October 20, 2008
Did Sarah Palin just come out in support of the federal marriage amendment?
She says: "[I]n my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage."
Somebody please ask her the follow-up question about the constitutional amendment. There are other things that can be done "on a federal level" to oppose same-sex marriage, and she only refers to amending the Alaskan constitution. These are important distinctions, because it is very hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and equally hard to repeal an amendment.
Nevertheless, this expressed desire to operate "on a federal level" shows no concern for the conventional conservative idea of leaving it to the states. In sliding from talking about what she's done in Alaska to the subject of federal law, she doesn't seem to have any instinct for federalism or perhaps even any awareness of it. And quite aside from any concern about the specific issue of gay marriage or the more general matter of federalism, there is a real absence of structured thinking here.
It's genuinely dismaying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
278 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 278 of 278Speaking of the sanctity of "marriage"...how many here have ever been divorced?
Let's see how many have the guts to respond honestly.
I'm guessing...few if any.
Donn said..."I wonder where BHO is campaigning today?"
And there you go, a perfect example of what I said.
Not only a racist, but not very bright.
regarding Simon @ 2:22 -- marriage has already been fundamentally redefined. Heterosexuals did it. Reagan had his hand in it.
mccullough said..."Michael, Freshman Senator Obama's fiscal policies will increase the federal deficit. He will increase troops in Afghanistan. We don't know what he'll do in Iraq because he hasn't figured it out yet but it'll probably be the same policy McCain has."
First of all, I have no idea how you know Obama's "fiscal policies" will increase the federal deficit. I haven't seen or heard them fleshed out yet, and based on what we've seen over the past 8 years...how much worse could it be?
Second, as for Afghanistan, Bush is already sending more troops, the generals are asking for more troops and we should have concentrated our efforts there in the first place.
Third, as for Iraq, Obama is going to pull out and let the Iraqis handle their own country...and considering it's a sovereign nation...isn't it their duty and right to do so?
Ann: Gutless.
I'm still trying to catch up with the comments. Michael, as far as I'm concerned, divorce and remarriage both undermine the traditional understanding of marriage being a life-long bond.
However, we've entered new territory when someone can divorce his spouse to marry his affair partner and still be considered a viable candidate for the party that claims the conservative label.
Peter: I agree.
Who Loves Ya, Baby
When Titus went away I wished that he had stayed.
Rewind reminds: a little Titus goes a long way.
Kojak loves ya, Titus.
Zach @ 2:25: the tongue-in-cheek amendment you are looking for is one that would ban celebrity marriages.
bjk @ 3:00 asked
Do you think the Pro-Life movement wishes it had a Constitutional Amendment on the issue of abortion before the Roe decision?
Of course you realize that the pro-life movement could push for an amendment that would overturn Roe? It could even push for an amendment that banned abortion outright.
If I could ask Governor Palin a follow up question, it would be this: Do you consider an amendment to prevent same-sex marriage more important than an amendment to end abortion?
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS TRUTH
I'm glad we finally got to a point in this discussion where someone articulated a reason for opposing polygamy. That's what's often missing from the right-to-gay-marriage-implies-right-to-polygamy argument. Let's say we believe polygamy is inherently misogynistic. Well, unless you can make a case that gay marriage is inherently misogynistic, the two situations are distinguishable.
Maybe the point is that a right to gay marriage must be based on some broader conception, like a right to marry anyone you love, and that that conception would embrace polygamy. Maybe so, but few constitutional rights are completely unqualified. Speech that is a criminal solicitation is not protected by the right of free speech and marriage that is inherently misogynistic need not be protected by a right of free marriage.
Althouse done gone and redonicated her banner: Law and law school, politics and the aversion to politics, high and low culture, and the way things look from Madison, Wisconsin.
Professor, I think that’s really nifty.
Really.
But if you’ll permit a well-intended suggestion . . .
I think maybe it would be more perfectly descriptified if you opened things up a little bit with an allusion to the wonderful performance art aspect of your blog, as follows:
. . . low culture, the way things look from Madison, Wisconsin and the unspeakable visions of the individual.
No wait!
That’s already taken!
DAMN!!!
** feels foolish **
** bails by linking to wholly gratuitous photo of Daniel Craig **
Michael, you are not accepted as a commenter because of rules you knowingly broke. Leave. I'm deleting all your posts, regardless of what you say.
AlphaLiberal said...
To the first part, the question is whether the decision of when a candidate wants to decide an issue federally or at the state level.
Option A: Following some framework of principles grounded in history or conviction or something.
There is plenty of historical precedent that shows that marriage, even from a legal point of view, is between one man and one woman. It has only become an issue because homosexual feel they have that ability as well. So they are pushing to get that same ability. However, there methods to attack the issues of partnership rights to estates and medical decision applying to them as well have been addressed. Now they have the judiciary dismantling the tradition of marriage wholesale by finding rights where none existed.
Option B: Whatever works to move the agenda forward. This seems tpo be the Palin framework. a.k.a. "opportunistic".)
It's the homosexual lobby that is trying to move their agenda forward. The Palin framework as you put it is to stop that agenda. If you see that as a problem, then support those initiatives that use the ballot box as the final arbiter, not the judiciary.
To the second part, I have no idea what you're saying.
That is my fault and I fully apologize for ending that sentence so abruptly and having it make no sense. What I didn't finish saying was that if a federal marriage amendment was to be instituted, then no state legislature, state referendum, or state initiative process could trump that federal law with an amendment repeal. Which would effectively cut the judiciary off at the knees.
That's why Prop 8 in California seeks to amend the state Constitution to hopefully avoid a federal amendment fight. The only way to do that would be to have a federal amendment nationalizing homosexual marriage, which I assure you isn't even in the same universe as a federal amendment sanctioning only heterosexual marriage. At least right now there is no fire in the belly from inside the beltway to put something like that on the Amendment track, so obviously the federal side of things is seeing how the state side fleshes itself out.
But what I can tell you is that if enough state supreme courts start finding these rights in their Constitutions allowing homosexual marriage, then you will see the fight for a federal amendment to really take on a new tone.
The whole marriage ban issue is not meant to be "won" by Republicans. They just use it as red meat for their bigoted base. It's good for distracting and dividing.
It's not a Republican issue. It's a tradition conservative vs. leftist progressive/homosexual lobby issue. Calling people who view traditional marriage as bigoted only illustrates your ignorance on traditionalists and/or the conservative movement and what it means to those people. Even your two leftist boys running for Pres/VP don't support your cause. You don't need to be talking to me. Instead you should be getting their attention. Good luck.
By the way, although it's fun to talk about, there will not be a federal amendment to ban gay marriage unless there is some radical change in U.S. political culture.
It's easy to come up with 13 states already that will not go for this. I'd give 100:1 odds that there will be no federal Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in, say, the next 10 years.
I'd give 20:1 odds that there will be no federal Constitutional amendment reserving the issue to the states in that time frame.
Well, unless you can make a case that gay marriage is inherently misogynistic, the two situations are distinguishable.
That only matters inasmuch as people are allowed to vote on the issues. If you have an inborn right to marry whomever you want, it doesn't matter if your marriage is misogynistic; misogyny isn't unconstitutional. Polygamy would have to be allowed, however odious it might be.
I know it's hard for you to kick someone off this blog, but I'm glad to see that you do have boundaries & will enforce them. Yes, those boundaries are very, very wide - but they are there.
Zerovoice, you are probably right about the gay marriage amendment not passing. Attitudes can shift quickly if people perceive that the courts and political elites are ignoring them, though. That's what happened here in California -- we went from a solid majority being opposed to a Constitutional ban on gay marriage to a solid majority in favor of it, largely because of one court decision and a few Democratic politicians' inability to disguise their contempt for the voters.
If the Supreme Court discovers a right to gay marriage in the Constitution, I would not rule out a surge in support for a Constitutional amendment banning it. I wouldn't say it was *likely*, but the odds are definitely better than 1 in 100.
Not me. I'm happy here. Nice to be around everyone this evening.
It's rainy here. I like dark, rainy late afternoons. The light is soft; everything appears in black ans white.
We're taking a vote to kick that other guy out of le club d'Michael.
Michael said...
Speaking of the sanctity of "marriage"...how many here have ever been divorced?
Let's see how many have the guts to respond honestly.
I'm guessing...few if any.
Hey moron. I've been married once and I don't plan on divorcing. Neither does my wife. With the divorce rate falling (please look at the National Center for Health Statistics) your moronic argument also falls with it. Did baby lose his paci?
The issue isn't whether misogyny is unconstitutional. Criminal solicitation is not unconstitutional either. The issue is what considerations might enter into qualifying constitutional rights.
miller...suck harder.
Ann Althouse said...
Michael, you are not accepted as a commenter because of rules you knowingly broke. Leave. I'm deleting all your posts, regardless of what you say.
Ooooo. Drama. What is happening here?
Well, if I knew you well enough to reveal my identity, I'd take that bet. A federal constitutional amendment requires not just opposition to gay marriage but a belief that one's own state should not be able to permit gay marriage, ever.
We'll see what happens on Prop 8 on election day. I agree that the items you mention may be factors but I think that there are others.
Michael:
Not only a racist, but not very bright.
So I get called "not very bright" by a guy who continues to post here, even after being told everything he types will be deleted. Got it!
Michael is Luckyoldson who is a slow learner.
Good evening.
I just went for a terrific walk with my babies tonight.
A couple of important items:
1)I am having my dindin of thin crust pizza with goat cheese and cranberries-I love cranberries on pizza.
2)It is apple cider season. This weekend I will be going on my fall weekend to the Berkshires. It will be just the rare clumbers and myself. I particularly enjoy my cider unpasteurized or raw pressed.
3)I feel terribly that Ricpic wishes I wouldn't of come back to the site.
4)My 21 year old booty call was in prison for 6 months. Now I like him even more. He is sounding all the right notes. Works at a gas station, totally dumb, been in the slammer, barely speaks english, and looks like a thug with ink everywhere. I hear wedding bells. My parents would be so happy.
ZeroVoice said...
"Let's say we believe polygamy is inherently misogynistic. Well, unless you can make a case that gay marriage is inherently misogynistic, the two situations are distinguishable."
That misses the point. The point isn't that gay marriage and polygamy are indistinguishable. The point is that both are outside of the traditional definition of marriage, and once you declare that tradition no longer defines the institution of marriage, you can't assert tradition as a defense against claims that marriage should include polygamous couples.
"By the way, although it's fun to talk about, there will not be a federal amendment to ban gay marriage unless there is some radical change in U.S. political culture. ¶ It's easy to come up with 13 states already that will not go for this. I'd give 100:1 odds that there will be no federal Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in, say, the next 10 years."
Nearly two and a half years ago, I wrote a post - actually my very first post at SF! - showing why the FMA was dead on arrival even if Congress ratified it.
"A federal constitutional amendment requires not just opposition to gay marriage but a belief that one's own state should not be able to permit gay marriage, ever."
Depends what the amendment says. As I said upthread, I could support an amendment that did no more than preventing the federal courts inventing a constitutional right to gay marriage. It could be as simple as "Nothing in this constitution shall be construed as limiting the power of the states or the federal government to define marriage and confer benefits accordingly." I wouldn't support any of the "marriage shall consist of a man and a woman" stuff.
Rev, In the event that the court did so, I think the situation would be more akin to the flag burning amendment than to California's reaction to its Supreme Court's decision. The amendment would be popular, but it would fail. That's just the realpolitik geography of it.
Ann: How will I live?
Ann, you and I both know (as do any of the commenters who visit on a regular basis) that you have this blog site for one reason: You're a narcissist who loves the attention of a small and relatively uneducated and uninformed sycophants who evidently worship the ground you walk on.
You're not banning me because of some rule being broken, others do it every day of the week and you know it.
You're doing it because you're under pressure from your pack of worshippers, who se the site as some kind of playground for conservatism, and just can't, under any circumstances, stand to have anyone disagree with whatever they already believe.
Just look at the comments:
95% of your "regulars" agree about damn near everything posted. They hate Obama, they hate Biden, they love Bush, they love McCain, they love Palin, they're against any form of what they consider to be "socialism," although many obviously accept medicare, medicaid, social security and other "socialistic" programs, and many of them are out and out racists and homophobes.
And of course, they ALL absolutely refuse to ever admit to being wrong or that someone else just might have a contrary view that is correct.
So...godd riddance.
Let the "suckfest" continue.
The over/under for Michael/Luckyoldson returning as a new sock puppet is two weeks.
Troop--
Give him credit where due: LOS was gone for a couple months before re-emerging as the turd Micheal.
A federal constitutional amendment requires not just opposition to gay marriage but a belief that one's own state should not be able to permit gay marriage, ever.
Well, no, if for no other reason than it could be repealed. And that's not really less likely than it being passed in the first place. Which is to say, not likely at all.
I'll take the under on that.
I'll take the under on that.
Ditto.
Simon, I was responding to the comment reproduced below. Tradition, in the sense of what specific marriage types have been recognized in the past, is not the only conceivable basis for bounding a marriage right. It might be the only one that you think is legitimate, but that gets into a larger issue.
The point I'm making is that abandoning "tradition" compels recognition of polygamy only on a specific meaning of "compel."
***
"I mean, let me put this another way. If you can tell me why we can say yes to gay marriage without requiring that we later say yes to polygamy, I have no dog in this fight. But it seems to me that the only rationales offered for allowing gay marriage compel the result that polygamy is okay too, and that is flatly unacceptable. How can you ask me to accept something I'm indifferent to today while conceding that it will lead to something I abhor tomorrow?"
The issue is what considerations might enter into qualifying constitutional rights.
I think you're missing the point. People aren't arguing that the Constitution contains a right specifically granting marriage rights to gay people. They're claiming there is some other, larger right relating to marriage that happens to *encompass* gay people. The question is, how is this right formulated such that it does not also grant marriage rights to polygamists.
"Polygamy is misogynistic" is a reason to dislike polygamy. It is not an argument against the idea that a constitutional "marriage right" protects polygamy.
The flavors of the cranberry/goat cheese/tomato sauce and thin crust lighten up my taste buds. They are pulsating with flavor. They are bursting with excitement. They are enlarged and ready to explode.
per host with the most at 1:28:
Can anyone answer the rhetorical question I ask? I'll hit the return key twice while waiting for any replies.
None?WAITAMINUTEIHAVESOMETHINGTOINTERJECTHERE I thought not.
I am an awesome debater.
Damn. You're good.
"Depends what the amendment says."
I was referring specifically to a federal amendment banning gay marriage - the 100:1 proposition I offered in my post and about the odds of which revenant disagreed.
The "nothing in this constitution shall limit the power to define" language seems awkward to me as applied to the federal government, as it seems to imply that the federal government has some powers that exist outside the Constitution. Although it doesn't literally say that, I think the language could be drafted better. Anyway, it's a minor point.
blake, fair point. I meant that such an amendment would be a transfer of power from my state to "someone else" that my state can't revoke.
revenant, I think you're missing my point. I expressly addressed the argument you just made in my original post. You keep asserting that anti-misogyny cannot limit a right, but my point is that you need a reason for that.
Things that are policy considerations (such as avoiding crimes and unreasonable expressions of speech) do limit constitutional rights. I am submitting that the anti-misogyny - even if it is "no more than" a policy consideration, which is contested - may also limit constitutional rights.
I suspect you believe that only traditional limits on rights are legitimate, so it's not that anti-crime is a policy that is important - it's that anti-crime is a traditional limit on speech.
We'll have to agree to disagree there.
The only point I'm making here is that your analysis requires a reason that anti-misogyny cannot limit a marriage right.
ZeroVoice said...
"Tradition, in the sense of what specific marriage types have been recognized in the past, is not the only conceivable basis for bounding a marriage right."
What alternative basis do you offer? You need to posit one for your comment to hold, do you not? If tradition isn't going to define the institution of marriage, what will, and if all the inertia of two millennia of tradition can't stop rationalists from unilaterally redefining it in this generation, can anything you'd offer as an alternative possibly be a strong enough force to withstand the desire of a later generation to make changes that seem reasonable to them?
I know we're not responding, but I find it hilarious that he who won't be named chooses to comment on how much Althouse just wants to surround herself with dittoheads to whom she kowtows comes as a comment on this post, after the 241 comments appearing above this one. I just find that spectacularly ridiculous and incongruous.
Sarah Palin has a nice rack.
This is just my gay view but I sense that if Palin doesn't win this election she will not want to return to Alaska to be governor.
I believe she is enjoying campaigning and the "lower 48" and will want to do something else than returning to Wasilla. Something where she can make more money, be more visible than being governor of Alaska. This has got to be exciting for her and to return to Alaska I would think would be a downer.
Do any of you agree?
blake, fair point. I meant that such an amendment would be a transfer of power from my state to "someone else" that my state can't revoke.
True.
You know, I'm an across-the-aisle kind of guy, myself. (Actually, I'm more in the aisle. Well, more like in the lobby, being escorted to the parking lot by security.)
But what I'm getting at is I can work across the divide that separates us.
Let's swap amendments:
I'll give you the 28th Amendment, minimally stating that the Federal government can't interfere with the states interpretation of marriage.
You give me the 29th Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, which is another case of Federal interference into state matters.
Deal?
Engorged, Titus. Engorged is better than enlarged.
Forget what I just said. Don't mind that you're back but the repertoire needs enlarging, not just engorging.
Titus, it is usually safer to disagree with you but actually I wish you may be right. Would it change your opinion of her one way or the other? Not that she is a hottie (and you would care about this, why?), but whatever you think of her as a person or as a politician.
No, I do not think she is tired of crappy Alaska, but I think she has a lot to offer the country - I will play safe and cite an Obama-voting lib, Mickey Kaus of kausfiles.com, to the effect that if she looks raw now, in two years on the scene she will achieve such mastery that Hillary Clinton will become invisible.
Egads, who'd live in DC without a reason? If you like swamps, better off in LA or FL where they have the real thing.
Titus,
I think she enjoys the spotlight and VP or not, we're going to be seeing a lot more of her in the next four years.
But do people live in Alaska without loving it? And if so, why?
Palin does have a nice rack and beautiful hips, I might add.
As to what happens to her after the election, should she lose? I doubt that's entirely in her hands. The pressure on her to become the titular* head of the Republicans will be enormous. I'd say she's a national figure from here on.
*Titular -- tits, too easy, not going there...oops.
We could recognize that marriage is a right but that like speech (and, I guess, the gun right) it's subject to reasonable restrictions. Marriages that as a class oppress women (substitute your own meaning of "misogyny" here) can reasonably be restricted.
Alternatively, we could say that marriage of equals is a right but polygamous marriages are inherently unequal (as are marriages between adults and children).
I haven't thought about it too much, but I'm not sure I care if a later generation has a different understanding of marriage and wants to redefine it again. You're imposing a requirement of permanence that I didn't sign up for. That may cause you to disagree with me, but I suspect it does so only as part of a larger disagreement that we will not resolve.
I would never live in DC. I would never want to be in a city where so many people are employed in government.
I can not think of anything grosser.
I don't agree with Palin on the issues but I do think she is talented and has potential. I also believe she is enjoying the limelight and all the action. She will lose that up in Alaska and that could be a bummer. I think she wants to be more where the action is. It doesn't have to be DC, but probably not Wasila.
I could see her work at a conservative think tank though. Or yes, fox news.
We could recognize that marriage is a right but that like speech (and, I guess, the gun right) it's subject to reasonable restrictions.
Like not letting gay people marry, for example.
Sure, you could have a debate over what restrictions are reasonable. I would think that the inherent misogyny of polygamy (if it exists) would be relevant to that debate.
Blake said...
"Let's swap amendments: I'll give you the 28th Amendment, minimally stating that the Federal government can't interfere with the states interpretation of marriage. You give me the 29th Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, which is another case of Federal interference into state matters."
Easterbrook has pointed out that the Sixteenth Amendment "gave the federal government the power to control 100% of the entire economy. It can tax income. It can not tax income, achieving its goals via tax expenditures, that is, by encouraging those things that aren't taxed. It can tax and then subsidize using the dollars that it's just collected from you, or it can grant the dollars back on condition. That combination of powers ... gives the federal government control over almost anything it chooses to control." Nevertheless, I have argued, partly in response, that the problem is not the Sixteenth Amendment; Congress has the power to do a great number of things that are a really bad idea. What I've argued is a problem - and must be repealed, or at least modified - is the Seventeenth Amendment, which eliminated the institutional representation of the states qua states in the federal institutional settlement. If you restore that link between the states and the federal government, a lot of the problems made possible by the Sixteenth Amendment are unlikely to come to pass, and at the same time we avoid the perverse incentives on Congress that eliminating the Sixteenth Amendment would create. Particularly in this moment, you don't want to give Congress an incentive to pass tariffs to fund government.
Unfortunately, I have to get to work now so I won't be commenting further for the time being. Thanks for the discussion.
I am sure there would be many conservatives at think tanks or conservative organizations that would love to have her join or lead.
I am sure many would love to titor her. I mean tutor her.
Nice chatting with you zerovoice. We had a good debate.
I find it fascinating that in this whole conversation no one has mentioned the role marriage plays in rearing children. Form follows function. Marriage is between two heterosexuals because only heterosexuals can naturally procreate. It has nothing to do with dresses, rings or cakes. It's designed to create as stable a society as possible. You may have noticed that the areas of town without a majority of married couples and their children are often the most unstable/violent/etc. In most societies, marriage has nothing to do with "I want..." This is probably the error that is leading to widespread acceptance of gay marriage. It wouldn't be happening if the Boomers had been more responsible. Maybe this is time for a reexamination of what legitimizing illegitamacy has done in this country. We all need to reexamine our prejudices.
If conservatives want more support for the FMA, it needs to include a ban on polygamy and child marriage. Better yet, I wish people would start arguing that a child has a civil right to a mother and father of opposing genders, given how Orwellian this discussion can be.
Any discussion of abortion as a woman's right needs to address how females are disproportionately targeted for abortion by virtue of their sex. Given immigration policy and the dictates of multiculturalism, this will become very relevant to the discussion surrounding abortion in this nation.
Maybe it's not a right. Just a medical procedure that is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not.
Why all this polygamy-bashing? There is such a thing as polyandry too, and misandry while we're at it. Assuming free choice 'n' such, what is that beef about?
Then again in theory the notion of adulthood along Biblical principles (12 for girls, 13 for boys) does not necessarily chill me, though it would certainly clash with the present culture, and might be difficult in practice (as could be said for poly, above). As it is, 18yos are already infantilized, which is really too bad.
But gay marriage - no, I don't see any point or upside, except to give some people what they want. Normalization of such deviancies is associated throughout history with the decline and fall of civilizations.
And I'm terribly sorry, but I can't imagine a couple in matching Vera Wang having what my parents have. Talk about lipstick on a pig! Or Rhett Butler's comments on dressing up a mule as a racehorse. I don't know how to say nicely that the notion is a travesty. In fact it seems chiefly designed to erode the institution of marriage and the family. I just can't see it.
On an earlier topic, though: Homosexuality as a genetic trait could be adaptive, in the context of a social form of evolution. Although in concept they cannot breed, it is possible that a homosexual without nuclear family of his/her own, would thus have lower resource demands and thus be able to contribute more to his or her family or social unit. And of course anti-gay social pressure could lead to breeding (or at least to mariages blancs) to show conformity to social norms.
I really have to see it as more comparable to bestiality than to polygamy.
OTOH, lindsey, re:
Better yet, I wish people would start arguing that a child has a civil right to a mother and father of opposing genders, given how Orwellian this discussion can be.
I have to say that being raised by a gay couple, or even by wolves, is probably better than our current system of foster care.
"I have to say that being raised by a gay couple, or even by wolves, is probably better than our current system of foster care."
I don't care if someone is raised by two mothers so long as there is an actual father (defined as biologically male) in the picture.
I've been taking extended breaks from this place over the past several weeks, and I feel like everytime I return to find the quality of discourse has slipped further into mudslinging idiocy. Either that, or the volume of that stuff is up along with these massive-length extended remix comment threads. 261 responses to this p.o.s. article? A month or two ago this kind of post would net around 60-80 before being pastured in favor of something newer/more interesting. Go figure.
Anyway, I wanted to give kudos to ZPS, with whom I seldom agree, for this most excellently well-written and laugh-out-loud piece of comedy gold, which summed things up pretty spectacularly before I stopped reading this dross tedium of a thread:
"I'm going to start putting heterosexual "marriage" in quotes from now on. In fact, whenever I see the word "wedding" or "civil union" or "engagement," I'm busting out the quotes. Oh, and I'll use air quotes if I happen to be talking about "marriage" instead of writing about it. Quotes around words indicate to people that the words don't really mean what they say they mean in context with the other "words" in the sentence. Oh yeah, I'm also going to be putting the word "words" in quotes now too, because nothing I say really means anything."
Extraordinarily well said!
ZPsire wrote: "Every piece of research I've read on the matter proves that being gay is genetic."
First, thanks for this post,the one where you slightly rewrote what I said and put quotes around it was incomprehensible. This one I understand.
And while you may be accurately describing your reading, you do not describe the gay community. About one in three gay people were sexually abused. Most were sexually abused by men. I have worked with many lesbian women that had their heterosexuality stolen from them by the abuse.
In a similar fashion, when I ask gay guys how they figured out they were gay, about 1 in 3 say that their uncle or someone "showed" them when they were 8 or so. The "uncle" is usually 30. That is sexual abuse too.
These reports are very different from the people I talk to who felt their attraction from an early age.
So some gay and lesbian and even transgendered folks are made, not born.
Trey
Simon, I do know you my friend. And if anyone has the temprament to be a true States' Rights guy, I believe that you could do it.
But I find myself sucked into the positives without considering the negatives. As I recognize this in myself, I see a lot of it in others. Currently, I think it is almost required of the naive but well intentioned federalists such as myself. And that is immaturity on our part.
Trey
I am divorced. Why do you ask Michael?
I have a 14 year old daughter from my first marriage. I remarried and have 6 year old triplets with my wife. My divorce was acrimonious and I spent $60,000 in mine and my family's money to keep joint custody of my daughter. She lives with us half time (thank God) and the divorce hurts her to this day.
I have NO doubt that my divorce was a sin. NONE. But since every time I look at a woman that is not my wife with lust I am offending God, I am used to knowing that I am sinful and wretched.
But God loves me, and He forgives me. He even blessed me with a family so wonderful and right for me that I tear up as I write this. That was after the divorce which I know was an abomination to God.
Are you thinking that because Christians know the difference between right and wrong we think we are never wrong? Perish the thought! We are Christians because we KNOW we are wrong and in dire need of forgiveness!
But I am not sure why it takes guts to be honest about my divorce.
Trey
"But I am not sure why it takes guts to be honest about my divorce.
Trey"
May I try to explain, Trey? It is because they can use it to hurt you and in some small way advance their political cause.
Since you profess a moral code, any transgression makes you a hypocrite and thus...bad in some special way. For some reason, a "foolish consistency" is no longer "the hobgoblin of small minds" but the byword of the Left.
If you advocate child rape, cannibalism, counterfeiting, whatever, it is somehow OK to do them; at least it is better than if you publicly oppose them.
I am firmly in the school of La Rochefoucald: Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue. IOW, even if you fail at adhering to a moral code, that is a step up from not having one, or having an immoral code and living up to it.
Which is basically what you have been saying, of course. Carry on ;>
Althouse done gone and redonicated her banner: Law and law school, politics and the aversion to politics, high and low culture, and the way things look from Madison, Wisconsin.
Ah, Bissage, had I wit enough to arrest the death of Venice as Althousian marquee, I would have done so. But, you must admit there are only so many Venetian masquerades one can use without them becoming unbearably recherché. We could plumb the depths of Vivaldi, Mahler, Stravinsky, and Thomas Mann (not to mention Robert Benchley), and found nothing suitable for an Althouse banner.
No, it's time for the Most Serene Republic to sink into the Adriatic, joining a pantheon of ghostly ensigns, only to be revived if Althouse ascends to the style of dogaressa, which, I am reliably informed will have nothing whatever to do with her acquiring a dog.
She did answer that question two weeks ago. I think we should be concerned about high gas prices here. The mainstream media illuminati have you thinking about what she did or didn't say. Think about not filling up your tanks!
blake said...
Let's swap amendments:
I'll give you the 28th Amendment, minimally stating that the Federal government can't interfere with the states interpretation of marriage.
You give me the 29th Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, which is another case of Federal interference into state matters.
Deal?
I'll buy that for a dollar...
lindsey,
I find it fascinating that in this whole conversation no one has mentioned the role marriage plays in rearing children.
Not so fascinating you actually read the whole thread, since Simon and I both mentioned it around 5:00pm.
Simon,
OK, let's repeal the 17th as a sop to republicanism. And we can add an amendment making abortion a state issue.
Nichevo,
I think it goes without saying that gay men and women used to get married and have children, just like heterosexuals. Because that's what was required.
If homosexuality were genetic, you'd expect to see it decrease as expectations for homosexuals to reproduce were reduced. I've seen no indication of that.
Trey,
But I find myself sucked into the positives without considering the negatives.
And the negatives of Federalism are considerable; they're just limited in scope.
That is the point, right? Not to create a perfect system, but to create 50 laboratories where better and worse can be seen in practice.
Look Ann....Palin is simply a horrorshow. Until the GOP can cowboyup and admit it, republicans will continue to self-brand as the party of teh Stupid and the bigots.
This is going to make worse problems for the GOP than the next 2 or 4 years of congress.....think about the 20.5 million college students (2006 census). How many of them are voting Obama isn't as big a problem for the GOP as how many of them will NEVER vote for a Republican? Or at least not for 20 years or so.
The GOP is all tactics, no strategy.
Or as we say Out Here in the West, all hat and no cattle.
Republicans love states' rights, except when they don't.
Thanks are in order.
Nichevo, thanks dude. If I were a hypocrit, it certainly COULD be used to hurt me. But since I am not much of a hypocrit, I am too busty messing up in other ways, I am immune.
Bottom line is that I try to follow a moral/spiritual code that is above me and I suck at it on a good day. But that is the difference between beeing human and being the Messiah I guess!
And thanks to BLAKE.
What a wonderful, succinct appology for federalism. Thanks dude, those points may have seemed obvios to you, but they were important for me to wrap my head around. You rock.
Trey
@peterhoh, 6:21 pm
Of course you realize that the pro-life movement could push for an amendment that would overturn Roe? It could even push for an amendment that banned abortion outright.
Sure, they could...but having had ample opportunity to do so over the past 30+ years, I would argue that the political will is not sufficiently there.
By contrast, the Gay Marriage question has been repeatedly put on the ballot with respect to state Constitutions....and have passed overwhelmingly. The people who vote for these amendments are voting to protect themselves against the Court system, and not to uphold the principles of federalism, IMO.
A Supreme Court ruling is one of the things which can kill the political will to action. (They're not final because they're right; they're right because they're final.) It's much easier to convince an audience to support your cause before nine people in robes tell them what the law is.
It's not about gay marriage as a priority over abortion, so much as it's a matter of a gay marriage ban amendment being far more probable (even if not all that likely).
Michael wrote: ..how many here have ever been divorced?
Nope. next question.
wheeler's wrote: Palin is simply a horrorshow. Until the GOP can cowboyup and admit it, republicans will continue to self-brand as the party of teh Stupid and the bigots.
Not sure I get the "self-branding" thing. You seem to be the one wielding the branding iron here, eager to inflict needless pain.
Blake:
If homosexuality were genetic, you'd expect to see it decrease as expectations for homosexuals to reproduce were reduced. I've seen no indication of that.
I think sometimes the debate breaks down here because of the differing ways in which the term "genetic" is used. I think some use it strictly in the sense of inherited, some in the sense of innate and some in the sense of both--the trickiest, not conceptually, but in terms of debate.
For myself, I think examples exist in the population of gay people of all three (the third being "created," because, yes, I think there is a subset of people who fall in that category, as Trey pointed out.)
Anyway, this comment isn't really on topic, so I'll leave it at that. I just wanted to throw that distinction out there.
Bottom line is that Obama and his left wing illuminati friends want each state to be able to decide regarding same sex marriage, even though he doesn't believe in same sex marriage....does anyone else think this sounds like he is trying to make everyone happy? DUH!
mnotaro is knowitall?
Or is there some fountain whence all the people who believe in the "left-wing illumanit" spreng.
Trey--
It wasn't obvious to me, though it seems that way now. American History is a useful thing to know. (Wish I'd learned some in school.)
reader--
Nah, it's not on topic, but it is interesting. For all the influence that Kinsey had, it's interesting that what didn't survive was a real appreciation of the complexity of human sexuality.
Post a Comment