neither does bestiality or incest where there is severe inequality.

Marriage as a tradition has evolved. For thousands of years it was mostly about property and inheritance, and men and women were not equals. Now in the West people expect marriage partners to be equal in their rights and responsibilities in the relationship.

It's not that far of a leap to acknowledge that marriage is about a serious committed relationship between two individuals, and their gender not be that significant. Society can evolve and so can marriage without sacrificing core values.

It's unfortunate that the young people in the audience were not prepared to argue rationally, but that does not mean that rational arguments are not available or that their cause was not just.; 1/7/12, 8:07 AM
harrogate said...: R. Chatt,

I agree with much of what you wrote, but this:

"It's unfortunate that the young people in the audience were not prepared to argue rationally, but that does not mean that rational arguments are not available or that their cause was not just"

presumes that some sort of real discussion was taking place where the students were actually in a position to develop or sustain ideas. As he always does in these "debates," Ricky S. kept interrupting them with "what about three men? what about four men?" in effect shouting them down.

Their mistake was even bothering with him ni the first place. This man has shown over many, many years that he is a walking set of socon talking points. Which as I have said upthread, he absolutely has a right to be that guy, and it would say a lot about this country if he were able to win a general election for President thus conducting himself.; 1/7/12, 8:50 AM
PackerBronco said...: Revenant said...
That's a steaming load of horseshit. There are only six states which recognize gay marriages, and in all six states the legislature passed laws to that effect.
=====
May 5, 1993: The Supreme Court of Hawaii rules that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is presumed to be unconstitutional

December 3, 1996: A Hawaii trial court judge holds that no compelling interests support Hawaii's statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.

November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gives the state legislature 180 days to enact same-sex marriage.

May 12, 2005: Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 overturned by United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon as a unconstitutional

May 15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

October 10, 2008: The Supreme Court of Connecticut orders same-sex marriage legalized.

April 3, 2009: The Iowa Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.

October 2, 2009: A Texas judge rules the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
====
I have no problems with the state legislatures enacting same sex marriages, but to claim that the court has not tried to institute same sex marriage through judicial fiat is flying in the face of well-known history. I'm surprised you even attempted it.; 1/7/12, 12:28 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Just what you want in a GOP field that claims to be clamoring against "elitism", to the point of casting its contenders in reality TV shows: Hectoring. Of the demographic that matters.

Way to go.; 1/7/12, 4:06 PM