June 28, 2013

"Nationalized gay marriage, now inevitable."

Explains Charles Krauthammer, who's not happy about this.
If discriminating (regarding federal benefits) between a gay couple and a straight couple is prohibited in New York where gay marriage is legal, by what logic is discrimination permitted in Texas, where a gay couple is prevented from marrying in the first place?

Which is exactly where the majority’s [Equal Protection] rationale leads — nationalizing gay marriage.... This is certainly why David Boies, the lead attorney in the companion Proposition 8 case, was so jubilant when he came out onto the courthouse steps after the ruling. He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.

So why didn’t Justice Anthony Kennedy, the traditional swing vote who wrote the majority opinion on DOMA with the court’s four liberals, take that step?
It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

126 comments:

Henry said...

If my math is right, there are 37 states that don't recognize same-sex marriage.

Does this mean a maximum of 37 separate cases? Is that how slow slow could be?

sunsong said...

It has always been inevitable to many of us - simply because the only rationale that the anti-gay forces ever really came up with was their anti-gayness.

Aridog said...

Yawn. Yeah....and so?

mccullough said...

I'd say it's Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer who slowed things down. Kennedy would have loved to decree marriage laws unconstitutional in the 37 other states unconstitutional.

Kennedy was acting like a loser in his Prop 8 dissent.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Sunsong-- no, the point is the question "What is marriage FOR, and why should the state take an interest in it?"

If marriage is simply a long-term temporary monogamy agreement between two consenting adults who are 'in love', then there should be no civil marriage, no benefits for marriage, and no state interference at all. After all, we don't get 'going steady' licenses or tax breaks.

If gay marriage is marriage in the same sense that heterosexual marriage is marriage, then why do we have civil marriage at all? Why should the state take any interest in our romantic lives?

DanTheMan said...

>>It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

Stupid me. I thought we did that by voting. You know, like they did in California.

Nonapod said...

Maybe now we can stop talking about gay marriage and start talking about stuff that actually matters to the 99% who have no interest in ever actually being same-sex married themselves (this includes a lot of homosexuals).

mccullough said...

I think Republicans should be happy with Breyer and Kagan. They are probably the two Dem picks that are the least bad from a Republican perspective.

ed said...

It's about the SCOTUS showing that it's continued existence is pretty worthless.

Achilles said...

This is about giving conservative statists a bit longer to gnash their teeth and drive away another generation of voters who don't really want the government involved in this issue.

Demographics have decided this issue from the start. We are just waiting for the boomers to die off in large enough numbers.

rhhardin said...

People accommodate all the time in a tyranny.

tim in vermont said...

As long as they file their taxes jointly, have to get married to get the benefits, and get to go through sticky divorces, I am all for it.

jacksonjay said...


Bert and Ernie
The Lone Ranger and Tonto
Holmes and Watson
Cagney and Lacey

Why not?

Gahrie said...

It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

Bullshit. It's about his inability to create any form of Constitutional basis for his opinion.

Seriously, we didn't even get a penumbra.....

This case has finally done the unthinkable...replace Roe V wade as the worst Supreme Court decision ever.

Bob Ellison said...

Krauthammer may not be happy with the policy; I don't know. I'm pro-SSM, but I hate this decision, because it's a hot mess of self-contradicting legalese, as Krauthammer points out.

ricpic said...

...giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

In other words boiling the frog. The frog being bitter clingers and all the other benighted retrogrades. And then of course those frogs who say "It's their America now" are mocked as losers, sore losers.

Conditions aren't bad enough...yet. But when the inevitable economic implosion comes the nation, which truly is theirs now, will sunder. Of that I am certain.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

In other words relax. This will be a lot more painful if you tense up.

It's gonna happen anyway, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.

DanTheMan said...

So, Achilles, no need to change any any laws or anything like that.
Something that was completely illegal in every state for 200 years is now...isn't. Did we amend the constitution through the process provided?
No, like Humpty Dumpty, our betters have decided that words mean just exactly what they want them to mean.
Until they want them to mean something else.
The Holy Nine (actually, just Kennedy) have decided this issue for us, rather than letting us great unwashed sort it out state by state.
That worked so well with abortion, I'm sure this will turn out just as well.


Sorun said...

"Maybe now we can stop talking about gay marriage and start talking about stuff that actually matters to the 99%..."

Next agenda items are other stuff most people don't care about: climate change and immigration reform.

AJ Lynch said...

Sunsong - being opposed to SSM does not make me or others anti-gay.

jacksonjay said...


The Warren Court, the Berger Court, The Renquist Court and the SlowandSteady Court!

All we need is some more time!

Mitchell the Bat said...

It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

Agreed. It's fully judicious not to risk a panic on Wall Street.

jacksonjay said...




Next agenda items are other stuff most people don't care about: climate change and immigration reform.

Don't forget gun control for the children!

Michael K said...

The left is all about social issues but they say it's the "social conservatives."

This is a cause for celebration while Rome burns a little faster.

Good luck.

Rae said...

The only reason I oppose "gay marriage" is because I know it'll be used as a club against the Church ASAP. As soon as it's legal in all fifty states, or even sooner, the Church will be sued because some gay couple wants to have a church wedding.

People tell me I'm crazy. But the concept of gay marriage was crazy ten years ago.

The best outcome of this might be churches stop with the tax exemption.

Lyssa said...

Deirdre Mwhy do we have civil marriage at all? Why should the state take any interest in our romantic lives?

Property, mainly. Even without having children, most people tend to form a full-out life partnership with a person they are romantically attached to, whereby they merge their property (almost) entirely, either legally or practically or both. (I've been involved in cases where two people live together long term without being married or officially stating their wishes - it's a mess and a half.)

If you don't have civil marriage, you have a big, hairy mess when these relationships end (either by termination or death), and you have to try to separate that mess.

Also, all of the other things that go along with being next of kin. Would you want your parents making decisions for you as an adult (assuming that they're even still around, or your kids if they're adults), or the person you live with and see every day?

jr565 said...

I could support gay marriage if it was a states right question, but if its going to be imposed from on high based on the flimsiest argument, this case will go down in history as one of the worst EVER.
Wasnt the problem with DOMA that it was the federal goct telling states who had legalized gay marriage (sometimes through underhanded means, I'm looking at Gavin Newsom) that they couldn't not recognize marriages that were already legal? It was an overreach by the federal govt.
That suggest marriage is a states rights issue. If 30+ states have constitutions that say what there marriage is in their state. And is it only true for gay marriage but not the other restrictions in place.
Like the
Marriage age. There is a discrepancy between the age you can marry depending on the state you're in. Could the Supreme Court say that the age requirements must be uniform across all states as otherwise people are being oppressed. That seems to be a serious overreach on the part of the courts.

sunsong said...

AJ Lynch

It's possible that you are an exception - but I doubt it. If you get down to the deep seated *why* - it's always anti-gayness, imo.

The Court has established marriage as a fundamental right. America, the ideal, does not deny fundamental rights.

Arguments such as: what is marriage for? are personal. There is no right or wrong answer to the question.

Gay marriage is simply inevitable as many of us have been saying for years.

AJ Lynch said...

Sunsong - read minds do you?

GRW3 said...

I'm pretty libertarian on this, if anything kind of on the "Why should they get out of it?" wavelength. I can't imagine how it will bring civilization down.

I think this is a trophy victory as I'm betting the percentage of the gay population that will marry is a lot lower than the straight population. It will be molehill on a mountain.

Those intent on preserving marriage out to focus on repairing straight marriage and making it more desirable. Once thing that could happen is the reduction of license. The domestic partner dodge has been used by plenty of straights to get benefits for their live in without the legal hassle of marriage. Well, companies and governments where gay marriage is now allowed could put the kibosh on that. "You want marriage benefits? Get married!"

Deirdre Mundy said...

Lyssa-- But we have contracts that let you draw up power of attorney or property sharing agreements.

And we have wills for inheritance.

Again, if it's just "we love each other and want to share property," why should the tax code care? Why should there be benefits for spouses?

Why should there be a 'marriage' and not just a contract drawn up with a lawyer?

Why do we need a 'right to marriage' at all? Wouldn't these contractual relationships fall under existing law?

So... why is marriage important in such a way that the government thinks it has a value beyond other contractual agreements between two or more adults? Many business partnerships outlast many marriages, after all, and can be messier if they end. In fact, the dissolution of a business can adversely impact more lives than that of a marriage.

So what makes marriage something that the government should care about?

C Stanley said...

If they had just slowed down Roe v Wade it wouldn't have mattered at all that the judicial branch decided a contentious social issue by overruling state legislatures. People just needed time to accomodate to the baby killing.

Deirdre Mundy said...

AJ- If marriage has no objective purpose and it's just a personal meaning that you find by following your own feelings, why does the state regulate or reward it at all?

The state doesn't have a stake in art, or poetry, or dancing in the moonlight. Why marriage?

somefeller said...

Make haste slowly.

Gahrie said...

So what makes marriage something that the government should care about?

Maybe because it has been the foundation of human culture and society for all of history, worldwide.

It was the one institution that even the French didn't fuck with during their revolution.

Sorun said...

It seems sunsong knows what others think. And perhaps the more distant they are politically and culturally, the more she knows.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Gahrie- so... what made it the basic building block of society? Why has it mattered until now?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lyssa said...

Why should there be a 'marriage' and not just a contract drawn up with a lawyer?

Why do we need a 'right to marriage' at all? Wouldn't these contractual relationships fall under existing law?


Because very few people use those contracts and laws. That's just how it works - people don't think "Oh, who's going to make decisions for me in the hospital if I can't" when they've never been sick. People don't think "what's going to happen to my stuff when I die." Some do, but it's just human nature that most people don't.

The government has a strong interest in putting together a set out contract that covers all of this stuff up front (and can be altered if desired), so they don't have to deal with the messes people who don't bother to premptively prepare for each individual issue leave when it's too late. We call that collective contract civil marriage, and add a lot of spiritual mumbo jumbo, but, for governmental purposes, that's what it is. Sure, we could call it something else, civil unions or whathaveyou, but that's just semantics. Whatever you call it, it's a necessary institution to allow society to function.

Gahrie said...

Gahrie- so... what made it the basic building block of society?

The fact that it was the building block of society. The first basic society that man formed was family groups, families based on a union of man and woman.



Michael said...

Sunsong. I am in favor of gay marriage but it is in spite of people like you, bigots who hold no sympathy with those reluctant to change a tradition that has been extant for thousands of years and who often have deeply held religious beliefs. Your smugness is as offputting as your arguments weak .

jr565 said...

Sun song wrote:

It has always been inevitable to many of us - simply because the only rationale that the anti-gay forces ever really came up with was their anti-gayness

How presumptuous of you. What was the rationale that the pro traditional marriage people held in regards to marriage prior to gays wanting a piece of the action? It would be the same rationale!
People have already said what it is but because you have you gay bigot headphones on maybe you didn't hear it.
Marriage is between a man and a woman because it's men and women that have the kids and society wants to endorse that relationship over all others because they want the parents to raise the next generation and not the state. The family is the bedrock of society and allows for its continuation.
Why would govt care about love? What is
It, the dating game? In the case of gays, gays biologically do not create children. So therefore there is less of a need for society to promote it on the same level.

Now, because rights are involved and some well meaning people agreed with the issue that gays were denied basic rights given to married people through marriage that they were inexplicably denied, many states suggested civil unions which would both maintain marriage as it stands but also recognize the partnership of gays and give the rights. This is further proof that anti gay Marriage Means you hate fags. /s

Seriously dude, definitionally changing marriage is not a light thing, and if you insinuate that the ONLY reason you would oppose it is because you hate gays then
You are an ashole.
I may agree with the problem you poin out but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your remedy. And in particular, people on the left are notorious about this.they pose the problem, say global warming then they propose a solution, say Kyoto. And if you disagree
With Kyoto then you hate the environment.
When I might say global warming may be bullshit or may even be inevitable, but even if I agree with the premises it doesn't mean that I must agree with your remedy. Which is stupid.

There are a lot of people who hate fags. There are a lot more people who aren't fighting because they hate fags , but simply because they don't think the remedy should involve redefining marriage. If you make those people you're enemy you're creating a lot of ill will for no reason


Deirdre Mundy said...

Gahrie-- But if it's the case that 'natural marriage' is about procreation and the care of children, then how is 'gay marriage' a marriage?

Deirdre Mundy said...

Lyssa-- Why does the government need to have a say in who visits who in the hospital? Can't this come down to individual hospitals?

Likewise, it's individuals, not the government, who get inconvenienced when an estate ends up in probate.

"Some people are too lazy to do paperwork" doesn't seem enough to justify the regime of SS survivor benefits, health benefits, and tax benefits that get attached to the idea of marriage.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

I don't see how you are getting that Krauthammer is not happy with this. It just sounds to me like he is just giving his opinion as to what will happen in the near future.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

"It's possible that you are an exception - but I doubt it. If you get down to the deep seated *why* - it's always anti-gayness, imo."

I'm gay. I'm against gay marriage. Civil unions were enough.

Gays don't have relationships like straights, genius. We aren't fully monogamous. Marriage is about CHILDREN AND FAMILY and monogamous relationships. You think most gay males want that? REALLY?

They want the tax breaks, genius. They aren't going to honor any of the actual principles of marriage, and even though I am gay, I am not self centered. I'm smart enough to know the purpose of marriage, unlike you.

Civil unions were enough for the problems you mentioned. Marriage? They're doing that mostly because they hate religious people and want to stick it to them.

Now shut the Hell up and stop trying to speak for others.

Jane said...

So civil marriage is a way to organize laws about next-of-kin relationships for medical decisions, and to organize laws about splitting up property should the relationship end, and to not force the sale of a large asset (e.g., a home) upon the death of one of the parties in the relationship, and to automate, to a degree, the transfer of property upon one's death.

Why, then, does Social Security pay spouse's and survivor's benefits?

Gahrie said...

Gahrie-- But if it's the case that 'natural marriage' is about procreation and the care of children, then how is 'gay marriage' a marriage?

It's not, which is why I have always proposed civil unions, with all the same rights as marriage, but at the same time acknowledging that the relationship isn't really a marriage.

harrogate said...

Hmmm, I'm torn on this. There is *some* logic to the argument, granted. And nationalization would be another step forward in the area of human rights.

BUT, it's Krauthammer who is predicting it. He's so consistently wrong on so much--maybe especially when he predicts things (no, really, he's a FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT!)--that it seems like the column jinxes the possibility.

wwww said...

"But if it's the case that 'natural marriage' is about procreation and the care of children, then how is 'gay marriage' a marriage?"

Lots of gay people adopt children or have their own biological children. (donor egg/donor sperm.)

Lyssa said...

Oh, and also Deirdre, it's much, much better for kids (and fathers*) if their parents get divorced rather than just kind of stop having a relationship. I've been involved in the Juvenile Court cases when unmarried parents break up, and it always goes the same way. Mom keeps the kid, and says that dad can still see him/her. Dad gives mom "some money" whenever. For a while. Then they either get involved with other things and dad drifts out of mom and kid's life for a while, or mom gets mad at dad and cuts things off. Then, years later, someone suddenly realizes that either there's child support owed (tens of thousands of it - and dad is rarely credited for the whatever he paid before, since who kept records?) or dad suddenly gets his act together and remembers that he wants to be a dad, and there's a long, expensive court fight where everyone's miserable and the kids are treated like garbage.

If you get divorced, you have to make these decisions up front and have them ordered. Much better and more fair.

* Technically, all of that could, and sometimes does, happen with the sexes reversed, but it's unusual.

AJ Lynch said...

Deirdre- I feel marriage is between a man and a woman.Period. Let the SSM duos adopt another name. I am all for that.

You brought up rights, laws etc established by govt regulations; that is another topic for another day. Though I have said before that if gays had real balls, they woud have challenged the injustice of soc sec benefits for married vs. single people [not just gays]. But they would never challenge a librul Democrat bankrupt sacred cow like soc security.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

Of all the gays I know (quite a few) none are monogamous. NONE!

I also love how "anti gay" is thrown around like confetti, but it's never mentioned that gays might be anti religious.

The Christians were willing to compromise with civil unions. Who was it that refused to compromise?

Lyssa said...

Why does the government need to have a say in who visits who in the hospital? Can't this come down to individual hospitals?

Likewise, it's individuals, not the government, who get inconvenienced when an estate ends up in probate.


How is a hospital supposed to know if your boyfriend was a guy you went to dinner with a few times or someone you shared a life with? And it's not just who gets to see you, it's who gets to make decisions for you. Someone's got to make that call, and someone's going to get sued if they make the wrong one. Absolutely, the gov't has an interest in keeping that from happening, if the gov't has any interest whatsoever in protecting the rights of citizens.

And people don't get "inconvenienced" in probate - they make determinations about who owns property that affects everyone involved. This can be huge. Also, if the boyfriend shared his property with you (and you contributed to the upkeep or shared other things with him), and you depended on that property, what do you do if he dies? Extremely bad policy, which the gov't absolutely has an interest in preventing.

SteveR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deirdre Mundy said...

Lyssa - But Marriage/Divorce being better for kids than 'shacking up' only applies if there are kids, right?

And we've already reached a place where being born out of wedlock is the new normal, and the state does not penalize sexual relations or procreation outside of marriage.

In fact, in many ways, marriage is fast becoming a private choice based on religious beliefs.

So why should the state or the courts have anything to do with it at all?

Isn't it kind of bigotted to say that what single mothers are doing is not as good as what married mothers are doing?

And it's not like gay couples are accidentally having kids out of wedlock- there can be no accidental when the couple is gay.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Lyssa-- so it's the state's duty to protect us from our own stupidity and incompetence? There are plenty of couples who could get married and choose not to. Should they be forced to marry to make the accounting easier if someone gets sick or dies?

Alex said...

Sunsong. I am in favor of gay marriage but it is in spite of people like you, bigots who hold no sympathy with those reluctant to change a tradition that has been extant for thousands of years and who often have deeply held religious beliefs. Your smugness is as offputting as your arguments weak .

Modern marriage as it exists now is a relatively new thing with full womens' rights. Women used to bought & sold as chattel. They had no rights. Polygamy was the norm in ancient societies. To cite "thousands of years" is totally disingenuous. Marriage is more of a status symbol now. It's a signal to one's peers.

SteveR said...

I really don't care about this issue and think people are too easily convinced of "victory" in such matters. You don't have to be walking very fast to fall off a cliff, just one too many steps in the wrong direction.

Methadras said...

DanTheMan said...

>>It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

Stupid me. I thought we did that by voting. You know, like they did in California.


Voting really doesn't mean much anymore when the perpetually aggrieved are getting their feelings hurt over it and sue to have millions of peoples votes overturned through the judiciary.

jimbino said...

Great.

Here in Texass, marriage between two men, between a guy and his sister, his horse or two gals or two horses is all illegal.

I can't wait to be able to gain 1000+ federal benefits by marrying my horse. A horse beats a woman, hands down, since there will be no child support, no ....

Michael K said...

"The Christians were willing to compromise with civil unions. Who was it that refused to compromise?"

The gay "Catholics" like Sullivan will soon be suing the Catholic Church to force it to perform the marriages. This is all about force and demanding that everyone accept them as exactly the same as the traditional religious types.

What is always amusing to me is how these activist types, like Althouse, never seem to go after the Muslims. They know the Muslims would cut their head off.

Christians are so easy to push around.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

Just like fisting!!

Palladian said...

Dr Strangelove weighs in!

sunsong said...

Michael,

Do you hold sympathy for Muslims as well? Would you have defended those who wanted to keep slavery or beat women - because they were owned by their husbands? or would you have defended those who denied women the vote or those who opposed the civil rights movement?

It's important to question your beliefs, I believe :-) And when you won't question them - then I would suggest it is even more important to look at why.

There is no good argument for denying gays equal rights. None that I have seen.

Scott M said...

Marriage is more of a status symbol now. It's a signal to one's peers.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

That's about the level of rebuttal that statement deserves.

Simon said...

He's late, isn't he? Robert Bork predicted that this week would come the very day that DOMA was signed, and he predicted that other day, too.

Jane said...

So what happens next?

What happens to the % of births to unmarried parents? Does it level out, or does it escalate, with the rhetoric about marriage being unrelated to children, and "mother + father" being unnecessary for children's welfare intensifying the belief that marriage is unrelated to children and only for when you've found your soulmate?

Does the gay rejection of sexual exclusivity find its way into the broader culture? (Cable channels already are featuring swinging as a part of "hidden America".)

Do Muslims push for legal recognition of polygamy? (Or do states start recognizing polygamous marriages as a way of denying second wives welfare, by combining the whole household's income? Or do states start testing the income of everyone resident in a household?)

Bob Ellison said...

The puppets are out in force today.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things.

So long as we don't get carried away and let the people decide on the timing themselves. That's just crazy talk.

somefeller said...

The Christians were willing to compromise with civil unions. Who was it that refused to compromise?

Bullshit. If that were the case, conservative politicians would have submitted legislation everywhere on that. Also, if that were the case, then the anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments that passed over the past decade (like in Texas) would not have forbidden civil unions as types of state-recognized relationships similar to marriage. Social conservatives, despite the best efforts of people trying to steer them in a constructive direction (like the host of this blog), have always resisted any compromise in the real-life political process. And now, they may lose it all.

DanTheMan said...

Paul,
You are behind the times, my friend. "Power to the People" was what liberals said in the 60's. Now, it's "Power to control the people".
Get with the program, citizen!

Michael K said...

"It's important to question your beliefs, I believe :-) And when you won't question them - then I would suggest it is even more important to look at why.

There is no good argument for denying gays equal rights. None that I have seen."

The parade of straw men are out today in force. Why is "marriage" a civil right and "civil union" not ?

I really don't care but do anticipate polygamy and incest and challenges about "man-boy love" and the rest of it.

You don't miss a tradition until you have discarded it. In 1969, Pat Moynihan was worried about a black illegitimacy rate of 25%.

I grew up before the "pill" became ubiquitous and abortion was legal. I don't want us to go back to that time but I doubt anyone spent much time worrying about the second order consequences.

I would suggest that I have questioned my beliefs and thought far more deeply about them than you, with your knee jerk arrogance, would ever do.

Thorley Winston said...

Wasnt the problem with DOMA that it was the federal goct telling states who had legalized gay marriage (sometimes through underhanded means, I'm looking at Gavin Newsom) that they couldn't not recognize marriages that were already legal?

No, DOMA says “[n]o State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

In other words:
1) Can State change the definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples under DOMA? Yes
2) Can a State if it so chooses, recognize a same-sex relationship that is classified as a “marriage” in another State as a “marriage” in its State? Yes

All DOMA does (since this provision is still in effect) is stop federal courts from FORCING the 37 States that have decided that SSM is contrary to their public policy from having to treat same-sex relationships as marriages.

In other words, those who actually do support federalism ought to support DOMA. Those that opposed DOMA and said they did so on grounds of federalism were and are lying because they support SSM and don’t care if they have to have the courts impose their own policy preferences on the States the same way the Supreme Court has imposed its policy preferences on abortion since Roe vs. Wade.

edutcher said...

It's a long way between then and now and I think San Fiasco Gay Pride is to same sex marriage what ultrasound has been to abortion.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Thorley wrote:
Can State change the definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples under DOMA? Yes

Ok, but if the state can change it, can the Supreme Court force a state that chooses not not change it to cange it on the grounds that it's discriminatory to deny gay marriage. NOt based on this ruling but based on the language that Kennedy said which suggests where he is leading.

Revenant said...

Nationalized gay marriage was inevitable regardless of court rulings this week. The long-term cultural trend made that much clear. That was the major reason behind the push to amend state constitutions to ban it NOW, while it was still politically possible to pass such amendments.

That's why there is little outrage in California about Prop 8 being thrown out. It only narrowly passed in the first place, and public opinion has shifted against it since then.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elkh1 said...

Revise the tax codes, no marriage/single penalties, no death taxes. Who the heck cares who is married or not?

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

Nationalized gay marriage was inevitable regardless of court rulings this week. The long-term cultural trend made that much clear. That was the major reason behind the push to amend state constitutions to ban it NOW, while it was still politically possible to pass such amendments.

My God, what drivel!

The only "trend" is the constant drumbeat from the Ministry of Propaganda

Be interesting to see how opinions would change if everybody's home page was Zombietime.

jr565 said...

"The Court has established marriage as a fundamental right. America, the ideal, does not deny fundamental rights."

But that doesn't mean that you have to change marriage to allow for everyone to get married. if marriage was between a man and a woman then anyone could marry under those perameters. If marriage was not incestual because of a ban on incest, then you couldn't claim that you have a right to marry your sister.

This is the fundametal problem with your argument. Your right only exists within the context of what the state says marriage is. (not polygamy, not bigamy, not gay marriage).

Your rights are not absolute. You have a right to marry as defined by the state.Otherwise polygamists can marry now. Otherwise there would be no illegal marriage.

WHat you are essentially arguing is that the state can't restrict marriage in any way. Are Kennedy and the 4 lib justices prepared to say that?

Revenant said...

The only "trend" is the constant drumbeat from the Ministry of Propaganda

O rly?.

bpm4532 said...

god, once they are done with this cause, that leaves room for another. We're running out of valid ones.

Revenant said...

But that doesn't mean that you have to change marriage to allow for everyone to get married.

The government doesn't define marriage. People define marriage; the government decides what marriages to recognize.

Skyler said...

"It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things."

Or waiting for the revolution.

Michael said...

Sunsong. False equivalencies. You make no argument other than from your desire for a thing to be so and when there is opposition you label it bigotry. Lazy and shallow. As I said, I am in favor of gay marriage. It will be a form of marriage, sanctioned as Charles K fears across the country with federal blessing, and will bestow all the benefits and drawbacks available to heteros.

Next, of course, will be the assault on those religious institutions that refuse to marry homosexuals with identical ceremonies and rubrics. Except, naturally, Muslims.

That is when you will be able to use the remaining "bigot arrows" in your very full quiver.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Revenant-- So if my friend Bob declares that he's married his gerbil, and they're in love, dangit, and their marriage is just as good as yours no matter what the state says, is he married?

I mean, if marriage is whatever you decide it is, and Bob has decided marriage is true love between a man and his gerbil........

If there's no objective definition of marriage, isn't the whole concept meaningless?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

It's a done deal, it's all done but the decades of gloating by the Left. Strong families compete with the state for power and influence, so Leftists both hate families and work to weaken traditional family structure. Weakened families mean more powerful government which the Left supports.

edutcher said...

The Pew Forum????

rly??

Gee, they're not skewed or anything, are they?

And inevitability may be a little late:

10 Circuit finds against abortion mandate.

Not to mention the witness,

"Trayvon" was doing the beating.

How could Lefties be so wrong?

Deirdre Mundy said...

I mean, Lyssa was talking about the effects of marriage vs. cohabitation on children.

But I've known people who call their live-in girlfriends their 'wives' even though they've never married.

Are they married or not? They're living as husband and wife, have kids, but no certificate of marriage.

Under the traditional idea of marriage, sanctioned by the churches and acknowledged by the state, they're clearly not married. But if marriage is whatever you feel it to be, who are we to call some households married and others not married? Shouldn't we just treat them all as 'married' since marriage has better outcomes?

It's for the children.....

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Soon, the expression of support for traditional families and family structure will be criminalized. "Hate speech"

Diogenes of Sinope said...

The Left will use gay marriage to attack Christianity. Christian churches which do not support and don't perform gay marriage, which do not support and do not allow homosexuals to hold positions of power and which speak out against homosexuality will lose their tax exempt status. Liberals will claim this is not an attack on religion.

AReasonableMan said...

Diogenes of Sinope said...
Strong families compete with the state for power and influence, so Leftists both hate families and work to weaken traditional family structure.


I hate these blanket statements about the left. In fact there is very little difference in marriage rates and marriage stability between blue and red states. There is no left ideology opposed to marriage.

The left has supported increased woman's rights within the context of marriage. This is not anti-marriage, arguably it could strengthen marriage overall.

wwww said...

People are going to get married, have children, and, in general, act like boring married people, and your kids and grandkids will not be able to relate to your angst.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"Nationalized gay marriage was inevitable regardless of court rulings this week. The long-term cultural trend made that much clear."

That's true. I said that Bork predicted it, but goodness, Paul VI could have told us that this was coming. This is a battle that was fought and lost in the sixties, it's just taken a while to play out through the various stages. Divorce, quickie divorce, the corruption of the culture, the pornographization of mainstream culture, the drumbeat to remove any kind of moral opprobrium from any kind of conduct... This is all about the sixties and the monumental wrong turn that has shipwrecked half the world.

Simon said...

Diogenes of Sinope said...
"The Left will use gay marriage to attack Christianity. Christian churches which do not support and don't perform gay marriage, which do not support and do not allow homosexuals to hold positions of power and which speak out against homosexuality will lose their tax exempt status. Liberals will claim this is not an attack on religion. "

As sure as the sun rises in the East. Anyone who doesn't see that coming is a fool. The Church will survive; she began as a hated minority, and if she must, she will endure as a hated minority. We may have the smaller, purer Church of which then-Fr. Ratzinger spoke many years ago, but the ship will dock, with however many aboard as are aboard.

SukieTawdry said...

What does it matter what happens next? Marriage has been stood on its ear with this decision. As defined by the state via SCOTUS, it's a concept now devoid of structure or meaning.

The focus has been all about the long-suffering gays (and their children) who have had to live under the unbearable yoke of a marriage that's "less worthy." It's been about the protection of their "personhood and dignity." Yeah, okay, fine, whatever.

But the expansion of the law won't apply only to people of the same sex who love and want to marry each other and perhaps raise a family. There is no provision that the same-sex couple be gay; it would not possible to have such a provision even if we wanted one. ("We'd like a marriage license." "Are you gay"? "Yes." "Prove it.")

Marriage in America will be a union between two people who are of a certain age, not closely related and not already married. Any two people. For whatever reason, intent or purpose. It's just stupid. Why bother with it at all?

I'm now convinced the state needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. Of course, we will need to get rid of the tax preferences and legal niceties like community property and spousal privilege. Custody issues might become dicey, but, hey, we're all adults, right? If two people want to commit themselves to each other, they can go to their church to be married or, like Meadehouse, the mountains. The state, however, will have no further vested interest in what they do.

SSM proponents claim they only want to crack open the door wide enough to let in gay couples. They say they have excellent arguments for keeping other restrictions in place. Actually, they don't. Actually, their arguments don't have a leg to stand on.

Personally, I can't wait to see what's next on the agenda.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:

The government doesn't define marriage. People define marriage; the government decides what marriages to recognize.


So if govt decides not to recognize gay marriage?....what rights are you saying they have? Can the govt deny gay marriage?
And by the way, if polygamists want to leave govt out of it
And be in polygamous relationships they have that right. But that different than govt recognizing said marriages.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

Strong families compete with the state for power and influence, so Leftists both hate families and work to weaken traditional family structure.

I hate these blanket statements about the left.


Too bad most of them are true.

jr565 said...

Sunsong wrote
"There is no good argument for denying gays equal rights. None that I have seen."

except I question your use of the word equal rights. Because prior to gay marriage gays had the same rights as heterosexuasl. They could marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else. That's equal rights. What you're talking about is not equal rights, its separate rights that you want to make equivalent.

For example. People who also wanted to marry in a polygamous marriage also had the same rights as other Americans. They couldn't do it. But then neither could heterosexual who were thinking of marrying as a couple marry a third person. And so too, no person could marry their sister. And so too no person could marry someone underage. And so too no person could marry more than once at a time. Gays had the same rights as everyone else in all those respects.

What you're arguing for is that there is no reason, why socierty should not remove restrictions on anyone trying to marry anyone. If there are no restrictions then I suppose there is equality since anyone can marry anyone.
Br if you're not saying that, then you are not really talking about equal rights but creating new rights and making them equal to existing rights. That is a far different proposition.

jr565 said...

So there, sunsong since you want to question your beliefs about why you think the way you to test your own beliefs.

Polygamy. Currently no one can practice it. So we all have equal rights. it would only be an issue if some could practice it and some couldnt. but none can.and even here, there are exceptions to the rule. Brothers can't marry their sisters even if they are of age and meet all the other requirements.


But are we to assume that there is no reason to deny polygamists equal rights? If you mean it the way I do, then they already have equal rights. If you mean it the way you do, then not so fast. There may be perfectly valid reasons to not create a separate right and then make them equivalent to existing rights.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Note I'm not precluding adding separate rights for gays and making them equivalent since I did say I supported civil unions. But Its not a question of giving gays equal rights.. Until gay marriage becomes legal I can't marry a gay man, just as you can't marry a gay man. We're both equal now under the law.
Its called gay marriage after all. Meaning, its different than traditional marriage.

Revenant said...

Revenant-- So if my friend Bob declares that he's married his gerbil, and they're in love, dangit, and their marriage is just as good as yours no matter what the state says, is he married?

He thinks he is. I don't.

Similarly, a friend of mine married in a Catholic church and later divorced. The church says he's married. He and his wife say they aren't. So: is he married? Depends on who you ask.

Or supposed the Know-Nothing Party returns from the grave and gains supermajority control of Congress. They pass a Constitutional amendment dissolving all Catholic marriages. Are those Catholics married or not? Again, depends on who you ask.

Alex said...

Gerbils are for stuffing up one's rectum, just for fun. Right Titus?

Deirdre Mundy said...

So then, say I run a company in NY and Bob and Bill come in and say they're married and Bill needs spousal benefits now.

If I don't believe gay marriage is 'marriage,' can I refuse them benefits?

What if Bob and Bill come to my church and ask me to marry them? Can I refuse, on the grounds that I don't think it's a marriage at all?

Revenant said...

Divorce, quickie divorce, the corruption of the culture, the pornographization of mainstream culture, the drumbeat to remove any kind of moral opprobrium from any kind of conduct...

Oh, for the good old days when Morals were Morals, the actual rates of murder and robbery were higher, and lynching was an acceptable way of dealing with undesirables.

Revenant said...

What if Bob and Bill come to my church and ask me to marry them? Can I refuse, on the grounds that I don't think it's a marriage at all?

Yes, churches have always been allowed to refuse to marry people who don't meet that religion's standards. That's why divorced Catholics tend to get remarried in Episcopal churches. :)

sunsong said...

9th Circuit Lifts Stay on Gay Marriages in California:

link

Inga said...

Pat Robertson weighs in on the SC's DOMA decision.

LOL

edutcher said...

sunsong said...

9th Circuit Lifts Stay on Gay Marriages in California:

Isn't 9th Circus the one that's always getting overturned?

Saint Croix said...

lynching was an acceptable way of dealing with undesirables.

We still lynch undesirables. It's called abortion.

Revenant said...

We still lynch undesirables. It's called abortion.

I could make the comment "the sky is blue" and Croix would reply "you know what else is blue? The eyes of countless babies that have been aborted."

Chuck said...

I find your views on this subject frightening, Professor Althouse.

Not your support of homosexual marriage; that doesn't frighten me.

What frightens me is that as a law school prof, you are so casually careless about the basic roles of legislature and judiciary.

As you ought to know, Justice Scalia ran circles around your viewpoint in his Lawrence dissent. To wit:

****
One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple’s Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

Revenant said...

Scalia assumes the court will be bound by the logical implications of their rulings. He certainly can't claim to have been, so why assume the other eight justices will be?

E.g., to avoid addressing the fact that the Commerce clause clearly should not regulate private use of privately-grown agricultural products, he invented a Necessary and Proper basis for banning it. The court can, and does, pull similar stunts all the time.

Chuck said...

Revenant, we both know that you are talking about Gonzalez v. Raich. Which Professor Volokh did a good job of explaining, here:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/09/understanding-justice-scalias-concurring-opinion-in-raich/

n.n said...

The selective "principles" of the Left are simply hilarious. They don't support equal protection in equal measure. Their principle interest is in issues which can be exploited for political, economic, and social leverage.

They support involuntary exploitation (e.g. redistributive change) both through direct (e.g. taxation) and indirect (e.g. trillion dollar account deficits) methods.

They denigrate individual dignity (i.e. "diversity").

They support premeditated murder (e.g. elective abortion) of wholly innocent human lives without cause and without due process.

They reject the principles of evolution as inconvenient to realizing their dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification.

They are fundamentally corrupt in principle and in practice.

Paul said...

Soon they will want polygamy legalized. Then polyandry. Later bestiality and man-boy live (yes pedophilia.)

Just watch. Once the idea marriage is not about a man and women, then it will be perverted to mean nothing.

And I hear Obama say he won't force churches to marry gays. Why how thoughtful of him!

Trashhauler said...

"Arguments such as: what is marriage for? are personal. There is no right or wrong answer to the question."

This statement is self-serving. Throughout history, society has supported and nurtured heterosexual marriage for a specific reason - caring for children. Until recently, the health and size of a country's population was considered one measure of national health. (See geopolitics.) Thus, relationships which provided and cared for children were considered relatively more valuable and were rewarded with special advantages.

Regardless of how many gay families have children (22% of lesbian couples and 5% of gay male couples), the primary purpose of their unions is not children. So, the question remains, what societal benefit is derived from rewarding gay marriages in the same way society has historically rewarded heterosexual unions? And another: If children are no longer valued as a national asset, then why continue rewarding marriages that produce them?

Harold said...

Feiler Faster Thesis applies.

Within a year, there will be a U.S. court that recognizes polygamy. It's ineveitable, as Althouse would say.

And by judicial decree, polygamy will be recognized.

And this will not result in a multiplication of those really nice families you see on Lifetime (I don't watch TV- if I've got the wrong channel- sue me!) It will aid Muslim enclaves in major cities. So within 7 years, you will see some cities in the US catch up with Paris and Copenhagen, starting with Dearbornistan, with no-go zones for police and scantily clad women, for sharia compliance in those areas will be mandatory. Young men in those areas will not be prosecuted for sexual harassment, for it will be impossible to find a randomly selected jury that will convict them. Rape? Well, she was asking for it! Oh, and those hard fought rights for gays to marry? Not applicable in the sharia compliant enclaves.

And within 10-15 years, some county or city bordering Mexico, with more non-citizen residents then citizens, will get a government elected that is La Raza oriented. A snap election will be announced, for the next week, if not the next day, in which all RESIDENTS may vote, to decide whether the city (county) will stay part of the United States or will join Mexico. Ten minutes after the last vote is cast, with U.N observers, who were already in place, the Mexican Army will come across the border and establish checkpoints at the new border. What happens next? Can't predict that. Don't know if the president is Republican or Democrat. And the U.N General Assmbly will vote immediately to recognize mexico's sovereignity over the area, baserd on a self determination vote...

Just predictions, but they come from current trends.

Harold said...

I've seen it in other posts on SSM, perhaps even here on Althouse. In regards to plenty of people asking if the statee can define marriage to mean anything it wants. It's a story attributed to Honest Abe, who is said to have asked "If you call a tail a leg, hoew many legs does a dog have?" "Why, five." people would answer. "No, a dog would still have 4 legs- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

Same goes with SSM. Even if recognized by the state, it ain't the real thing. It's imaginary. And I'm certain there's a whole lot people in the United States who think that way. Most of my friends and family to start. And the Amish and Mennonites in my community. And the Roman Catholics who believe in church teachings- and they do exist.

Skyler said...

You know the really perverse thing about this perversion of the definition of marriage? In order to stay alive through government Medicare old married couples have been getting divorced so that as one gets I'll and needs long term care the other will still have half of the estate to live on rather than it all being squandered to rate Medicare benefits.

So they have perverted the idea of marriage both as to what constitutes marriage and in having it mean a life time commitment.

Nothing government does is good.

I don't recognize America anymore.

DEEBEE said...

Thanks so much Ann for allowing us to catch our breath and help us scale the will of our prejudice, which I see you did in a lark.

PeterK said...

"It's about timing, slowing things down a bit and giving people a chance to accommodate to things. " ah yes they realize that if they did a ruling like SCOTUS did with Roe v Wade there would be another societal civil war.
all they are doing is a death by a thousand cuts. Hollywood and the other MSM have been beating the "homosexuality is normal" drum for the last 30 years or so. What we are seeing is that 98% of the population is being forced to bend to the will and desires of less than 2% of the population.
We are seeing the thousands of year old definition and understanding of what is marriage turned upside down and inside out.

Kirk Parker said...

Deirdre,

"Gahrie- so... what made it the basic building block of society? Why has it mattered until now?"

Previously we hadn't agreed with the Rousseaus of this world that we should commit cultural suicide.




"I don't want us to go back to that time but I doubt anyone spent much time worrying about the second order consequences."

The former second-order consequences: people tended to get stuck in a (or a few) bad relationships instead of going through a long sequence of them. Plus ca change, and all that.