... for a Jeffrey Toobin piece titled "Supreme Court faces new reality on marriage equality."
The picture is of James Madison, who died in 1836. The 14th Amendment, the source of the rights asserted in the same-sex marriage cases, was adopted in 1868.
Toobin has nothing new to say on the subject of constitutional interpretation. He says things like:
[W]hen it comes to Supreme Court decisions, it is usually safe to bet that a majority of the justices will come down on the side favored by most of the public. In any case, as we head into the argument, it looks like most of the justices have already made up their minds.The only real problem he sees with that is that "the justices have imperfect instincts when it comes to measuring public attitudes." Oh, come on. It's not about accurate measuring of public attitudes. It's about glomming onto the best attitudes of the educated, enlightened people (without running into too much resistance from ordinary people).
Toobin's column is utterly boring, but I only have something even more boring to say about the cases that are to be argued this morning: Precedent — the cases already decided — will determine the outcome.
Posts
68 comments:
How about a "Tobin is a dope" tag? Or perhaps "easy target."
Ok, Enlighten the benighted here. What is the precedent of which you speak and therefore what will be the decision?
Inquiring minds and all that.
Windsor and Lawrence.
And there are many lower court cases going over and over the way those precedents determine the outcome, and lawyers trying to argue that they don't can no longer explain what legitimate government interest is to be served by excluding gay people.
I'll comb over the oral argument later today when the transcript is available, but mark my words here.
I have no beef with gay marriage. I've even attended a religious Ceremony of Union, as gay marriage remains illegal in my state.
One of the arguments against gay marriage is that it can be a slippery slope re: polygamy. I know, I know, the cries of red herring.
But, out of curiosity, from a legal perspective, would those precedents say the government has a compelling interest in disallowing polygamy? If so, what is the difference?
Can't just be "tradition". Two can't be a sacred number can it? I know things like parental rights and responsibilities would be muddled at first. Perhaps inheritance and similar laws would have to be adjusted. But why should the government interfere with a trio any more than a gay couple?
Althouse as usual is totally wrong. There is no "right" to marriage, only the right to not be discriminated against because of race if one is of age to enter a marriage contract.
Propagation of the citizenry and legitimization of it are the only purposes that the marriage contract is sanctioned by the state.
There is no equal protection question in this issue because there is no reason that the government should sanction gay "marriage", as it provides no benefit to the state, and no benefit to the citizenry. In fact it degrades the institution of marriage and sanctions deviant behavior.
The unintended consequence will be exposing potential adopted children to this deviant behavior without their consent. If gays are allowed to "marry", then they will also have the "right" to adopt. Those children have no choice in the matter. Imagine the embarrassment they will feel.
This is another example of the 14th Amendment being used in ways it was never intended to the detriment of America.
@Mick
Gay people are already raising children. They're allowed to adopt children and they have their own natural born -- to coin a phrase -- children.
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
That's the kind of question that flummoxes lawyers who try to say government has a legitimate interest in excluding gay people from marriage.
And you don't even need a right to marry for the state to be denied the power to make that exclusion, because EVERY law must serve at least a legitimate interest.
"JAORE said...
One of the arguments against gay marriage is that it can be a slippery slope re: polygamy. I know, I know, the cries of red herring.
But, out of curiosity, from a legal perspective, would those precedents say the government has a compelling interest in disallowing polygamy? If so, what is the difference?
Can't just be "tradition". Two can't be a sacred number can it? I know things like parental rights and responsibilities would be muddled at first. Perhaps inheritance and similar laws would have to be adjusted. But why should the government interfere with a trio any more than a gay couple?"
Just because and shut up. Or ha ha ha that would never happen. I forget.
The 14th Amendment, the source of the rights asserted in the same-sex marriage cases, was adopted in 1868.
They legalized gay marriage in 1868, but votes for women had to wait until 1920.
Why didn't the 14th amendment give women the vote?
@Ann:If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
That's why the fundamentalist polygamous families should never have been broken up.
Ah, yes--
"Precedent".
The Constitution, moot.
It's like having a '67 Camaro.
After 40 years of different owners modifying it with parts from other cars, the 'owners manual' becomes moot.
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. If gays who are denied marriage are at a disadvantage, e.g. tax code, eliminate the disadvantage.
We have 34 states that recognize gay marriage. I assume they recognize each others marriage. Since gay marriage is recognized in a 2/3 majority of states, why isn't there federal legislation to enact federal recognition? Take a vote.
Precedent — the cases already decided — will determine the outcome.
It's a shame nobody bothered to write down the Constitution. If they had then maybe we could try using that to determine the outcome.
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
That's the kind of question that flummoxes lawyers who try to say government has a legitimate interest in excluding gay people from marriage
Gay people can't naturally have children with gay partners. The decision to allow gays to adopt is independent of access to marriage, and even though it is legally permitted there is no reason that marriage is a requirement. Single heterosexuals adopt too, and there is virtually no stigma remaining about single parenthood anyway (so your dignity argument falls flat.)
The slippery slope issue is one we are on already. When we stretch constitutional rights to get what we want, then more and more things becomes constitutionally protected. This isn't phase 1 of the slippery slope. Roe vs. Wade got what some people wanted in the wrong manner.
...can no longer explain what legitimate government interest is to be served by excluding gay people.
No government interest is served by excluding gay people.
Which is probably why gay people have never been excluded. They have always had the exact same right to marry as anyone else.
7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk...
That’s good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you’re in trouble, huh?
No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody’s comin’ up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes?
Polygamy is the 6 minute abs to same-sex marriage. The very same people telling us that's ridiculous, no court would ever decide that, will be calling people who oppose polygamy "bigots" in ten years and polygamous lesbians will, no doubt, find bakers to sue.
Gabriel @7:29 brings it home. Would love to hear why Prof. Althouse wants to deny those children the dignity and economic advantages of their parents' marriages.
Doesn't this question flummox lawyers too?
For the record let me point out that I support enacting same-sex marriage through the democratic process.
But it's ridiculous to say the 14th Amendment back in 1868 legalized same-sex marriage. Marriage is restricted by age, consanguinity, and number of partners and the state has no legitimate interest in any of those, if it hasn't one in the sex of the partners.
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny any combination of single people making up a household (like two sisters) the "stability, dignity and economic benefits of marriage," without the marriage?
I'll give it a year.
A year after gay marriage, when the I really don't care. Let them have their gay marriage, then they'll leave us alone crowd realizes this was never about marriage, or equality, and they'll never, ever leave you alone.
Seems to me justice kennedy would have to contradict his own reasoning with which hw overturned doma...on the basis that the states alone have the authority to decide marriage matters.
redefining marriage necessarily means redefining family. The push to rewrite family law statutes and birth certificates to reflect the magical thinking that a child can have two parents of the same sex will not only affect us all, but will create, in essence, a whole class of persons who are willfully deprived of one half of their genetic heritage. A profound inequality with children linked to their biological parents.
Of course heteros wrecked the family first with divorce and cohabitation. But at least we had the decency to call these "broken" homes.
Artificial reproductive technology is an injustice to children. It reduces them to a consumer good and reduces mothers who "contract" their wombs to "carriers." A travesty in so many ways.
Gabriel said,
"Why didn't the 14th amendment give women the vote?"
Because the 14th Amendment gave no "new" rights. It only reaffirmed the rights already enumerated -- mainly for the benefit of freed slaves who were not being afforded those rights in some states. (See Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1874), among others).
The court in Minor determined that the equal protection clause did not "confer" the right to vote because there never was a "right" to vote since the beginning of the Republic. That franchise is given by the states if they desire. The states may also simply choose electors and not confer the voting franchise. This is well held.
Along those same lines there never was any "right" to marriage, and therefore no "right" to gay marriage, based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Amazingly, the "Con Law Prof", Althouse, fails to grasp this well held Constitutional principle.
And by the way "law prof", gays are not allowed to adopt everywhere, especially states that do not allow "gay marriage". Your misguided desire to afford gays the "dignity and stability" of marriage effects the institution of marriage negatively, and no one yet knows the effects of mass adoption on the children.
Here's why the state has no legitimate interest in forbidding cousins or siblings to marry:
No law requires genetic counseling for couples who are more distantly related than siblings or first cousins, or who are from populations with Tay-Sachs or sickle-cell.
No law breaks up marriages that result in birth defects.
Close relatives can't have children with birth defects if they don't have the genes responsible, and these genes are not created by close relatives intermarrying.
The standard of "close" relative is an arbitrary one, since all humans are related (and all Europeans and Asians have Genghis Khan as an ancestor).
Consequently, until the state a) mandates genetic testing and forbids marriages, no matter if the couple are related or not, and b) declares marriages invalid that result in birth defects, then there is no legitimate interest in forbidding adults from marriage based on consanguinity.
And to think this was all settled in 1868!
The thing about polygamy isn't that it's slippery slope, but that everybody recognizes that it's marriage.
If you have a bunch of gays living together, it's not.
Gabriel said...
The 14th Amendment, the source of the rights asserted in the same-sex marriage cases, was adopted in 1868.
They legalized gay marriage in 1868, but votes for women had to wait until 1920.
Why didn't the 14th amendment give women the vote?
I'd love to hear the "legal" answer that very basic question.
Equal rights never made any sense as an argument. Gays can marry other sex like everybody else.
Equal rights doesn't mean everybody gets what they want.
brb, my two brothers and I have a wedding to celebrate, but first we have to go out and find a baker to sue.
Are there any arguments for gay marriage that don't work equally well for all other forms of consensual relationships between adults?
@browndog'd love to hear the "legal" answer that very basic question.
Because "fuck you", that's why. Because the laws mean what the lawyers and judges tell us they mean, and they mean different things later when they decide they do.
I think a legitimate government interest is the protection of the family structure and the procreation necessary to pertetuate society while parents undertake the large cost of raising children, something critical to the perpetuation of that society. I don't see how same sex marriage fits that interest.
At some point you must answer the question of why marriage is limited to just two people or why multiple marriages of two people can't run concurrently.
Marriage has historically been a religious contract between a man and a woman. Problems arise as civil law, property rights, and other legal matters get tied to marital status when society determines that those things should be extended to other grouos of individuals freely associating together.
The lazy answer, both intellectually and legally, is to just redefine marriage, because it leaves open the question of what is unique about two people. It also creates a conflict between civil society and relogion, where the institution of marriage originated.
There is talk of delegitimizing a religion or church that doesn't adhere to these civil mandates or compelling them to do so. Hillary Clinton was the most recent high profile person to do so. It seems these same people question the validity of religious views and practices in other areas which would lead to state control of religion or abolishment of religion. It might be the same thing.
Thus I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman and a separate parallel institution codified in law should be applied to same sex couples. In fact, in many states it already was, the civil union. The effort should therefore be at the state level to allow civil unions everywhere.
Ann Althouse said...
Windsor and Lawrence.
I'm so f'n old that I can even remember all the smart liberals assuring us that OF COURSE Lawrence isn't the first stumble on the slippery slope to a constitutional right to SSM, and of course Sacalia was just being dramatic and hyperbolic, and it was just about getting the nasty government out of everyone's sex life.
Yeah, good times those.
And by the by, unlike SSM, polygammy has a long and established history.
If marriage is a basic Constitutional right, then why isn't divorce?
The thing is, there's lots of states now--though not all the 37 were it's now legal by court ukase--that WOULD democratically enact same-sex marriage.
And then there's no slippery slope, because marriage is a status conferred by the state to whom it decides to confer it on. Polygamists and siblings may lobby their legislator if they like, or collect petitions for an initiative.
But if courts say there has to be a legitimate state interest in deciding who can be married, there simply isn't any for any of the other restrictions on who can marry. It's just a matter of time and the polygamists and siblings no doubt have their test cases ready.
One-man one-woman marriage is Roman-Greek idea. It's just been around. Egyptian pharaohs married their sister routinely. Every form of marriage you can think of, and lots you haven't thought of, has been practiced somewhere by some culture.
"It's a shame nobody bothered to write down the Constitution...."
"A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail... would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked...That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language... [W]e must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding."
Ann Althouse said...
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
Won't someone think of The Children[TM]?
If the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage depend on the government, then it's just a sham. Why not just give welfare money - and perhaps an Official Statement of Dignity - to anyone who wants stability, dignity, and economic benefits? Who should be denied?
@Ann: Marbury vs Madison, of course, is not in the Constitution.
Congress could, at any time, remove same-sex marriage from the Court's jurisdiction.
Let's not forget that "expound" does not mean "the law is whatever we say it is".
Courts will only be listened to when their decisions are accepted as legitimate by most of us. Progressives are already arguing that Supreme Court decisions which don't go their way should be ignored. It will take longer to push libertarians and conservatives there, but it's happening.
@Ann:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
If the courts overreach too many times, the Article III bat will come out. Perhaps it is past time.
An 1868 law cannot have established same sex marriage at the same it did not enfranchise women.
"Precedent"
With one word Althouse shows the problem with most SCOTUS coverage. They ignore what actually goes into making a decision, and treat it as if the Supreme Court is just another elected political body.
So much of it is about personalities, palace intrigue, and reading the tea leaves about what questions what justices ask, and what that means to how each justice will "vote".
Now I'm not so naive as to think it's so pure that some of that doesn't come into play, but it'd be nice if actually understanding how the law and precedent reflect on the case fit more into the coverage.
It's especially troubling when it's lawyers like Toobin, who are providing that flawed coverage.
Thank god there are law professors blogging, that help fill that gap. I read this blog, Volokh Conspiracy, and Instapundit. When they do talk about Supreme Court cases (as well as stuff in the lower courts), they are far more informative than what I get out of most traditional media reports.
Interesting word "parent". Currently, absent extraordinary scientific means, a child requires a father and a mother to come into existence. These are parents.
The legal system can assign guardians (via adoption or other arrangement), but in the strictest sense a guardian is not a parent, even though they may fill the role of a parent or you may feel they are your parent.
At some point words must have clear meaning or they cease to have value at all. Ten words for the same thing and one word for ten things is confusing, but very convenient if you are arguing for or against something. Then its not a matter if you are right or wrong, who ever gets the mob on their side wins!
Professor, nobody is excluding anybody. This is the Legislature and/or the people defining marriage as they chose to defineit. Is there a Consitututional problem with Congree defining Veteran in a way that excludes me, who never served? I would love to have that $0 VA down mortgage.
Mortgage Equality!!!!!!!
Then its not a matter if you are right or wrong, who ever gets the mob on their side wins!
That is to say, whoever gets "precedent" on their side.
"Right" is an interesting word.
Do people have a "right" to procreate or merely the "capability"? Clearly we limit this capability in certain circumstances, so it cannot be a right like other creator endowed rights. Similarly, do people have a "right" to get married or merely to the extent allowed by law?
The mob is democracy.
"Precedent" is why Plessy v. Ferguson is still requiring segregated bathrooms, I suppose.
Gabriel, your posts on this topic have been witty and wise. I grant you 10 points. I support same-sex marriage, but the way it's being rammed down our throats is awful and harmful to the rule of law.
Please note, of course, that any attempt to pass same-sex marriage support today would fail terribly in the political process. That's why they have to go to the courts.
"It's a shame nobody bothered to write down the Constitution...."
"A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail... would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked...That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language... [W]e must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding."
Professor, quoting the guy who came up with the tyranny of judges business model in response to someone pointing out the tyranny of the judges problems is not persuasive.
It was the first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson who stopped Marshall in his tracks, so he could eliminate the Native Americans from Georgia. First progressive man of the people, that Andrew Jackson.
Marshall's quote does not mean that the Justices get to make up whatever they want. It means that they get to interpret vague terms like any judge doing statutory construction. There is nothing vague about the history and the language of the 14th Amendment.
Under the theory of Constitutional Law that I guess you teach your students, the text means nothing. So the questions become, why write it down and why hold it in reverence?
Francis Barber (1735-1801) was a black man who worked as servant to Samuel Johnson. When Dr. Johnson died he left his property in Lichfield, Staffordshire, to Barber. Barber married a local woman--white, obviously--and his descendants may be found in Lichfield to this day.
There was no law forbidding interracial marriage in those days, you see.
Interracial marriage and polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage, not to mention marriage between children, all predate the Constitution, and were all recognized as valid somewhere.
So of course no compelling state interest can exist to restrict marriage on any of these grounds.
@Bob Ellison:Please note, of course, that any attempt to pass same-sex marriage support today would fail terribly in the political process.
Washington and Oregon would enact it. California, obviously, rejected it, but even a constitutional amendment couldn't do the trick.
Not enough Republicans in California to pass that. Some Democratic constituency must have turned traitor. Wonder which one.
Yeah, and probably Massachusetts. But the SSM movement has big troubles with the African-American community and with Hispanics. In general, it is not something that Americans support. It is something that the elites want. And they wanted for good reasons, but that is why avoiding the political process is so heinous. Why not just stand up for what you believe in? Not something Barack Obama would be likely to do.
I'm just bumping this takedown so I can like it again:
CStanley: "Gay people can't naturally have children with gay partners. The decision to allow gays to adopt is independent of access to marriage, and even though it is legally permitted there is no reason that marriage is a requirement.
Single heterosexuals adopt too, and there is virtually no stigma remaining about single parenthood anyway (so your dignity argument falls flat.)"
Ann seems to think that the meaning of the constitution, and in particular, the meaning of the 14th Amendment, is disclosed by "the best attitudes of the educated, enlightened people."
If this is true, anyone teaching a course in constitution law would have to include a serious discussion on what those "best attitudes" are and why they are "the best." But this is not all; the course would also have to address what is meant by "educated" and "enlightened."
In other words, the constitutional law professor would have to be familiar with both classical and modern political philosophy.
If we must support gay marriage because all children derserve the dignity and protection of married parents, then should we be taking babies from single mothers and placing them with married couples? Or perhaps forcing all single mothers to marry, either men or women?
If the state MUST protect the interests of children at all cost, why is it ignoring the plight of the children of single mothers?
Is it because gay couples are rich, but single mothers are poor, and because gay couples are overwhelmingly white, yet many single mothers are not?
Do we only care about the dignity and security of wealthy, white children?
It seems to me the arguments liberals are making for gay marriage--two people that love each other, it's for the children (TM), and equal protection--would eliminate any restriction on marriage.
Browndog, in a rapidly aging society where people have lost interest in childbearing, it's probably inevitable that we'll eliminate all restrictions.
I mean, why shouldn't 3 elderly siblings be able to get 'married' so that the family unit can easily handle the legalities associated with final illnesses and death.
Why should marriage have any romantic component at all?
If some number of adults want to commit to sharing a household for some amount of time, why shouldn't we reward them with benefits? After all, they're saving the state money and being efficient about it, right?
The state's interest in marriage is no longer related to permanence, protecting the mother while she raises children, or the production of children.
So the interest in marriage is now "the sort of people who vote like us to use it as a conduit for benefits that aren't open to the sort of people who don't vote."
Since old people are the best voters of all, we need new forms to appeal to the elderly.
"Windsor and Lawrence"
Con law: First we make up stuff and then we say we have to stick with the stuff we made up.
By the way, where does the Constitution talk about "legitimate government interest," and how it is to be determined?
Why was an amendment required to grant women's suffrage? The 14th Amendment was in effect at that time. Why didn't SCOTUS merely issue a ruling? The right to vote is absolutely a civil right and it does involve equality.
Gay marriage, like all marriages, is a privilege. If changing the definition of marriage as it stood for more than two hundred (and to do so at the federal and not state level) has to require a constitutional amendment, or the whole process is a sham.
I tend to support gay marriage, but I don't support judicial fiat. It should be left to the states.
PRECEDENT, Professor Althouse?
Lawrence and Windsor specifically declined to endorse same sex marriage over the will if the several states. Scalia TAUNTED Kennedy in that notion.
There's no precedent in any of the Circuit decisions for the Supreme Court; not unless you want to include the Sixth Circuit.
There was precedent in the matters pertaining to Lawrence v Texas; that was Bowers v Hardwick. But the Kennedy bare majority just blew that off. Not precedent enough, apparently.
There is some precedent, at least enough that should rightly have controlled all the circuits. That was Baker v Nelson.
The dignity and presumably the value of children -- and human life generally -- calls into question the pro-choice or selective-child policy, as well as embryonic and stem cell science. The dignity of men and women calls into question the normalization of womb banks and sperm depositors. The selective normalization of some transgender (e.g. one-time conversion) and transsexual (e.g. homosexual) orientations, but especially behaviors or expressions, calls into question the exclusionary equality advocated by the trans-equality movement, as well as shaming and bullying to prevent seeking treatment.
Browndog said...
Why didn't the 14th amendment give women the vote?
Ironically, it actually removed or ignored women's right to vote,
when the right to vote .... is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State
which was not done previously in a gender-agnostic constitution that identified two parties: "We the People" and "our Posterity".
The Nineteenth Amendment, as the Fourteenth Amendment, were passed to ensure uniform individual rights. The Constitution denied neither blacks nor women equal rights before their passage other than through their circumstances, which were overwhelming in the former, and less so in the latter.
Just wondering..
Are there any laws left on the books that require a marriage to be consummated before they can become legally binding?
I don't know about the Founders, but I do know that Jeffrey Toobin shouldn't be allowed to decide what day to put the garbage out, let alone any important matter of public policy.
Why should precedent decide this case?
If old guys who died centuries ago shouldn't decide, why should old guys who died decades ago decide?
This isn't going to end well for the rule of law, judges, lawyers, or even professors.
Because just as people are already asking what do we need a husband and a wife unit for? They are going to start asking what do we need judges and lawyers for?
The law is, as Humpty Dumpty said, whatever I want it to be. No more, no less.
If we had today's judges and lawyers when women wanted to vote, we never would have had to pass an amendment. Instead, we could have found the right for them to vote in the constitution.
This course we are currently on is exceedingly foolish.
It's not going to end well.
Ann Althouse writes;
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
The reason we are having riots in Baltimore today is because we have a bunch of children not raised by a man and a woman. Instead, they are raised by just a woman, and sometimes just a man.
Want to continue raising children without both a mother and a father?
Baltimore is your future.
Courts will only be listened to when their decisions are accepted as legitimate by most of us. Progressives are already arguing that Supreme Court decisions which don't go their way should be ignored. It will take longer to push libertarians and conservatives there, but it's happening.
I think we are already there. We arrived after it was found that women had a right to kill their children in the womb.
lawyers trying to argue that they don't can no longer explain what legitimate government interest is to be served by excluding gay people.
Gay people aren't excluded. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman that I do, and a gay woman has the same right to marry a man that any woman does.
What the gay mafia is demanding is a new right, the right for a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman.
So if the gay mafia wins, presumably I will now have the right to marry a man, even though I am not gay...correct? Or will I have to prove I'm gay to utilize this new right?
By the way, this is a pernicious lie:
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
Children are best raised in a stable, mother and father home. Whether the mother and father have a license by the state recognizing them as married is besides the point. If you're the lead singer of KISS and refuse to obtain such a license but stay with the mother of your children, you're much better off as a child than if you leave that woman.
To then put forward the word marriage as though you're using it in the traditional sense is the worst sort of equivocation fallacy.
I have a hard time believing you didn't know you were engaging in such nonsense, which is why I call it a straight up lie.
For what, by this logic, would an amendment be necessary?
Perhaps to change the institutional structure of our government, but not for much else, as far as I can tell.
Gay people are already raising children. They're allowed to adopt children and they have their own natural born -- to coin a phrase -- children.
If you don't want to hurt children, why would you deny their parents access to the stability, dignity, and economic benefits of marriage?
Bad idea jeans.
As the people of Boston already know, we can't even entrust our children with gay priests - sworn to celibacy, carefully screened by the diocese and dedicated to a life of godly service - without keeping an eye on the bastards.
Post a Comment