tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post2740670909304073660..comments2024-03-19T00:44:18.309-05:00Comments on Althouse: This week, Paul Clement argues that a federal statute is constitutional.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62447476044619787122012-04-06T09:24:38.195-05:002012-04-06T09:24:38.195-05:00My vote: The answer is whatever the highest court ...My vote: The answer is whatever the highest court says in the end. <br /><br />My personal opinion:<br /><br />Outlawing gay marriage unfairly and unjustly deprives a class of citizens access to the benefits of one of society's basic institutions: Marriage. <br /><br /><i>Baby has a mother, baby has a father. Science has not figured out how to get around this.</i><br /><br />Yes science has - cloning. Societies have also "figured out how to get around this." It's called adoption.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3598799777425527702012-04-05T20:46:41.535-05:002012-04-05T20:46:41.535-05:00Bender:
Not sure you'll see this, but in case...Bender:<br /><br />Not sure you'll see this, but in case you do...<br /><br />The reason I asked about the way "full faith and credit" might have applied with mixed-race marriage is that it might be enlightening to how the courts will view this matter. <br /><br />I absolutely agree with you that the comparison is inapt, as to the essence of marriage; but it's not inapt as to how the law may view the matter.<br /><br />Make sense?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74688431155058030222012-04-05T20:42:08.090-05:002012-04-05T20:42:08.090-05:00Re: Mel:
DOMA is unconstitutional because it says...Re: Mel:<br /><br /><i>DOMA is unconstitutional because it says that the traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman is the only one the country can have. That violates the free exercise of religion for some sects of Mormonism, some sects of Islam, and tells atheists that they must act on someone else's religious beliefs. First Amendment says Congress can't make that law</i>.<br /><br />I think there's <i>long</i> standing precedent that the free-exercise clause doesn't prohibit Congress or the states from banning polygamy. There's a whole string of late 19th century cases in which the Supreme Court upholds all kinds of laws punishing polygamy against Mormon defendants who try to defend on grounds of religious freedom.<br /><br />Also, really, how <i>Judeo-Christian</i> is the ban on polygamy? Certainly in Roman times, polygamy appears to have been practiced by the Jews and I see no reason to doubt that early Christians practiced it as well. The ban on polygamy in Western civilisation traces not to Judeo-Christian religious sources but to the laws of the Roman Empire. Suetonius mentions that Caesar tried to legalise polygamy (at least for himself, personally), so the Roman ban on polygamy must already have been well-established in the Republican period. This ban was continued during the Empire in codes promulgated by Diocletian, and possibly other emperors.Balfegorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012196656096263507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6128151304946456292012-04-05T20:00:23.560-05:002012-04-05T20:00:23.560-05:00DOMA is unconstitutional because it says that the ...DOMA is unconstitutional because it says that the traditional Judeo-Christian view of marriage as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman is the only one the country can have. That violates the free exercise of religion for some sects of Mormonism, some sects of Islam, and tells atheists that they must act on someone else's religious beliefs. First Amendment says Congress can't make that law.<br /><br />The ACA is unconstitutional because there is nothing in the enumerated powers of the federal government that says that the federal government can force any individual engage in commerce or force any individual to enter into a contract with any other individual or company in order to have interstate commerce to regulate. <br /> Also, under current federal law, I must purchase health care insurance from an insurer in the state where I live. If I as an individual cannot engage in interstate commerce to purchase the mandated insurance coverage, how does the mandated coverage fall under the federal commerce clause?Melhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00932528721490130962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-5811246225154536522012-04-05T18:27:34.293-05:002012-04-05T18:27:34.293-05:00Blue@9 said...
In ancient Rome and Greece (and mo...Blue@9 said... <br /><i>In ancient Rome and Greece (and most ancient societies), women were the property of their fathers (or the man of the house if the father was dead) until marriage, at which point she was the property of her husband. A man could kill his child or wife for disobedience.</i><br /><br />Good points, Blue, but then again, back when those societies were alive and well, I could have killed you for any number of reasons.AllenShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08848966772462502893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77405560790299900852012-04-05T17:22:42.232-05:002012-04-05T17:22:42.232-05:00In case anyone is interested, here's a link to...In case anyone is interested, here's a link to this guy's piece. It was originally posted on a messageboard way back in the day. I have no idea if it's credible or not, but it's a fascinating read and it certainly gives you much to think about.<br /><br />http://bit.ly/HZGglqBlue@9https://www.blogger.com/profile/16371286571496793710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33194718872532242472012-04-05T17:10:18.045-05:002012-04-05T17:10:18.045-05:00About that "nuclear war strategist" and ...<i>About that "nuclear war strategist" and his plan for post-nuclear war survival, involving living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio --</i><br /><br />Something like that, but unlike Dr. Strangelove it would just be whoever happened to survive. But yeah, in a society with scarce resources and a problem of underpopulation, female fertility becomes an incredibly valuable resource. Men with guns would hoard and protect such resources, just as they would with food and water. I don't know if women would become property per se, but their freedom would become very restricted.Blue@9https://www.blogger.com/profile/16371286571496793710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82450305958469031762012-04-05T17:07:36.971-05:002012-04-05T17:07:36.971-05:00complete with left-wing tripe about ownership of w...<i>complete with left-wing tripe about ownership of women and fables. </i><br /><br />Excuse me? Fables? You've never heard the term paterfamilias? Marriage contracts? In ancient Rome and Greece (and most ancient societies), women were the property of their fathers (or the man of the house if the father was dead) until marriage, at which point she was the property of her husband. A man could kill his child or wife for disobedience. That's not left-wing tripe, that's just history. Shoot, there are still cultures around today where these "fables" go on. Just look at Afghanistan.Blue@9https://www.blogger.com/profile/16371286571496793710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39020164559081281732012-04-05T17:07:26.824-05:002012-04-05T17:07:26.824-05:00About that "nuclear war strategist" and ...About that "nuclear war strategist" and his plan for post-nuclear war survival, involving living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio --<br /><br /><i>General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned? <br /><br />Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.</i>Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70049241366318649412012-04-05T17:01:29.924-05:002012-04-05T17:01:29.924-05:00Oh, too late for you to start crying about being a...Oh, too late for you to start crying about being attacked, blue.<br /><br />You started with mocking and the slams, complete with left-wing tripe about ownership of women and fables. And when I call you on it, you start crying about being attacked.<br /><br />There is no mystery here about what I have said.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9245070136617496242012-04-05T17:01:09.897-05:002012-04-05T17:01:09.897-05:00That said, I am confident that lean years will com...<i>That said, I am confident that lean years will come again, and when they do, if civilisation has not collapsed utterly, older understandings of marriage will reassert themselves -- not consciously, perhaps, but in how and to what ends people use the marital form.</i><br /><br />I don't disagree with you here. I can definitely see a time when the social and political order to which we have grown accustomed breaks down and we revert to older practices.<br /><br />I remember reading a fascinating article by a guy who was essentially a nuclear war strategist during the Cold War. One fascinating prediction of his was that after a nuke war we would collapse into small, easily defended communities where women of child-bearing age would be cosseted (there's that word!).Blue@9https://www.blogger.com/profile/16371286571496793710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-9859352698869151002012-04-05T16:51:53.945-05:002012-04-05T16:51:53.945-05:00It's more than just love. I love a number of p...<i>It's more than just love. I love a number of people.</i><br /><br />That's right. It's not about prohibiting or limiting love.<br /><br />I love a number of people too. I love various other men.<br /><br />But that does not mean that it is possible for me to "marry" them. And it does not mean that any physical joinder with another man is an act of love, much less a fruitful and procreative love. It's not love, it's just sex.Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23434744236875117482012-04-05T16:49:08.309-05:002012-04-05T16:49:08.309-05:00Why don't you accept that it's possible fo...<i>Why don't you accept that it's possible for me to be a conservative Republican<br /><br />You lost any and all remaining credibility with that comment, "Marriage was contracted by the paterfamilias-- the 'owner' of the bride to be."</i><br /><br />Man, you are just a cipher. Why did I lose all credibility? Why can't you just say what you mean instead of attacking me?Blue@9https://www.blogger.com/profile/16371286571496793710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7873068744624228822012-04-05T16:47:19.284-05:002012-04-05T16:47:19.284-05:00Re: Blue@9:
I think love and commitment are enoug...Re: Blue@9:<br /><br /><i>I think love and commitment are enough. I didn't necessarily plan on having children when I married, but I was in love. If you took a survey across the country, I would guess 99% of respondents would say they married for love. Is that not enough</i>?<br /><br />and re: Lyssa:<br /><br /><i>It's more than just love. I love a number of people. There's only one person that I want to share almost everything that I own with, that I want to be responsible for me if I ever can't care for myself, that I want to share my life with,</i>. <br /><br />I wrote, quite purposefully:<br /><br /><i>it's cast a broad penumbra so that many non-procreative relationships <b>use the form for unrelated purposes (expressions of romantic fidelity, obtaining green cards, etc.)</b></i>,<br /><br />I'm absolutely not making a point about why particular people get married -- once the form of marriage has been established, legally, people can get married for pretty much <i>any reason they want</i>, whether it's because they love one person above all others and want to signify it with marriage, or because they want to get a green card and an American spouse is the quickest way to do it, or because they want a lot of money and there's a rich old man willing to marry them. You can try to imbue legal marriage with all kinds of poetry and romance, but it's a form, and people use it for all kinds of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with whatever purposes <i>you</i> may have for <i>your</i> marriages.<br /><br />The key question, I think, is why we have this form at all.<br /><br />The quality, I think, that distinguishes marriage from other expressions of romantic fidelity, or the grave solemnization of other interpersonal ties (blood brothers), or other means of obtaining residence permits or wealth, is that children come out it, and the children that come out of a marriage are one's legitimate heirs, and the heirs to one's family. If children weren't generally involved, and if people throughout the millenia of human civilization didn't have a recurring need to draw the line between legitimacy and bastardy, I honestly don't think marriage would have survived down to the present day. And indeed, in many communities within the US, the rate of marriage is so low, that you might as well say it <i>hasn't</i>. <br /><br />Now, none of this is to say that children <i>necessarily</i> come out. Just that if children <i>aren't</i> coming out, then there isn't really any need for the form. If it's available, sure, people will use it, and pour into it whatever significance they choose. But the other significance people attribute to marriage -- romantic attachment, for example -- changes from generation to generation. There is minimal continuity there, across the centuries, and if the peculiar form of marriage were unavailable, I have no doubt other forms would serve equally as well.<br /><br />At any rate, however, as you might guess, I think the form of marriage has already become more or less a dessicated shell -- illegitimacy is not really taken seriously as a public policy problem, and in our wealthy, atomised society, families no longer cohere across generations, and in general, there is much less anxiety about preserving stores of family wealth across generations. Across that backdrop, frankly, it hardly matters what becomes of the legal form of marriage. So while I'm intensely interested in all this, I can't say I particularly care what the ultimate outcome of the gay marriage or polygamy debates turns out to be.<br /><br />That said, I am confident that lean years will come again, and when they do, if civilisation has not collapsed utterly, older understandings of marriage will reassert themselves -- not consciously, perhaps, but in how and to what ends people use the marital form.Balfegorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012196656096263507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29514689924636895492012-04-05T16:42:30.374-05:002012-04-05T16:42:30.374-05:00Why don't you accept that it's possible fo...<i>Why don't you accept that it's possible for me to be a conservative Republican</i><br /><br />You lost any and all remaining credibility with that comment, "Marriage was contracted by the paterfamilias-- the 'owner' of the bride to be."Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56500682452483179512012-04-05T16:01:05.327-05:002012-04-05T16:01:05.327-05:00If marriage is reduced to a form for the solemniza...<i>If marriage is reduced to a form for the solemnization of romantic love without reference to procreation and legitimacy, what's the point?</i><br /><br />It's more than just love. I love a number of people. There's only one person that I want to share almost everything that I own with, that I want to be responsible for me if I ever can't care for myself, that I want to share my life with. There's a huge property component - (this is why long-term shacking up is so messy), basically the only things in our household that are "mine" or "his" are things that the other couldn't possibly use. If I have a problem, he helps me solve it, because what happens to me directly impacts him. <br /><br />In addition to love, it's a partnership unlike any other relationship.Lyssahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12324631552709270910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36688033159735589042012-04-05T15:45:48.605-05:002012-04-05T15:45:48.605-05:00Bender:
blue, it is you who are once again engagin...Bender:<br /><i>blue, it is you who are once again engaging in fables by bringing in that nonsense you learned in your leftist women's studies classes.</i><br /><br />Bender, that is a non-argument, and it's telling that you resort to this without any substantive response. And for your information, I've never taken a women's studies class. Why don't you accept that it's possible for me to be a conservative Republican and still support gay marriage?<br /><br /><br />Rusty:<br /><i>But legally it is. It has a definite meaning in society and law. You might not think it matters, but it does. Do you want to redefine the meaning? You can do that by changing the law, but how are you going to change larger society where the term 'marriage' has both social and religious meaning.</i><br /><br />Because the law follows the trends of society. I don't know if you've noticed, but acceptance of homosexuality is trending pretty quickly in our society. I will bet that in ten years gay marriage will be utterly uncontroversial. <br /><br />Marriage has already been wrested from its religious roots. If you don't believe me, go down to the courthouse with a girl and get married. No priests or rituals required.<br /><br /><i>Will changing it to include non traditional pairings cheapen its currency?<br />I don't think you can hijack the language in this sense and keep the meaning.</i><br /><br />I'm not proposing to hijack anything. Language follows usage.<br /><br /><br /><br />Balgefor:<br /><i>but the procreative bit is what makes marriage special and distinct from other deep interpersonal relationships --friends, lovers, etc. It's the designation of legitimate procreation and familial continuation. </i><br /><br />Old people get married too, even post-menopausal women. Impotent men too.<br /><br /><i>If marriage is reduced to a form for the solemnization of romantic love without reference to procreation and legitimacy, what's the point?</i><br /><br />I think love and commitment are enough. I didn't necessarily plan on having children when I married, but I was in love. If you took a survey across the country, I would guess 99% of respondents would say they married for love. Is that not enough? <br /><br /><i>Why is eros more deserving than, say, philia or storge? And empirically, people can develop deep romantic relationships with multiple lovers (that's why they cheat, after all), so why limit it to one?</i><br /><br />My response to the polygamy question is that it's just a matter of practical governance. A one-to-one bilateral relationship is easy to keep track of and integrate into our society. Multiple partners leads to incredible complexities that are difficult, if not impossible, to iron out. Two examples: (1) If A marries B, and B marries C, are A and C also married? (2) What if a rich guy pays 100 homeless women to marry him for $100 each? His tax benefits would tremendous.<br /><br /><i>once you take procreation out of it, it really makes no sense.</i><br /><br />And yet it makes perfect sense for millions of everyday Americans who don't have kids, don't plan to have kids, or can't have kids. Love is enough. Besides, why would I be against gay people committing to a monogamous relationship? How does that benefit me or society?Blue@9https://www.blogger.com/profile/16371286571496793710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62805423689678156862012-04-05T15:37:51.457-05:002012-04-05T15:37:51.457-05:00As these kids grow up and the baby boomers die off...<i>As these kids grow up and the baby boomers die off, gay marriage will be as accepted and uncontroversial as interracial marriage is now.</i><br /><br />The breeders shall inherit the earth.Saint Croixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17876368500159112781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3460342290889184542012-04-05T14:58:43.625-05:002012-04-05T14:58:43.625-05:00Now imagine for a moment that Kerry had won the 20...Now imagine for a moment that Kerry had won the 2004 election and the next 2 justices were liberals instead of Roberts and Alito.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79625707721616802652012-04-05T14:39:55.532-05:002012-04-05T14:39:55.532-05:00Here's an argument from a limited government p...Here's an argument from a limited government point-of-view:<br /><br /><a href="http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2009/10/whats-in-it-for-us-limited-government.html" rel="nofollow">What’s in it for U.S.?: The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage</a>:<br /><br />"...Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all?...<br /><br />...The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say what marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail."Porkopolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03632539668123576788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88787976458341104922012-04-05T14:36:28.328-05:002012-04-05T14:36:28.328-05:00Federal or state governments may not define "...Federal or state governments may not define "marriage" for tax or other purposes for the same reason they may not define "prayer" for tax purposes. They can't include or exclude gay marriage for the same reason they can't decide adult vs. infant baptism. That violates the 1rst amendment and (in the case of states) section 1 of the 14th.<br /><br />ACA Health care mandates violate the 9th amendment (which was supposed to be unnecessary) because there's just nothing granting Congress the power to tell you what you can buy.<br /><br />But, if there were 5 truly honest people in the Supreme Court, most of the federal government would have to disappear.UncommonMurrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999723370789881734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66895429266802015902012-04-05T14:35:43.653-05:002012-04-05T14:35:43.653-05:00It simply isn't, no more than the old fable th...<i>It simply isn't, no more than the old fable that marriage exists solely for procreation</i>.<br /><br />That's not the <i>only</i> purpose it serves (historically, at least in the English-speaking countries, there's also been an ideal of companionate marriage and there's that bit in the marriage ceremony about restraint of lusts, etc.), but the procreative bit is what makes marriage special and distinct from other deep interpersonal relationships --friends, lovers, etc. It's the designation of legitimate procreation and familial continuation. And while the romantic love bit is highly variable across cultures, the procreation and familial succession concepts are sort of the least-common-denominator that lets us recognise marriage equivalents in other cultures (as opposed to, say, blood brother ceremonies or whatever).<br /><br />If marriage is reduced to a form for the solemnization of romantic love <i>without</i> reference to procreation and legitimacy, what's the point? Why is <i>eros</i> more deserving than, say, <i>philia</i> or <i>storge</i>? And empirically, people can develop deep romantic relationships with multiple lovers (that's why they cheat, after all), so why limit it to one?<br /><br />Marriage serves many purposes, and it's cast a broad penumbra so that many non-procreative relationships use the form for unrelated purposes (expressions of romantic fidelity, obtaining green cards, etc.), but once you take procreation out of it, it really makes no sense.Balfegorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012196656096263507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47943704267685596372012-04-05T14:29:44.386-05:002012-04-05T14:29:44.386-05:00Here's a deal. I'll trade striking down DO...Here's a deal. I'll trade striking down DOMA for ACA strike down. Now normally being a libertarian, I'm against DOMA on the principle, but I'm willing to engage in some horse-trading to get the bigger thing I want.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11205752419540502278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57438642298701169882012-04-05T14:28:43.349-05:002012-04-05T14:28:43.349-05:00Today being Opening Day, should a pitcher be permi...Today being Opening Day, should a pitcher be permitted to kick a field goal or the batter be permitted to score a touchdown?Benderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322135500288738561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7909094045048295312012-04-05T14:28:28.395-05:002012-04-05T14:28:28.395-05:00You've taken *one* aspect of marriage from way...You've taken *one* aspect of marriage from way-back-when, the man + woman component, and now pretend that this is the one unassailable characteristic that defines marriage.<br /><br />But legally it is. It has a definite meaning in society and law. You might not think it matters, but it does. Do you want to redefine the meaning? You can do that by changing the law, but how are you going to change larger society where the term 'marriage' has both social and religious meaning. Will changing it to include non traditional pairings cheapen its currency?<br />I don't think you can hijack the language in this sense and keep the meaning.Rustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00938263272237104128noreply@blogger.com