Althouse: "Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution."

February 26, 2014

"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution."

"These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."

303 comments:

1 – 200 of 303 Newer› Newest»

Gahrie said...: Golf clap; 2/26/14, 2:20 PM
Bob Ellison said...: So how can willful polygamy rightfully be outlawed?; 2/26/14, 2:23 PM
garage mahal said...: Looking at you, Arizona.; 2/26/14, 2:25 PM
madAsHell said...: People will start marrying their dogs because there is a tax incentive.; 2/26/14, 2:26 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/26/14, 2:27 PM
Lyssa said...: You know, I think that my ultimate problem with these cases (which seem unstoppable now) is that I object generally (though perhaps not universally) to overall rational purpose doctrine, on the basis that it puts the courts in the position of a "super-legislature."

I'm pro-gay marriage, but that makes it hard to be happy about these cases. I hope that they are not the harbinger of a new wave of super-legislative decisions.; 2/26/14, 2:28 PM
Farmer said...: So if there's no legitimate governmental purpose to state-imposed "inequality" re: gay marriage, is there any re: polygamous marriage? Incestuous marriage? Human-animal marriage? I mean, apparently nobody's going to argue children should be allowed to marry (at least not yet) but other than that, anything should go, right, gay marriage supporters? If government is discriminating against gays by refusing to allow them to marry each other, how can they have the right to continue to discriminate against anyone else? Why is this fight only about the rights of one small group? Why aren't they fighting for everyone's rights?

Imagine an argument in the 1950s that would've excluded Asians and Latinos from the benefits and rights blacks were fighting for.; 2/26/14, 2:28 PM
Mark said...: Took 7 comments to get someone bringing up human animal marriage.

Is this place Arizona?; 2/26/14, 2:29 PM
Farmer said...: Bob Ellison said...
So how can willful polygamy rightfully be outlawed?

I should've looked again before posting. High-five, Bob Ellison!

It can't. Gay marriage supporters don't care, either. But it would've been politically disastrous to admit that back when they were dismissing the idea as nothing more than the outlandish product of a bunch of bigoted religious minds.; 2/26/14, 2:30 PM
Farmer said...: Mark said...
Took 7 comments to get someone bringing up human animal marriage.

And only 8 for you to avoid the question.; 2/26/14, 2:31 PM
SGT Ted said...: It ain't over til it's over.; 2/26/14, 2:33 PM
n.n said...: Equal protection for those human lives which have been decimated by women's rights? No, something trivial, and antithetical to equality. It must be nice to live under the rainbow.

Bob Ellison:

With the normalization of homosexual behavior, there is no legitimate argument to oppose normalizing relationships of other quantity, quality, and form. The current regime of arbitrary discrimination is immoral, and the proponents of normalizing homosexual behavior should be reminded of their selective and arbitrary interest in equality.

madAsHell:

There is a minority who has been denied the right to marry their pet(s). Fortunately, with the normalization of homosexual behavior, evolutionary fitness is no longer a concern. With the normalization of abortion, freakish reproductions can be terminated at will. We already terminate viable human lives by the millions. Go forth and marry your dog, and be sure to register him for Obamacare.; 2/26/14, 2:34 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Lyssa, thank you for that comment. I'm totally with you, and I hate the notion that courts can just make up tests that let them make up laws.; 2/26/14, 2:36 PM
Lyssa said...: If government is discriminating against gays by refusing to allow them to marry each other, how can they have the right to continue to discriminate against anyone else? Why is this fight only about the rights of one small group? Why aren't they fighting for everyone's rights?

In theory, these restrictions should stand as long as there is a rational basis for them to stand. I think that there unquestionably is, and that that rational basis is far stronger than the rational basis against gay marriage (although I disagree with the court that there is no rational basis there - bear in mind that rational basis shouldn't just mean something that you agree with).

The rational basis against polygamy would have to do with the incredible complexity of family law already, made far more complex by adding additional people. The rational basis against incest has to do with exploitation and children. Neither of those are issues in gay marriage.

All that said, I don't believe for a second that, should either of these become fashionable, the court won't decide there is no rational basis against them as well.; 2/26/14, 2:38 PM
Crimso said...: "Looking at you, Arizona."

So, too, is the NFL. Ironic, isn't it? The NFL is threatening to refuse to do business in a state if that state passes a law allowing businesses to refuse customers with whom they disagree.; 2/26/14, 2:40 PM
Simon said...: Inevitable.

All this has been inevitable since Lawrence. The wonder is that it took so long.; 2/26/14, 2:41 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex.

No. The law denies the plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage because they don't want to be married. They want to be in a same sex relationship and have that called a marriage.

The tail is still not a leg.; 2/26/14, 2:42 PM
Simon said...: Bob Ellison said...
"So how can willful polygamy rightfully be outlawed?"

It can't be. It's done. It's the walking dead. So are statutes against incest. Unless or until Lawrence is overruled, it's radioactive effects are going to corrupt everything in range.; 2/26/14, 2:42 PM
Gabriel said...: In order to give black people full civil rights, we had to amend the Constitution.

In order to give women full civil rights, we had to amend the Constitution.

Now we just declare things to be unconstitutional. None of the contemporaneous discussion around the ratification of the 14th amendment involved gay marriage.; 2/26/14, 2:44 PM
Simon said...: Remember, Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005), didn't really say "no," it said "not yet."; 2/26/14, 2:46 PM
Drago said...: Well what's it going to be garage?

Polygamy: yes or no?

And if no, upon what basis?

Don't be afraid to show your work.; 2/26/14, 2:48 PM
Titus said...: Sweet, those Texas crazies are going to start going nuts....totally love it.; 2/26/14, 2:50 PM
Mark said...: Crismo, they NFL is not refusing to do business with Arizona. The Cardinals are not moving.

Choosing to have your big event elsewhere in no way stops the business the NFL does in Arizona every Sunday.; 2/26/14, 2:51 PM
B said...: "These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to more than one person."

How long before we see this?; 2/26/14, 2:54 PM
Ironclad said...: Explain to me now how you can justify any difference between benefits for married couples versus singles under this logic. How can any difference be justified for groups be considered as not being a form of state imposed inequality?

This is the logical conclusion for screwing with the definition of marriage - I just can't wait for the fireworks when other groups start demanding all these new found rights; 2/26/14, 2:59 PM
n.n said...: Ignorance is Bliss:

No, they are in a loving relationship, which is apparently the only criterion for marriage. This means that the new standard creates a moral hazard where arbitrary discrimination is the law.

The traditional criteria of normalizing behaviors is that they have a value for society and perhaps humanity... Well, it's traditional, and cause for generational rebels to pout. The natural standard of fitness (i.e. evolutionary fitness) has lost favor with libertines and intelligent designers. The progressive standard is just do what feels good and reduce the problem set, respectively.; 2/26/14, 2:59 PM
garage mahal said...: Polygamy: yes or no?

I believe it's already decriminalized in Utah. Maybe move there? Or fight in the courts where you live. I don't have a problem with it.; 2/26/14, 3:00 PM
PB said...: Of course, polygamy is next. Now that they're able to combine one man and two women to make one baby, it must be essential that the father and both mothers have the rights and benefits of marriage available to them.

This neatly skirts the issue of, what is special about two?

What we have here is the massive, active, near real-time redefinition of words such that we have truly passed through the looking glass.; 2/26/14, 3:02 PM
jr565 said...: Bob Ellison wrote:
"So how can willful polygamy rightfully be outlawed?"

"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution,"
The judge is determining that there is still a rational reason to ban polygamy because that's what the judge thinks. And if he thinks otherwise then it's not rational.; 2/26/14, 3:03 PM
PB said...: Government needs to get completely out of the marriage business. Instead of working to eliminate laws that protect marriage, we should eliminate all laws that favor or disfavor it.; 2/26/14, 3:04 PM
jr565 said...: garage mahal wrote:
I believe it's already decriminalized in Utah. Maybe move there? Or fight in the courts where you live. I don't have a problem with it.

Are you going to call people bigots if THEY have a problem with it?; 2/26/14, 3:04 PM
Farmer said...: Ironclad said...
I just can't wait for the fireworks when other groups start demanding all these new found rights

Neither can the people who started this fight.; 2/26/14, 3:05 PM
Drago said...: garage: "Maybe move there?"

Oh, so you'd be cool with the Arizona legislation being signing into law and the gays in AZ could simply move to MA.

You know, "move there?".

Don't worry, no one expects you to be consistent.

Stop fretting.

Moving on..

So, now that you don't have a problem with polygamy, where would you stand on say, 3 men and 4 women all marrying each other?

Problem with that?

How about 57 different people, each one a different category of the now facebook codified 57 gender types, getting married.

Problem with that?

If so, explain.

Again, don't be afraid to simply articulate a PRINCIPLE.

Otherwise, it's apparent there really is no "end point".; 2/26/14, 3:05 PM
jr565 said...: garage mahal wrote:
I believe it's already decriminalized in Utah.

Um, what?; 2/26/14, 3:05 PM
Renee said...: I appreciate the mentioning the term 'responsibilities' in the quote.

If matrimony from its Latin roots of language references the act that lead to motherhood, why would I call two men who care and love with one another that?

I'm not denying many positive aspects that can come from a same-sex relationship, but why can't we acknowledge the differences for public policy?

But we have unlinked paternity from matrimony, but the federal government still cares about marriage, despite the courts ruling and legal restraints to call it marriage in public policy.

“Fatherhood Initiatives:
Connecting Fathers to Their Children
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
January 28, 2014″

"Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes as adults."

See the date and year? It says, 2014. This year. Last month!

The rational of marriage was to connect fathers to their children, by promoting the idea that couples would be married before children came along from the sexual relationship. Biological kinship matters, in the same old fashion antiquated way we use to say marriage matters.

" It is an undisputed fact that the vast majority of procreation still occurs as a result of sexual intercourse between a male and a female. In light of such a fact, “[t]he State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children."
Howard Law Journal quoting New York's Appellate Division 2006

I"m not in complete despair, people know everyone has a mom and dad and they are equally important. "Paternity Court" was renewed for a second season. It is widely popular.

Maybe the Catholic Church will rename the Sacrament of Matrimony to Sacrament of Paternity?; 2/26/14, 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: No doubt the Texas state government will come up with some anti gay law based on religious exception, that makes it legal to discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else) like Arizona.; 2/26/14, 3:08 PM
Jane the Actuary said...: "Legitimate governmental purpose" -- funny how courts are now simply declaring that states have to have a "good reason" to prohibit gay marriage, and no reason ever quite meets this threshhold. One suspects that, if their "rational basis test" could be considered purely in isolation, there would be no rational basis for any of the benefits provided to married couples and withheld from other relationships (e.g., ability to bequeath property without an estate tax), or, conversely, benefits withheld from married couples (eligibility for welfare).; 2/26/14, 3:08 PM
Simon said...: B said...
"How long before we see this?"

Before the end of the next administration. It's coming. Lawrence pumped the gas; Windsor lit the match.; 2/26/14, 3:08 PM
Lyssa said...: Garage said: Polygamy: yes or no?

I believe it's already decriminalized in Utah. Maybe move there? Or fight in the courts where you live. I don't have a problem with it.

You realize that we're not discussing criminalization, but civil recognition of the marriage, along with the benefits thereof, right?; 2/26/14, 3:08 PM
jr565 said...: "The judge is determining that there is still a rational reason to ban polygamy because that's what the judge thinks. And if he thinks otherwise then it's not rational. "
So, all you'd need to legalize underage marriage is to find one judge who doesn't have a problem with NAMBLA. He just doesn't see the rational basis for denying kids the right to marry adults as being valid.Who cares what the legislature says.; 2/26/14, 3:08 PM
Simon said...: jr565 said...
"Um, what?"

A federal court struck down the ban in December. It's under appeal.; 2/26/14, 3:09 PM
RecChief said...: hmmm, Greg Abbott? Did the Wendy Davis campaign or Battleground Texas get a little help from Eric Holder when he declared that states' Attorneys General can ignore their duty to argue this very type of case?; 2/26/14, 3:10 PM
jr565 said...: Drago wrote:

Oh, so you'd be cool with the Arizona legislation being signing into law and the gays in AZ could simply move to MA.

You know, "move there?".

Touche Drago.; 2/26/14, 3:10 PM
RecChief said...: @Farmer - NAMBLA has been arguing for years adult/child sex is perfectly fine, and "you can't legislate who you fall in love with". So yes there are some out there who argue that children should be allowed to have sex and even get married to adults.; 2/26/14, 3:12 PM
Bob Ellison said...: How many comments on this post within the next 36 hours? There should be a pool, with real money involved. I predict 427.; 2/26/14, 3:13 PM
jr565 said...: Simon wrote:
A federal court struck down the ban in December. It's under appeal.

What you linked to was about gay marriage not polygamy.; 2/26/14, 3:13 PM
n.n said...: secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Are there any other references, implicit or explicit, to personal relationships in the constitution?; 2/26/14, 3:13 PM
Drago said...: Lyssa: "You realize that we're not discussing criminalization, but civil recognition of the marriage, along with the benefits thereof, right?"

He's doing what all the lefties do when confronted with the inevitable outcome of their policy preferences.

He's avoiding it.

Fortunately he doesn't have a camera in his face like Kay Hagan in NC. She moves pretty quick for a gal senator in heels.

Maybe she was wearing sensible shoes.; 2/26/14, 3:15 PM
rhhardin said...: Finding refuge in the Constitution was originally the point of the constition.

Now the constitution only applies by way of penumbras.; 2/26/14, 3:17 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "No doubt the Texas state government will come up with some anti gay law based on religious exception, that makes it legal to discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else) like Arizona"

Inga, real question here (which you probably won't answer).

Should churches, who are opposed to homosexual marriage, be required by the state to perform homosexual marriages?

Yes or no.; 2/26/14, 3:17 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: The people have spoken. I believe something like 30 consecutive losses for gay marriage in state referendums.

Althouse and her colleagues, however, know better than us.

The Mandarin class imposes its bizarre fetish on us for our own good. Again.; 2/26/14, 3:19 PM
Drago said...: rhhardin: "Now the constitution only applies by way of penumbras."

Emanations from penumbras, wrapped in a riddle, signifying nothing.; 2/26/14, 3:20 PM
Bob Ellison said...: The government promotes and gives various advantages to marriage between men and women because such marriages tend to promote families, which tend to stabilize society, and they tend to produce children, which tend to keep society going.

Just throwing it out there, because it tends to get lost when we start talking about marrying our hamsters.; 2/26/14, 3:21 PM
garage mahal said...: He's doing what all the lefties do when confronted with the inevitable outcome of their policy preferences.

He's avoiding it.

I said I didn't have a problem with it. I know this is a big GOTCHA in right wing circles, and you think it's clever.

To repeat: I couldn't care less.; 2/26/14, 3:21 PM
jr565 said...: These courts are basically saying there is no rational basis to define marriage as anything.
2 people 3 people 5 people. Whatever. If a state says marriage means X because we think that's what it means, and a judge says no i dont think your rational basis is valid, it can be redefmined or undefined based on the will of a single person. So, whats the rational basis to deny an incestual brother and sister the right to marry? Well I can cite all the reasons why it might be harmful to do so. But lets ask Judge Jimmy and see what he has to say? Oh, he thinks that it should be ok to marry your sister? Well ok then.; 2/26/14, 3:21 PM
jr565 said...: Garage Mahal wrote:
I said I didn't have a problem with it. I know this is a big GOTCHA in right wing circles, and you think it's clever.

To repeat: I couldn't care less.

Would you call a person a bigot if they didn't want to bake a cake for the polygamous marriage?; 2/26/14, 3:23 PM
Drago said...: jr565: "So, whats the rational basis to deny an incestual brother and sister the right to marry?"

There will be none.

Moreover, there will be no rational basis to deny incestual brother(s) and sister(s) the right to marry.; 2/26/14, 3:23 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Why does the Mandarin class of affluent, decadent societies become so entranced by homosexuality?; 2/26/14, 3:23 PM
PB said...: This would make different tax rates by filing status unconstitutional.; 2/26/14, 3:24 PM
jr565 said...: Drago wrote:
Should churches, who are opposed to homosexual marriage, be required by the state to perform homosexual marriages?

Should churches opposed to polygamous marriage be required by the state to perform those? How about harems?; 2/26/14, 3:24 PM
Drago said...: garage: "I said I didn't have a problem with it. I know this is a big GOTCHA in right wing circles, and you think it's clever"

It isn't all that clever.

But it isn't some big gotcha either.

It's just clear you, like most on the left, will simply not answer a simple question.

Why?

We already know why.

It's a simple yes or no question.

Like the kind you had to answer in college.....er.....oh.; 2/26/14, 3:25 PM
jr565 said...: garage mahal wrote:
I said I didn't have a problem with it. I know this is a big GOTCHA in right wing circles, and you think it's clever.

To repeat: I couldn't care less.

So, how is custody going to work in this new marriage of yours? Lets say a wife is not the biological mother of the children, and she gets divorced, How much custody does she get?; 2/26/14, 3:26 PM
Drago said...: For that matter, have we heard from AA what her policy preference is for plural and polyamorous marriages?

I've probably just missed it.; 2/26/14, 3:26 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: I really doubt these arguments that societies devised marriage as an institution in order to promote family and child rearing.

I think that sane societies never considered marriage to be anything but a relationship between male and female.

The fact that our affluent, decadent and collapsing society has become obsessed with such obvious nonsense should be a warning signal of very negative things to come.

This shit is stupid. Because it is. No explanation is needed.; 2/26/14, 3:27 PM
jr565 said...: garage mahal wrote:
I said I didn't have a problem with it. I know this is a big GOTCHA in right wing circles, and you think it's clever.

To repeat: I couldn't care less.

how about bigamy? Do you care if people have multiple marriages at the same time? How about bigamy polygamy? Multiple plural marriages at the same time? How about bigamy polygamy incest? Any combination. Are you drawing a line anywhere?; 2/26/14, 3:28 PM
Renee said...: The problem didn't start with same-sex marriage. The problem started with sperm donation, then egg donation with surrogacy.

If a heterosexual couple in which the man was infertile could just buy another man's sperm and assume paternity, as long as it was done in a medical office THEN why should we discriminate against a lesbian couple?

If a heterosexual couple can use a surrogate with a donated egg, then who not two men?

Ban the fertility market, and realize that people have a right to know their mother and father and absent abuse or neglect being raised by both biological parents then we can change things.

I don't see that happening.; 2/26/14, 3:28 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: jr565 said...

But lets ask Judge Jimmy and see what he has to say? Oh, he thinks that it should be ok to marry your sister? Well ok then.

To be fair, Jimmy's sister is kinda hot, so you really can't blame him.; 2/26/14, 3:28 PM
Crimso said...: "Choosing to have your big event elsewhere in no way stops the business the NFL does in Arizona every Sunday."

Doesn't change the fact the NFL wishes to exercise a right in order to have the state of AZ deny that right to others.

So can a cake maker in AZ refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding, just as long as they don't refuse to make a gay person a birthday cake? Choosing not to make a cake for the wedding of the gay person in no way stops them from making a cake for that gay person's birthday.

You're pointing out that the NFL is threatening to refuse to do some of its business with AZ because it disagrees with them; but will happily continue to do other business with them, business which they would never dream of discontinuing over this issue. The cake maker would refuse to do some business with gay people regarding an issue over which they disagree, but would happily make them a cake for an occasion to which they don't object.; 2/26/14, 3:28 PM
RecChief said...: you know what's really funny? a numebr of years ago, I said that all marriages in the US should be civil unions, straight and gay alike, and if you can find a church that marries you, then go for it. But at the same time, divorce laws should be tightened up, and the tax incentives should remain, but only in the case of 2 people marrying each other. My position hasn't changed, but according to my leftist acquaintances, I used to be progressive in my thinking, now I am a hateful bigot.; 2/26/14, 3:29 PM
jr565 said...: Drago wrote:
For that matter, have we heard from AA what her policy preference is for plural and polyamorous marriages?

I think she was against them.; 2/26/14, 3:29 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: The proof that gays belong in the closet in what they have done since they came out.; 2/26/14, 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Drago, NO of course not.; 2/26/14, 3:30 PM
Drago said...: Renee: "If a heterosexual couple in which the man was infertile could just buy another man's sperm and assume paternity, as long as it was done in a medical office THEN why should we discriminate against a lesbian couple?"

The law, and the lawyers will correct me if I'm wrong and tighten up my answer if it's incomplete, has pretty much held that the husband of a woman who bears a child is responsible legally for that child, even if that child is the result of a relationship the woman had with another male.

So, the whole sperm thing was not really some groundbreaking thing, legally.; 2/26/14, 3:31 PM
garage mahal said...: It's just clear you, like most on the left, will simply not answer a simple question

Dude, I said I have no problem with polygamy. <------ third time. How many times do I need to say that before it sinks into that thick skull of yours?; 2/26/14, 3:32 PM
Renee said...: "So, how is custody going to work in this new marriage of yours? Lets say a wife is not the biological mother of the children, and she gets divorced, How much custody does she get?"

The same as if she was a married man who used sperm donation with his wife.; 2/26/14, 3:33 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Drago, NO of course not"

Well, then you better get with your lefty pals because that is right where they are going.

Which you are well aware of, of course.

That is the end game here.

The intermediate step will be an attempt, in a little while, not quite yet, to remove tax exempt status for churches that don't perform homosexual marriages.

The obamacare dipping of toes into the water of forcing religious institutions to fund abortions was just another step.; 2/26/14, 3:34 PM
Renee said...: "the husband of a woman who bears a child is responsible legally for that child, even if that child is the result of a relationship the woman had with another male"

True, but the biological father who had intercourse with a married woman can petition the court for his parental rights to be the legal dad. The sperm donor can not.; 2/26/14, 3:35 PM
Drago said...: garage: "Dude, I said I have no problem with polygamy."

LOL

Let me help you:

Are you in favor of laws that LEGALIZE polygamy, polyamory, etc.

Do you favor the LEGALIZATION of said relationships (with all the requisite benefits of state recognition)?

Keep playing dumb though.

You're very good at it.

Very good.

Almost, too good.; 2/26/14, 3:36 PM
Drago said...: Renee: "True, but the biological father who had intercourse with a married woman can petition the court for his parental rights to be the legal dad. The sperm donor can not."

LOL

Yeah, not until some judge somewhere says "oh yes he can!!!"

Aren't you paying attention?; 2/26/14, 3:36 PM
MadisonMan said...: Should churches, who are opposed to homosexual marriage, be required by the state to perform homosexual marriages?

Yes or no.

No.

I also think marriage recognition -- all marriages -- should be purged by the govt, and the govt should only sanction civil unions. And divorce laws should be tightened.

A marriage is a sacrament -- that is, a religious ceremony.; 2/26/14, 3:37 PM
garage mahal said...: Keep playing dumb though.

Says the guy that can't even read.; 2/26/14, 3:38 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I have a problem with polygamy. It tends to lead to incest, child-molestation, denial of access to sex/marriage to those with less power/wealth, and other horrible things.

Is this sort of thing so difficult to understand?; 2/26/14, 3:38 PM
Drago said...: Everyone can read and see what you are avoiding garage.

But go ahead, toss a little more dirt in the air as you run (rhetorically) away.

LOL; 2/26/14, 3:39 PM
Crimso said...: "For that matter, have we heard from AA what her policy preference is for plural and polyamorous marriages?"

I directly asked her that question not long ago, and she kindly replied (I'm not being sarcastic). I'd rather not put words in her mouth, so this merely my recollection of my interpretation of her response: the difference is that gay marriage is still only between two people. Polygamy is an entirely different question.

Now, to me that seems quite arbitrary, particularly since human civilization has a long and ongoing history of polygamy, not so much with gay marriage. Just about every argument I hear being made for gay marriage can easily be used to argue for polygamy.

Personally, I don't care if gays marry each other, and I don't care if 9 people want to all be in a single marriage. This isn't to say that I find both (or either) icky, but will tolerate them. I really don't care. I have my own personal bona fides when it comes to gay marriage, something which the gay people I know and love would attest to.; 2/26/14, 3:39 PM
Drago said...: Bob: "It tends to lead to incest, child-molestation, denial of access to sex/marriage to those with less power/wealth, and other horrible things."

Courtroom time.

Explain "tends".

Feel free to quantify.

Then explain how that quantification should result in people who love each other not being able to marry.; 2/26/14, 3:40 PM
Lyssa said...: Renee said If a heterosexual couple in which the man was infertile could just buy another man's sperm and assume paternity, as long as it was done in a medical office THEN why should we discriminate against a lesbian couple?

I really don't think that these two things are particularly related - no one really objected to the idea of non-biological parents raising children, well, ever in recent history, to my knowledge. Not ideal, perhaps, but adoption and the like has almost always been acceptable.

I would say that this has a lot more to do with the fact that society came around to the idea that men and women are equal citizens under the law, with equal rights and obligations. When the idea of husband and wife became legally interchangeable, it seems inevitable that they would be, well, interchangeable.

Also, the fact that we developed the technology to limit or avoid childbearing within marriage/sexual relationships, making that a choice rather than a given within marriage. If John and Jane are married, but choose not to have kids, it's just not that different from John and Joe doing the same (particularly when Joe and Jane are equals under the law).

(The fact that men and women are equals under the law doesn't mean that biological and social differences don't exist, of course. But few would deny that legal equality does or should exist.); 2/26/14, 3:44 PM
Renee said...: In Massachusetts...

"Before the mother and the biological father can acknowledge parentage of the child, the mother and the mother’s husband must sign a form called Affidavit of Non-Paternity which states that the mother and her husband agree that the husband is not the father of the child.

The Affidavit of Non-Paternity form must be accompanied by either a court order relating to the child’s paternity or a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage form completed by both the mother and the biological father in order for a city or town clerk’s office or RVRS to accept it for filing."

I'm assuming there is a right to petition the court, if the husband doesn't want to sign.

Either way, doesn't the child have a right to know?; 2/26/14, 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Inga: "Drago, NO of course not"
-----------------------------
"Well, then you better get with your lefty pals because that is right where they are going.

That is the end game here.

The intermediate step will be an attempt, in a little while, not quite yet, to remove tax exempt status for churches that don't perform homosexual marriages."

2/26/14, 3:34 PM

Nonsense, utter fear mongering.; 2/26/14, 3:46 PM
RecChief said...: MAdisonMan -
I agree. see my post farther up.

I have to be honest though, I told a leftist friend of mine this, and she replied "Yes!! a true separation of church and state." There was something about her tone of voice that made me re-examine my statement for quite a while.; 2/26/14, 3:46 PM
Renee said...: "no one really objected to the idea of non-biological parents raising children"

Just us Catholics.; 2/26/14, 3:46 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Yes, I know, Drago. That's the problem. We're caught in a cultural trap. Some courts want to extract legally exact rules, and they discern new theories as they go. It's an emanation or a right or something.

The U.S. Constitution tries to make rules for what the national government can and can't do. The courts have turned that into a game. Rational basis, strict scrutiny, etc.

The whole thing is based on a culture that has tended to work well for a few thousand years. We're throwing it all over because we don't remember why it worked.; 2/26/14, 3:48 PM
Renee said...: But John or Jane can change their mind, or if contraception fails they may choose to keep the baby.

That scenario wouldn't happen with a same-sex couple.; 2/26/14, 3:48 PM
Lyssa said...: crimso said Now, to me that seems quite arbitrary, particularly since human civilization has a long and ongoing history of polygamy, not so much with gay marriage. Just about every argument I hear being made for gay marriage can easily be used to argue for polygamy.

I disagree that 2 is arbitrary. Marriage as the legal system looks at it is about property (including benefits) and children. And that system, with an enormous amount of moving parts, is designed around managing those things for two people. Add a third or more, and you're adding a layer of complexity that would be extremely difficult to manage.

Substituting a man or woman for one of the spouses in a marriage isn't really legally meaningful or challenging, as they are treated the same (in most aspects) under the law.; 2/26/14, 3:49 PM
n.n said...: re: fertility market

That's not where it started. Although, it was a poorly conceived substitute for adoption. Heterosexual infertility or perhaps a woman's disfavor for pregnancy opened the door; but, this did not prompt an exit from the closet. It still preserved the natural standard of normalcy, which selects relationships between one man and one woman.; 2/26/14, 3:49 PM
RecChief said...: "nonsense, utter fear mongering"

That is what all leftists say if someone takes a long view and articulates the consequences leftist "logic". Obamacare is a prime example i.e. doc shock, reduction in hours of part time people, businesses holding off hiring, expansion of the IRS to ensure compliance, etc.; 2/26/14, 3:49 PM
Renee said...: "We're throwing it all over because we don't remember why it worked.

Exactly, for many younger Americans they have been affected by either divorce or their parents never marrying. I can't blame them for not seeing the connection between marriage and the obligations towards children.

We definitely desire for both mom and dad to raise their children, but for most it doesn't seem possible.; 2/26/14, 3:50 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Inga, care to lay a bet on that? It should have a term, like maybe five years.; 2/26/14, 3:50 PM
Real American said...: you have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think that one man/one woman marriage law is irrational.

States have an interest in keeping parents together to raise their children. That not all marriages lead to children or that other types of couples can adopt or have children does not render that basic purpose irrational just because it is over inclusive of the vast majority of 1m/1w relationships. The generalize nature of marriage laws also keeps the state from questioning people on the purposes of their relationship or, for god's sake, testing their ability to have kids at all. No one would want that.

So, what is the purpose of gay "marriage"? What benefit does it provide to the society at large? What interest does the state have in recognizing these relationships as marriages that is on par with 1m/1w marriages? Very little to none that is apparent.

Gay relationships simply do not present the same types of problems and issues that straight relationships present. We don't need to worry about gay parents (in great numbers) abandoning their natural children because these relationships don't produce children naturally. Thus one of the central features of Marriage becomes irrelevant. It seems to me that recognizing gay relationships as "marriages" is irrational.; 2/26/14, 3:52 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "Nonsense, utter fear mongering."

LOL

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/IRS-could-revoke-non-profit-for-religious-institutions

Snip: "On the state level, a movement is already under way to revoke non-profit status for religious organizations that do not abide by the same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts in 2006, Boston Catholic Charities withdrew from adoption services thanks to the state mandate on same-sex adoptions, rather than fight the issue in court. In California, a bill is already making its way through the legislature to bar non-profit status for any religious youth group that discriminates on the basis of “gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation.”

Hey, remember when Inga and her pals were telling us that anyone saying obamacare would cause folks to lose their health insurance were lying liars?

It seems like only yesterday...; 2/26/14, 3:52 PM
Renee said...: n.n.

"It still preserved the natural standard of normalcy, which selects relationships between one man and one woman."

This is why I like being Catholic, sexual acts like anal and oral sex, masturbation, and pornography are equally sinful whether you are gay or straight.

It's all the same sin.

I rather say there are lots of way to express love, but that's not how we express it. I won't deny the love and caring between a same-sex couple, just because we disagree how that is expressed sexually.; 2/26/14, 3:53 PM
Drago said...: Real American: "you have to be pretty fucking ignorant to think that one man/one woman marriage law is irrational."

It's not about that at all.

The left knows that to rebuild society along the lines they envision requires the destruction of the traditional institutions.

That's it in a nutshell.

That's what it's about.; 2/26/14, 3:54 PM
Lyssa said...: Renee said "no one really objected to the idea of non-biological parents raising children"

Just us Catholics.

I'll be the first to admit to not being a great Catholic, but I've never heard of a Catholic objection to adoption and the like. Seems like that's always been encouraged by the church. I understand that certain reproductive technologies are not, but I've never understood that objection to be about who would raise the child.

But John or Jane can change their mind, or if contraception fails they may choose to keep the baby.

That scenario wouldn't happen with a same-sex couple

That might happen, but it might not, too (or they could get a virtually failure proof contraceptive fix and not even worry about it). The important thing is that the choice to avoid it became a socially acceptable one to make.; 2/26/14, 3:54 PM
Unknown said...: It's very hard to find a "rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose" without condemning homosexuals and no one wants to do THAT. But (1) the understood purpose of government involvement in marriage is not supported by homosexual marriage, (2) the consequences of homosexuality to the governed is undeniably negative, (3) the consequences of justifying homosexual marriage are undeniably negative, and (4) there is no reason to change the definition of marriage to accrue whatever benefits one associates with marriage that have a rational relation to legitimate governance.; 2/26/14, 3:55 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Drago, I lost my insurance because of Obamacare. Really. That's what Blue Cross told me in the cancellation letter. Been with them ten years.

I know you know this stuff, and I've posted it before. But we righties sometimes shut up too early, and lefties tend to be ignorant of history.

Inga, I guess the bet is no good, because as Drago points out, the issue was decided already.; 2/26/14, 3:56 PM
Mark O said...: Define "rational" and "legitimate." Those should be extracted from the public policy of the affected state. That's not how this judge does it. What he doesn't like is irrational and illegitimate.

Polygamy will be irrational. There is no other workable distinction. If the right to marry someone one loves is a 9th Amendment penumbra right, well the whole world is your oyster.

This was all predestined from Loving v. Virginia.; 2/26/14, 3:57 PM
Simon said...: jr565 said...
"What you linked to was about gay marriage not polygamy. "

You're right, I'm sorry. There were two cases in the same couple of weeks; that one was the marriage one, but there was also one about polygamy.; 2/26/14, 3:58 PM
n.n said...: Lyssa:

Why not treat marriage as a corporation, and the men, women, etc. as officers, shareholders, partners, etc.? This would simplify not only the marriage question, but would firmly and finally settle the abortion issue.

Any children could be considered assets of the corporation and their conception as capital investments. The corporation could do a write-off when they are aborted and disposed.

With incorporation of relationships there is no rational argument to oppose polygamy, etc. With abortion there is no rational argument to oppose incest, bestiality, etc.; 2/26/14, 3:58 PM
Drago said...: Bob Ellison: "We're throwing it all over because we don't remember why it worked."

Yep.

Unlike the Laws of Physics, there is no ironclad rule which says that free or even "free-er" societies have to survive.

And over the long arc of history, none have.

Of course, the number of states of existence that "not surviving" could encompass are pretty darn numerous.

Look at what Putin is doing with his Eurasian Union talk. National Bolshevism rises!!; 2/26/14, 3:59 PM
Crimso said...: "I disagree that 2 is arbitrary. Marriage as the legal system looks at it is about property (including benefits) and children. And that system, with an enormous amount of moving parts, is designed around managing those things for two people. Add a third or more, and you're adding a layer of complexity that would be extremely difficult to manage."

A fair point, but it is not as though no legal system has ever had to deal with such complexities before. Polygamy is very doable from a legal standpoint, insofar as it is in fact currently being done in some legal systems. There may be unique aspects of our legal system that would make it singularly ill-suited to accommodating polygamy. But the same argument might be made about gay marriage. If there's a will, there's a way. It seems that what's lacking is the will. And don't look for me to supply it. Trust me, one wife is quite enough for me (well, two actually, but not simultaneously mind you).; 2/26/14, 3:59 PM
Simon said...: Mark O said...
"Define 'rational'"

And that problem is why the rational basis test, as it's actually used—it could be done right, I suppose—is a sham. It's nothing more than a way for judges to say "I don't like this."; 2/26/14, 4:00 PM
MadisonMan said...: I'll be the first to admit to not being a great Catholic, but I've never heard of a Catholic objection to adoption and the like.

My vague recollection -- from quite a while ago -- is that Catholic doctrine opposed adoption because it was a way for people to have an out. That is to say, intercourse sometimes yields a gift from God -- a child -- that the couple should welcome. To give away this gift is to renounce God somehow.; 2/26/14, 4:00 PM
Drago said...: n.n.: "Why not treat marriage as a corporation, and the men, women, etc. as officers, shareholders, partners, etc.? This would simplify not only the marriage question, but would firmly and finally settle the abortion issue."

Hey that would open up an entirely new legal field in "Family Corporate Governance".

Ann would have to love that!

Think of all the legal fees!!; 2/26/14, 4:01 PM
A_Nonny_Mouse said...: "Marriage" has the MULTIPLE-CENTURIES-OLD definition of "one man united with one woman".

Some liberal-doofus judge's announcement that the word "marriage" under its original definition is now --somehow-- to be considered "state-imposed inequality" does nothing to change the definition of that word (even though it apparently offends his tender sensibilities very, very much, sniffle, boo-hoo.)

What if I were to declare that the result of "pile of wood drenched with gasoline and a lit match tossed onto it" shall henceforth be called "water"? Or the old joke, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so." It's the same thing: "bonfire" does not equal "water" any more than "two dudes copulating with the blessing of the State" equals "marriage".

It is what it is. Words have meanings -- just like elections have consequences.

No matter how many earnest fools stomp their feet and proclaim otherwise (even if they've got "JD,PhD" after their names!), "marriage" is still "one man, one woman".

Go invent a new word. "Marriage" is already taken.; 2/26/14, 4:01 PM
Renee said...: @Lyssa

It's unfortunate that the Church was involved with the 'baby scoop' era. I tend to see adoption, as taking advantage of a young mother who has no social support. I'm liberal on social services for mothers, but I don't want those services to indirectly push fathers away.

Unless the mother is on drugs or mentally ill, then we should promote babies stay with mom.; 2/26/14, 4:02 PM
Drago said...: A_Nonny_Mouse: "It is what it is. Words have meanings -- just like elections have consequences."

Someone has NOT been paying much attention to the Modern Language Association.

How dare you attempt to constrain and turn into "SLAVES" the very words we utter?

Don't you know that words must be free to have any and all meaning, and thusly, to be meaningless?

Remember, Freedom is slavery.

So the left has been telling us.; 2/26/14, 4:04 PM
Simon said...: Renee said...
"This is why I like being Catholic, sexual acts like anal and oral sex, masturbation, and pornography are equally sinful whether you are gay or straight."

That's not actually correct. Homosexual acts are intrinsically-disordered because of the participants, not the act, and that is so no matter the circumstances or "how far it goes," if you'll excuse the euphemism. But the Church doesn't teach that a married man and woman who aren't contracepting can't, in any context or to any extent, include oral, anal, or manual sex as part of "foreplay." So for heterosexuals, it does depend on the circumstances and "how far it goes."; 2/26/14, 4:04 PM
Patrick Henry was right! said...: The rational basis is that this is how the people choose to define marriage. End of discussion. The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with sexual proclivities.; 2/26/14, 4:04 PM
Simon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/26/14, 4:06 PM
Simon said...: See generally my comment here for elaboration on (straight) Catholics and sex:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/10/what-justice-scalia-really-means-when.html?showComment=1381190233510#c256081258306021302; 2/26/14, 4:06 PM
n.n said...: Renee:

Exactly. What people do in the bedroom, in the closet, etc. is their business, with limited exceptions. What society chooses to normalize was once based on objective, reproducible standards. The standard today is not only selective but arbitrary. This has created a moral hazard, which is unaddressed by the myriad of emotional appeals intended to ignore it. The secular society is experiencing a chaotic upheaval as it attempts to formulate a religion. This is the same failure experienced by other atheist directed societies.; 2/26/14, 4:06 PM
Drago said...: Basil: "The rational basis is that this is how the people choose to define marriage."

You use this term "the people"

I do not think it means what you think it means.; 2/26/14, 4:07 PM
Renee said...: Anal and oral sex are not disordered?; 2/26/14, 4:07 PM
Titus said...: It's funny when the old baggers get all worked up.

Love it.; 2/26/14, 4:08 PM
Patrick Henry was right! said...: Drago, then get more people to vote for you, not engage in judicial tyranny.; 2/26/14, 4:08 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/26/14, 4:10 PM
Simon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/26/14, 4:11 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Yes, the attack on the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church is the next step. In some ways, that was the goal from the beginning.

Gays shacking up is not marriage.

I've got nothing against gays shacking up, but that is not marriage.

In this instance, Althouse, Inga, et. al, are just laughably stupid. And liars.

Inga's got an excuse. She was reared in the commie religion, i.e., Universalism. What's Althouse's excuse for her laughable stupidity?

The commies insisted on renaming everything, too. Sensible people resisted as best they could. Stupidity collapses of its own weight over time. This stupid shit will, too.

This gay shit is the dumbest, most laughable crap that has occurred during my lifetime. Throughout this lame brained hysteria, Althouse has demonstrated that an intellectual can be, and often is, hilariously stupid.

The state can declare any sort of idiocy to be reality. Fuck the state.; 2/26/14, 4:11 PM
Simon said...: Renee, they're not intrinsically-disordered, no. (Or at least, if they are, to my knowledge the Magisterium has never bound the judgment of the faithful to that conclusion.) What is intrinsically-disordered is indulging with them with a member of the same sex. When they are engaged in with a member of the opposite sex, they may be "situationally-disordered," so-to-speak, if they are carried too far or if the participants aren't married, and so forth.; 2/26/14, 4:12 PM
Drago said...: Basil: "Drago, then get more people to vote for you, not engage in judicial tyranny."

I don't disagree.

However, it's not always clear that what a supreme court may rule is actually reflective of what "the people" are thinking and/or prefer.

But yes, thru a process of voting in our representatives and having those representatives ratify the selection of judicial officers selected and submitted by our chief executive is a horrible way to proceed.

It's just a better way than all the other ways.

If I may paraphrase Churchill.

Which I just did.; 2/26/14, 4:13 PM
Titus said...: I fear for that brave, courageous, amazing, strong...judgy wudgy.

Does he now have protective custody?

Let's predict how many death threats he gets.

The texts from all my affluent, ivy educated, and STEM prof. fag friends are cumming fast and furious.; 2/26/14, 4:13 PM
n.n said...: Drago:

Family, Inc. would offer a smooth and natural transition from traditional marriage. We already have the infrastructure to manage this change. Obama could claim the creation of several hundred million new small businesses. Why suffer the delay of progress, when a revolution in social organization is possible?

It's amazing how myopic liberals and progressive can be. They need to think outside the box. They need to stop demonizing and embrace corporate culture. Don't like your wife, fire her. Don't like your children, abort/liquidate them, and get a write-off for bad debt.; 2/26/14, 4:14 PM
Crimso said...: Nothing new to add with this comment. Just supporting the drive to 427.; 2/26/14, 4:15 PM
Drago said...: Titus: "It's funny when the old baggers get all worked up."

Asking straightforward questions regarding first principles and how those principles are reflected in legislation is now classified as getting "all worked up".

My Titus, you are really quite emotional and dramatic, aren't you?; 2/26/14, 4:15 PM
Simon said...: IIRC—it's been a while—When we look at the very few preconciliar manuals that address it (Jone springs to mind) we find all kinds of surprising terminology such as "perfected sodomy." This kind of discussion can get really explicit really fast, and we can go there if necessary, but I think that it suffices for present purposes to note that they aren't intrinsically-disordered.; 2/26/14, 4:15 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: The only question remaining is...

How do decent people who refuse to cave in to the lying and stupidity resist?; 2/26/14, 4:16 PM
Bob Ellison said...: This might be a teachable moment. Maybe lefties everywhere could realize how intolerance is harmful.; 2/26/14, 4:17 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: @Titus

The persecution of the gays crap is bullshit.

Didn't happen in the U.S.

You're just lying.; 2/26/14, 4:17 PM
Simon said...: Drago said...
"It's just a better way than all the other ways."

Yep. The only alternatives are direct election, which is so obviously stupid that I don't understand why any state indulges it, and the various "merit selection" systems, which are so obviously fraudulent that I don't understand why any state indulges them. We got this right in 1788 and I don't understand why the states have been trying so hard to get it wrong ever since.; 2/26/14, 4:18 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Our masters clearly are not sane, and they have embarked on a path to destruction and evil.

How to defeat them?; 2/26/14, 4:19 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: @n.n.

Thanks for translating my thoughts in to lawyer speak!; 2/26/14, 4:21 PM
Drago said...: Personally, I think Titus should go (and I really really apologize for this but there was no way around it and for love of Pete I can't think of another way of putting it so please don't hold it against me, please please please!!) the "Full Crack".

Simply get on the boards here like Crack and "go off" on all the conservative posters here and tell them they are personally, yes PERSONALLY responsible for Stonewall, and Rock Hudson (but not Doris Day 'cuz I gotta draw the line somewhere, even if Titus won't) and AIDS and bad airline food and the Brady movies where they didn't have the original actors and Spam, etc.; 2/26/14, 4:24 PM
Revenant said...: So how can willful polygamy rightfully be outlawed?

It probably can't, really.

Society already tolerates polygamous relationships, and has for years. A guy can sleep around and have kids with a dozen different women and the government cheerfully picks up the tab. The argument that allowing the guy to actually *marry* the women is a bridge too far, well... it is hard to defend that.; 2/26/14, 4:26 PM
Rusty said...: Should any issue result of dis union I want they should be raised catlick.; 2/26/14, 4:27 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Althouse, how long has it been since you talked to somebody who responded to your gay marriage stupidity by laughing in your face?

You need to seek that out.

Because you lost it a long time ago.; 2/26/14, 4:27 PM
n.n said...: Shouting Thomas:

While I am laughing at this nonsense (i.e. elective abortions, dysfunctional behaviors), I am also serious... Well, half-serious.

The only way to reconcile this nonsense and the confusion it engenders is to adopt a neutral metaphor: corporations.

The solution is to finally and firmly combine political, social, and economic organization. That is what the corporation accomplishes. This would be progress. What they are doing is merely disruptive... for their own purposes.; 2/26/14, 4:28 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/26/14, 4:29 PM
garage mahal said...: How to defeat them?

I think you lost this one Shouty. It happens.; 2/26/14, 4:29 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: @Inga

Then you don't have any excuse for your stupidity.; 2/26/14, 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: " Inga's got an excuse. She was reared in the commie religion, i.e., Universalism. "

2/26/14, 4:11 PM

LOL! ST, you dummy, you couldn't be more wrong. I was raised in an Assemblies of God Church, Pentecostal. I've stated that here several times.

What's your excuse? Brain damage?; 2/26/14, 4:32 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: I think you lost this one Shouty. It happens.

The battle has just begun.

It will be, I predict, a battle of attrition.

Not so long ago, you and other liberals insisted that we had to change our attitudes and accommodate ourselves to the permanence of the Soviet Union.

Stupid collapses over time of its own weight.; 2/26/14, 4:32 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Let me remind you folks that the Catholic Church won the long battle against communism.

The Church will win this one too.; 2/26/14, 4:33 PM
n.n said...: Revenant:

Perhaps a bridge too far with the traditional marriage metaphor, but not with a malleable corporate template. There is no rational basis to oppose transition to universal corporations. It would immediately settle the so-called "social issues". Although, it would create a hazard for people who have opposed the development of corporations. Well, they can form a corporation or cooperative and argue their position. The corporate metaphor is the logical reconciliation of diverse interests including people, animals, and children (i.e. assets).; 2/26/14, 4:36 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Monty Python pegged the whole thing years ago....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs#aid=P-KO6LNCXyw

Sure, state sponsored marriage is really about babies, but we need to grant these rights to anyone who wants them because it's symbolic of our struggle against oppression!; 2/26/14, 4:39 PM
Drago said...: n.n.: "Although, it would create a hazard for people who have opposed the development of corporations."

"Corporations Aren't People", the lefties proclaimed.

LOL; 2/26/14, 4:41 PM
KCFleming said...: Cue the Gods of the Copybook Headings.; 2/26/14, 4:44 PM
n.n said...: Shouting Thomas:

Are we having fun yet? It's like a great burden has been lifted from my mind. I never thought that I could reconcile normalizing homosexual behavior and evolutionary fitness. I never thought that I could reconcile abortion and intrinsic value, ever. But, if we incorporate relationships, and treat children as the commodities, then the dysfunction and murder finally makes sense. And there is no rational basis to oppose this restructuring.; 2/26/14, 4:47 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: If nothing else, a few more Abbott voters to the polls.; 2/26/14, 4:49 PM
Revenant said...: The corporate metaphor is the logical reconciliation of diverse interests including people, animals, and children (i.e. assets)

Owning people as property is forbidden by the 13th amendment.; 2/26/14, 4:49 PM
n.n said...: Drago:

The traditional family structure is inherently discriminatory and oppressive. It is a creation of couples and couplets in order to dominate unmarried men and women, and their litter of cats and dogs.

Oppose the patriarchy!
Oppose the matriarchy!
Oppose the malarky!

The corporation is the solution for people who want to be free of traditional bonds.

¡Viva la Revolución!; 2/26/14, 4:55 PM
Sigivald said...: "These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person who is their sibling."

(Or "... married to more than one person." at the end)

How's that version any less "rational" a relation to a "legitimate governmental purpose"?

Get government out of marriage, entirely - all the "rights" and "privileges" and "responsibilities".

It's not a matter of "rational relation" and "governmental purpose"; the government has no business being involved in marriages at all, except to the extent of enforcing contracts.; 2/26/14, 4:59 PM
n.n said...: Revenant:

Children are not people. There is a democratic consensus that human life is devoid of intrinsic value. The issue of assigned value has not been settled, and varies among the population. The logical classification of children is as corporate assets or economic commodities.

Actually, there is the Democrat principle of "diversity" which set the precedent for all human lives. The premise of diversity is that individual human beings are interchangeable with the sole criteria of skin color, etc. The right to abortion of human life, especially for trivial reasons, sets a precedent that human lives can be selectively and arbitrarily liquidated.; 2/26/14, 5:01 PM
Curious George said...: "Drago said...
For that matter, have we heard from AA what her policy preference is for plural and polyamorous marriages?"

She states that these rulings do not lead to polygamy. Because See everyone just gets one. It's just not restricted to man-woman. Just one.

Horseshit.; 2/26/14, 5:05 PM
Revenant said...: Children are not people. There is a democratic consensus that human life is devoid of intrinsic value.

Is this national Conservatives Attack Straw Men day or something? There's been a lot of that going around.; 2/26/14, 5:07 PM
Sigivald said...: Lyssa said (and not unreasonably): " The rational basis against incest has to do with exploitation and children. Neither of those are issues in gay marriage. "

Well, siblings aren't exploiting each-other, one assumes, so that one only gets us out of parent-child incestual marriage bans (and even then, well, realitically plenty of "normal" marriages are immensely "exploitative" and equally none of the State's damned business to prevent as long as nobody's being coerced).

"Ban that marriage because the kids" assumes that marriage is about reproduction - which we are assured it is not, thus "gay marriage is just marriage".

Why can't they get married if one of 'em gets fixed? Or if it's an asexual marriage, which is known to exist?

The problem is that the pro-gay-marriage arguments all boiled down to "but straights can!" and "it's about loooooove"*.

(* The latter on social media sites and by amateurs; the former in the legal arena.)

I have great sympathy for both - thus my call to "deregulate" marriage and let anyone marry anyone, with no benefits from the public purse.

But the pretense that the logic and assumptions there justify gay marriage but then stop immediately there without justifying sibling incestual marriages, or unlimited poly-marriage, or any other consensual coupling arrangement doesn't work.

Not liking those results doesn't change that the logic proposed inexorably justifies them.

(Likewise "but family law is real complicated now!" doesn't justify denying threesomes all the legal benefits of marriage, does it?

If so, the argument has to be better than "but we never did that before", because that one would shut down gay marriage, too.); 2/26/14, 5:07 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/26/14, 5:08 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: @Sigivald

The unraveling began when leftists discovered the political mileage in this assertion.

If you don't agree with my political agenda, you hate gays.

This is, of course, a stupid lie.

But, then again the whole gay marriage debate has been about stupid lies. Althouse has been a champion of the stupid lie throughout the festivities.; 2/26/14, 5:13 PM
Revenant said...: She states that these rulings do not lead to polygamy [...] Horseshit.

That's not actually a summary of her policy preference. It is a summary of her understanding of the law.

In any event, the fact that Y logically follows from X does not mean the courts will do rule. Logically, Roe v. Wade should have led to the government throwing out the laws against prostitution, drug use, and attempted suicide -- but justices of both the left and the right have scrupulously avoided applying logic to achieve an end that society didn't support.

The SCOTUS didn't actually rule in favor of gay marriage until most Americans supported it. In theory they're supposed to be impartial, but...; 2/26/14, 5:13 PM
garage mahal said...: She states that these rulings do not lead to polygamy.

Well, 17 states allow gay marriage. Where is all the polygamy?; 2/26/14, 5:16 PM
n.n said...: Revenant:

You are pro-choice, aren't you? You believe in spontaneous conception. I don't share that article of faith with you. Still, be comforted that all Democrats and a significant minority of Republicans are sympathetic with your dogma.

That said, setting aside classifying human life as a commodity, by women's rights or diversity standards, do you oppose incorporation of relationships? Is there a legitimate reason to preserve the couple and now couplet structure?; 2/26/14, 5:17 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Huh. We're never going past 400 at this rate. The 200 barriers are too strong.; 2/26/14, 5:19 PM
Drago said...: Oh look, Garage is back.

I wonder if he is ready to answer the question he ran away from earlier?

Let's find out.

Garage, do you favor the LEGALIZATION of polygamy?

And if not, upon what basis?; 2/26/14, 5:23 PM
Revenant said...: Why can't they get married if one of 'em gets fixed? Or if it's an asexual marriage, which is known to exist?

Here's a better question: who gives a crap?

Seriously, how few problems does the world have to have before "we HAVE to make sure sterile brothers and sisters can't marry!" makes the Top One Thousand Things to Worry About list?

This is even sillier than the left-wing demand that we ban "assault weapons" because one owner in a million uses an AR-15 to shoot up a movie theater or a school.; 2/26/14, 5:25 PM
n.n said...: Bob Ellison:

What's the missing ingredient? I think this is hilarious! The narrow focus on one issue to the arbitrary exclusion of all others is political gold. Perhaps the public is not ready to accept what is not imposed by judicial decree.; 2/26/14, 5:25 PM
David said...: Legislatures are so yesterday.; 2/26/14, 5:30 PM
David said...: Inga said:

"What's your excuse? Brain damage?"

Nice, Inga.; 2/26/14, 5:31 PM
n.n said...: Sigivald:

Genetic convergence and unproductive mutations are not the limiting factors. Any freakish reproduction which may be conceived of inbreeding can be aborted. Volokh, correctly, argues that any limitation to normal behavior is not objective but subject to a population's tolerance.

Anyway, we are just chatting and laughing at couples, couplets, and everyone else who is arbitrarily excluded from forming corporations... I mean, marital contracts. The assets they will choose to liquidate and write off. The wife or husband who will be fired or laid off. The restructuring when profitability falls.; 2/26/14, 5:36 PM
Revenant said...: You are pro-choice, aren't you? You believe in spontaneous conception. I don't share that article of faith with you.

I have faith that sounded clever to you while you were writing it.

do you oppose incorporation of relationships?

I suspect you don't understand what a corporation is. Corporations have legal rights and property beyond that of their owners and employees. Applying that to marriages is a retarded idea. What rights can "a marriage" have that no spouse or group of spouses possess either individually or collectively?

Now, treating marriages as a *contract* is another matter entirely. Marriages have been treated like contracts in one way or another for thousands of years. You write down the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved, who then agree to it or reject it. That also provides a legal framework for handling disputes, since the civil courts handle contract issues all the time.; 2/26/14, 5:37 PM
garage mahal said...: I wonder if he is ready to answer the question he ran away from earlier?

Fourth time: Polygamy: yes! I don't care. I really don't.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?; 2/26/14, 5:40 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: David said...
Nice, Inga.

To be fair, where ST is concerned this is a legitimate medical question. There are not a lot of other explanations available.; 2/26/14, 5:46 PM
Simon said...: garage mahal said...
"Well, 17 states allow gay marriage. Where is all the polygamy?"

Farther down the road.; 2/26/14, 5:48 PM
Revenant said...: Comparing gay marriage to Communism *was* a special kind of silly, even for Thomas.

"One killed a hundred million people, the other sticks parents with wedding bills they thought they'd lucked out of. So as you can see they're basically identical."; 2/26/14, 5:49 PM
n.n said...: Revenant:

Just an observation. People rationalize their choices in different ways. This particular choice requires a faith-based argument.

This is not about marriage, which is a traditional construct with a specific purpose. This is about a generic political, economic, and social organization of couples, couplets, or any other composition.; 2/26/14, 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: David, do you think Shouting Thomas is rational most times? How many times does he come in here callng Althouse and myself and any liberal all sorts of derogatory names? I've read many comments by conservatives here who have also called ST on his odd behavior. I believe once even Althouse questioned his sanity, or wondered aloud if he may be in early Alzheimers. I don't recall exactly what it was. Why she doesn't delete him out of hand I don't understand. She is very patient with him, especially considering the many many times has harassed and insulted her.; 2/26/14, 5:56 PM
Revenant said...: Just an observation. People rationalize their choices in different ways. This particular choice requires a faith-based argument.

This is not about marriage, which is a traditional construct with a specific purpose. This is about a generic political, economic, and social organization of couples, couplets, or any other composition

Your comments would be less incoherent if you used nouns instead of using "this" to refer to multiple undefined topics. :)

In any event, corporations are not a "generic" social arrangement. They are a very specific kind of social arrangement with specific advantages and disadvantages, none of which map well to hetero marriage, gay marriage, polygamous marriage, or any other form of marriage.

The only kind of marriage they would work as a good fit for would be the line marriages from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", where the marriage continues on across generations as new members enter and old ones die off.; 2/26/14, 5:59 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: What is the rational basis to discriminate via tax rates/incetives, etc, between married and unmarried individuals?

What interest does the government have in promoting marriage (definied as it now is) at all, in other words, that would justify this direct financial discrimination?; 2/26/14, 6:02 PM
Revenant said...: Why she doesn't delete him out of hand I don't understand.

Sometimes she does. Then he goes over to Lem's blog and complains about it there.; 2/26/14, 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage and ARM, have you noticed that the crazy comments have escalated here as of late? It's not Crack either. I think they sense they are losing the battle of public opinion. It's looking more and more as if they're going to lose in 2014 and certainly in 2016 with these nutty new bills that basically discriminate against anyone based on religion. The extremists have taken over the party and it's showing big time, which is actually good leading up to 2014.; 2/26/14, 6:04 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger garage mahal said...
Looking at you, Arizona."

I wonder how long before Andrew Sullivan sues the Catholic Church to force gay marriage ceremonies ?

God, I'm sick of this !

The last religious person has to be hunted down and have their nose rubbed in the gay rights movement.

If only the left was as interested in the education of black children.; 2/26/14, 6:04 PM
Revenant said...: What interest does the government have in promoting marriage (definied as it now is) at all, in other words, that would justify this direct financial discrimination?

The courts have basically held that the government can tax whatever it pleases for whatever reason it pleases, whether it has disparate impact or not, as long as it doesn't specifically target a protected class. Which "single people" are not.

As a single person I find that mildly irritating, but what can you do? The courts, Congress, and voting public are mostly married.; 2/26/14, 6:05 PM
David said...: So Inga, you were actually defending Althouse's honor?

By suggesting brain damage?; 2/26/14, 6:09 PM
Michael K said...: "No doubt the Texas state government will come up with some anti gay law based on religious exception, that makes it legal to discriminate against homosexuals (or anyone else) like Arizona."

Congratulations on misunderstanding the Arizona law. This must be a new record for you misunderstanding.; 2/26/14, 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The Arizona bill isn't just concerned with discriminating against gays. As written it can discriminate against anyone based on religious conviction. Read it.; 2/26/14, 6:10 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: And your point about 'stare decisis' was......?

The vast weight of accumulated decisions acknowledging same-sex marriage?; 2/26/14, 6:11 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Revenant said...
The courts have basically held that the government can tax whatever it pleases for whatever reason it pleases, whether it has disparate impact or not, as long as it doesn't specifically target a protected class. Which "single people" are not.

As a single person I find that mildly irritating, but what can you do? The courts, Congress, and voting public are mostly married.

My knowledge of the tax code does not extend much beyond my yearly battle with TurboTax but my impression is that most of the tax benefits relate to children rather than marriage itself.

There are a lot of good reasons to subsidize child rearing.; 2/26/14, 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...: David, I wasn't suggesting Althouse was brain damaged I was suggesting that ST was. Looks like he is displaying some symptoms. Frontal lobe possibly. Also I don't need to tolerate his foul mouthed comments, no one does.; 2/26/14, 6:14 PM
Revenant said...: The last religious person has to be hunted down and have their nose rubbed in the gay rights movement.

Majorities of Jews, white Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and Latino Catholics support gay marriage. The world is not divided into "the religious" and "the people who support gay marriage".

As for whether churches will be forced to conduct ceremonies, that's a "no". This isn't the first time an issue like this has come up, you know. The church has been refusing to marry people the *government* says are allowed to marry for its entire history.; 2/26/14, 6:14 PM
Renee said...: But people aren't having children, and see no problem raising the one or two they have married or not.

Marriage is at its lowest rates, but it is the most debated.; 2/26/14, 6:15 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Inga, I have read SB 1062. Have you? If so, what in it do you find objectionable?; 2/26/14, 6:15 PM
Renee said...: Gay people have a mom and dad. How is it discrimination to want them to be loved by their mom and dad?; 2/26/14, 6:16 PM
jr565 said...: garage mahal wrote:
Dude, I said I have no problem with polygamy. <------ third time. How many times do I need to say that before it sinks into that thick skull of yours?

What I want to know from Garage is how he and his fellow lefties are going to treat people who don't want to legalize polygamy? Are they the bigots of tomorrow, or is it ok that they are still trying to restrict polygamy, and not bigots at all.; 2/26/14, 6:18 PM