June 26, 2013

It's the last day of the Supreme Court term.

Get ready to talk about same-sex marriage. Here's the live-blogging at SCOTUSblog. The action starts at the top of the hour.

UPDATE 1: DOMA. 5-4. Roberts and Scalia and Thomas and Alito dissenting. "DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment." "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot [sic] recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

UPDATE 2: Here's the PDF of the opinion in Windsor. From the Scalia dissent, something I found looking for whether the majority applied heightened scrutiny:
The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.-rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is unconstitutional as “a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution,” ante, at 25; that it violates “basic due process” principles, ante, at 20; and that it inflicts an “injury and indignity” of a kind that denies “an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment,” ante, at 19. The majority never utters the dread words “substantive due process,” perhaps sensing the disrepute into which that doctrine has fallen, but that is what those statements mean.
UPDATE 3: From Kennedy's majority opinion, there's a discussion of federalism, but it's not the basis of the opinion:
[I]t is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community.
UPDATE 4: From the Roberts dissent:
At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry.
Kennedy's opinion doesn't use the word "bigotry." It says:
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
UPDATE 5: The next case isn't about ssm. A unanimous opinion in Sekar, written by Scalia, about the Hobbs Act: "Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute the obtaining of property from another under the Hobbs Act."

UPDATE 6:  The Prop 8 case is resolved on the standing ground,  "line up is 5-4: Kennedy dissents, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.... " The decision of the Ninth Circuit is vacated and remanded." Scalia provides the 5th vote with the liberal Justices. [ADDED: No, Sotomayor is also dissenting, and Roberts is in the majority. So it's a mix.] From the opinion: "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here."

UPDATE 7: Here's Hollingsworth v. Perry, PDF, the Prop 8 case, written by the Chief Justice.
For there to be... a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.
That's a totally well-established statement about standing, as most lawyers know (I hope!)

UPDATE 8: The lack of standing happened AFTER the District Court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. The losing party, California Governor Schwarzenegger, decided not to appeal, to accept the result, so only what the Circuit Court did must go.

UPDATE 9: Roberts, in Hollingsworth, says that without the governor as a party, the case continued with individuals who had intervened but were not ordered by the district court to "to do or refrain from doing anything." So there was nothing "personal and individual" about the case for them. They argued that they had a "''"unique," "special," and "distinct" role in the initiative process — one "involving both authority and responsibilities that differ from other suporters of the measure."'” But Roberts said that interest only had to do with "the process of enacting the law," nothing that came after that. "Article III standing 'is not to be placed in the hands of "concerned bystanders," who will use it simply as a "vehicle for the vindication of value interests."'"

240 comments:

1 – 200 of 240   Newer›   Newest»
Original Mike said...

"Get ready to talk about same-sex marriage."

Good day to go fishing.

Glen Filthie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ricpic said...

I didn't realize it until I read a reasoned analysis by Jared Taylor at American Renaissance of what the Court did yesterday in the University of Texas case that what they in fact did was to confirm that discrimination against white people is perfectly okay as long as it's done coyly. That's how horrible this Court - which of course expresses the will of the ruling class perfectly - is.

I'm sure new horrors, expressed with great sophistication, will be forthcoming today.

Mark said...

Equal protection. Excellent

Right is right! said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul Zrimsek said...

The DOMA decision appears to lean pretty heavily on the right of states to define marriage for themselves. We'll see how much of that survives when we got to the Prop 8 case.

edutcher said...

DOMA was another of Willie's attempts to Wag the Dog after he was found to have been violating his marriage vows.

No loss.

Right is right! said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sofa King said...

Lochner is back, baby!

jr565 said...

If the federal govt cannot discriminate against people who've already been married, doesn't this mean that the federal govt was wrong in denying polygamy to Utah? And more specifically to those who were married as polygamists?

betamax3000 said...

DOMA arigato, Mr. Roboto.

BarrySanders20 said...

Wait. My feelings tell me this is the wrong result. Men marrying other men? What the?

But my knowledge of the equal protection clause, of the concept of ordered liberty, and of the proper role of the federal government tells me that this is absolutely the right decision.

So my feelings were not the most geniune path to knowledge. What was that crazy feminist talking about in that other thread?

Bet there will be a lot of feelings shared about this SCOTUS opinion.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Hey, Alito's dissent has a vortex in it!

rhhardin said...

One advantage same sex marriage has is that the divorce doesn't experience gender bias.

Salamandyr said...

So based on this line “What the State of New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect.”

I'm wondering how the Federal governments inability to define marriage laws different from state law differs from the states inability to define immigration policy that differs from the federal government (at least their policy goal).

I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of "shut up!"

Jay said...

I look forward to the left expressing concerns about the court's legitimacy with this 5-4 DOMA decision.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Scalia seems more p.o.'d about the jurisdictional question than about the decision on the merits. Interesting.

Justin said...

How interesting that the four couldn't manage to coalesce around a single dissent. That, I think, is a sign about where this issue is ultimately headed.

edutcher said...

rhhardin said...

One advantage same sex marriage has is that the divorce doesn't experience gender bias.

Not according to Titus.

He's the girl, you know.

Right is right! said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
rhhardin said...

I thought the states' defining of marriage was mostly a judicial declaration of SSM against the vote of the citizens, but I may be misremembering.

Jay said...

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism

Huh?

DOMA is about recognizing a definition of marriage regarding the distribution of federal benefits.

This is a silly statement.

jr565 said...

They're not saying (yet)that there is a fundamental right to marriage, but it does appear to be saying if a state has recognized marriage for gays, then the federal govt cannot discriminate against gays.
At least as per the DOMA ruling. The prop 8 ruling might say otherwise. isn't this essentially enforcing the state rights argument?
So just as the federal govt couldn't say that if a state allows for gay marriage the federal govt can't discriminate, it can't tell the states that they must allow for gay marriage. At least as per the DOMA ruling.

Jake said...

Is there a full faith and credit implication in this decision?

Jay said...

Prop 8 dismissed on standing.

The left's day is a bit of a weak victory.

jr565 said...

Couldn't polygamists in Utah now argue that based on this argument their marriages should now be recognized?

Jay Retread said...

Let Freedom ring!

LilyBart said...

Marriage will now officially become a joke.

Sadly, I think marriage was greatly weakened by heterosexuals and their casual attitude (easy come / easy go) approach.

I do, however, worry about government forcing people to act in a way that is converse to their religious believes. (ie, what if a conservative Christian church doesn't think its OK to officiate at a gay wedding. What if a conservative Christian-owned bakery think its condoning gay marriage (which they oppose on religious grounds) to be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

(The cake thing is actually happening in Denver. A Christian bakery is being sued by the STATE for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage. )

Chip Ahoy said...

Usually Mobys are not so obvious. Barging in like that in costume just to make us look bad is so unfabulously gay. I'd have gone with something like, "on t.v., and muted, the guy with the biggest umbrella wins."

David said...

"DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot [sic] recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

It will be interesting to see if the liberal majority applies this principle to race based preferences. Do not hold your breath while waiting for this to happen.

DOMA was stupid pandering legislation, so in one sense not much is lost. If this principle were truly embraced by liberals, much would be gained.

Matthew Sablan said...

Who knew Bill Clinton was such a bigot?

jimbino said...

Why should their holding be confined to marriages recognized by the state but not include cohabiting brothers, grandmother and granddaughter? Those family relationships are also recognized by all the states yet folks in those relationships are denied the 1000+ privileges the Feds grant to marrieds, whether gay or straight.

Jim said...

I would like to welcome GLBT married couples to the joy of the marriage penalty.

rhhardin said...

The brush of bigotry meets the forest of fashion.

jr565 said...

Polygamists should now deluge the court with arguments invalidating the federal ban on polygamy. Utah was threatened as a state and polygamists were forced to renounce their marriages. That act was far more egregious a federal action than DOMA ever was.

LilyBart said...

The complaint seeks to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to "cease and desist" the practice of refusing wedding cakes for gay couples, and to tell the public that their business is open to everyone.

If Phillips loses the case and refuses to comply with the order, he would face fines of $500 per case and up to a year in jail, his attorney said.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/

Deirdre Mundy said...

Jimbino-- Exactly. Why can't any group of cohabitating adults enter into a 'marriage' at this point?

The state has no business in validating the romantic or sexual feelings of parties to a contract!

rhhardin said...

I'd suppose that it's now necessary and proper to force all states to allow same sex marriage, since federal benefits only work if you carry them with you when you move, and when you move you have to be treated the same as any other citizen of the same state.

LilyBart said...


Blogger jr565 said...
Polygamists should now deluge the court with arguments invalidating the federal ban on polygamy


Why wouldn't they? I would if I were a polygamist.

AprilApple said...

MORE: “Future Bill Clinton quote: ‘I always thought DOMA would be overturned, that’s why I signed it into law.’”

rhhardin said...

Weddings will be better decorated now, at least.

slarrow said...

According to Kennedy's logic, the first state to allow multiple-partner marriages will force the federal government to recognize those as well. That'll go for any obscure, fringe "marital" arrangement: all the proponents need to do, according to this logic, is get it recognized by one state as "dignified and proper".

Rick Santorum was right.

ricpic said...

rh - Scalia confirms your assessment when he writes "the diseased root" of the liberal judges' striking down DOMA is an "exalted" conception of the role of the Court in a democracy.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Heck, why can't two business partners marry each other to make things go easier in the event of one's death?

Actually, if marriage is just a temporary contract between any two adults, why should it recieve ANY special consideration from the government in terms of benefits or taxes?

Nathan Alexander said...

In the majority opinion, Kennedy said:
Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import.

The state does not confer dignity and status on marriage.

Because heterosexual marriage cultivates dignity and status, those attributes cohered to the term marriage.

Kennedy should have reviewed Reynolds' Law before writing this statement.

("Subsidizing the markers of status doesn't produce the character traits that result in that status; it undermines them.")

Or he could have just reviewed the old saw of putting the cart before the horse.

This won't end well, but that's okay: the purpose of those advocating to strike down DOMA was not to have the best result for the largest number of people.

Cato Renasci said...

The fundamental problem here is that by dismissing on standing, the people of California have no legal remedy for the District Court's deciding to make the law.

Regardless of whether you like the result or not, and regardless of whether the vote would be different in California today, the VOTERS of California determined marriage was between a man and a woman.

The judge who ruled in unconstitutional was a homosexual, in an obvious conflict of interest.

And there is no recourse other than at the ballot box.

Perhaps we're getting to the point that the recourse will be tar and feathers, and worse, rather than simply acquiescence to our masters in the elite.

Joe said...

The is what I predicted. It is a victory for federalism.

Blair said...

I am pleased that the Court decided to defend states rights for once. I wish they would do it more often and more consistently.

Evelyn said...

Yep. Time to do away with the word "marriage" completely. Any two (or more) people can see a lawyer and use contract law to arrange their affairs. I don't think that was the outcome the gays wanted, but there you have it.

Bob Ellison said...

Federal denial of marriage is a fifth-amendment violation? That's the court's argument? I assume the members of the court have read the fifth amendment, but I have to conclude that the majority in this decision does not understand what the words mean.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Lilybart,
Sadly, I think marriage was greatly weakened by heterosexuals and their casual attitude (easy come / easy go) approach.

This is a strawman.

You have to ask yourself: which heterosexuals damaged marriage with a casual attitude?

1) Feminists (abortion rights)
2) Lawyers (No Fault Divorce)
3) Hollywood (constant dissemination of fairy tales of how everything traditional is wrong, and everything that upends tradition has perfect endings)

So the same people who pushed the casual attitude toward heterosexual marriage are the same ones pushing SSM. Convenient, that.

Even more stark: The same people who pushed the casual attitude toward heterosexual marriage are often the same ones saying that a casual attitude toward heterosexual marriage means SSM can't possibly weaken the casual attitude toward marriage further.

Rather self-serving argument, in my opinion.

AllenS said...

Get ready to talk about same-sex marriage

Good day to wash my hair.

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

The majority seem to be unfamiliar or lack appreciation for the terms and circumstances of reality, specifically evolutionary fitness. Perhaps this is why they support normalization of dysfunctional behaviors, including homosexual, which has no redeeming value to either society or humanity.

secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

The Court, as well as the government in general, has a selective interest in their binding oaths.

It seems that there are many inconveniences recorded in our national charter and constitution.

In any case, if they truly believe in equal treatment, then they must conclude that all unions, irrespective of numbers, forms, and kinds, are corporate. Their exclusive support for homosexual unions reveals a unique and unprecedented bigotry, which suggests that they harbor ulterior motives.

Bob Ellison said...

As a states'-rights issue, it's pretty clear. It's a federal problem, of course, managing which rights can travel from state to state. Why did Kennedy not just say "it's up to the states" and leave it at that?

El Pollo Raylan said...

Evelyn said...
Yep. Time to do away with the word "marriage" completely.

Return it to a rite and not a right. This will confound the church-bashers but so be it.

Cato Renasci said...

The real federalism result would have been to say the District Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter was up to the people of California!

Astro said...

I roll my eyes at this decision. And I shake my head. Time to order a pizza.

Jeff Teal said...

This week the supreme court enshrines unseen racial discrimination and rejects democracy and the republican form of government.Way to go.

Ann Althouse said...

"Usually Mobys are not so obvious."

Yeah, I will be taking that stuff out.

Mark said...

This is awesome. To see the knots people will tie themselves in to protect a word.

Please folks, keep up the outrage. It's going to age like a bad Paula Deen turn of phrase.

Renee said...



The baby Veronica case was more upsetting, as someone who is concerned with family.

How can the court defend marriage, if you can't defend a parent's right to his child?

Believe me I'm concern for confusion, as a Catholic our view of marriage is not based on bigotry. Rather the individual's natural right to his mother and father is supported.


Ann Althouse said...

Right is right! was an obvious moby who's intent was to make this blog look like a hangout for the hateful.

So is Glen Filthie. He's going too.

jr565 said...

More interesting to me than overturning gay marriage is the vilification of people who want to maintain traditional marriage. But you generally don't see that when applied to underage marriages, or polygamist marriages, or marriages between brothers and sisters or cousins.
For example, someone like Inga loves to call people bigots for not wanting to overturn traditional marriage when it comes to gay marriage. Yet has no problem denying polygamists the rights that she say should be sacrosanct when it comes to marriage for gays.
Its like when it comes to gay marriage, the rights should be all inclusive and anyone who denies it is on the wrong side of history. Yet, when it comes to any other redefinition of marriage, the restriction is perfectly normal, and you're not a bigot for opposing it.
Unless Inga is for it, and then you' re a bigot for opposing it, and then you re on the wrong side of history.

Ultimately this is a battle over being able to define marriage at all, or whether it must be an all inclusive anything goes arrangement. That is the libertarian position, but is ultimately a destructive argument. If marriage means everything it also means nothing.

I'm just wondering why the Inga's of the world think they can stand on their soap box,and call people bigots, yet not realize the fundamental hypocrisy of their argument.

sunsong said...

Great day for America and moving closer to equal right for all.

Renee said...

So states have rights, but members of native american tribes do not?

AprilApple said...

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)...

The death tax should be found unconstitutional. It's a tax on property that has already been taxed.

jr565 said...

sunsong wrote;

Great day for America and moving closer to equal right for all.

when you say that are you including brothers wanting to marry sisters or people who want to marry underage children or polygamists? Because they,last I heard are part of the collective all.
Should they not have the right to marry the person/people they love?

David said...

Gay really is the new black.

X said...

great day for estate planning and estate tax avoidance.

Jeff Teal said...

Time to reject the idea of marriage altogether.Wait doesn't Helen Smith say men are doinf that already.Now we just hace to remove the protected status.I mean all rights are protected if nobody has rights.

Cedarford said...

Next up, Mormons and Muslims doing polygamy lawsuits, perhaps some polyandry lawsuits thanks to a few berobed clowns that seem to argue that denying any sort of marriage is a violation of the 5th and 14th and of course, deference to what any state wants.

Generally, the "moral authority" of SCOTUS rests on a belief like primitive people had that a caste of priests alone could interpret sacred parchments. Parchments the masses were pushed hard to Revere...Or Else.

Of course, our caste of priests votes on 55.5%, 45.5% lines based on the politics of how appointed the clowns...barring traitors to their side like Souter, and later in her sinecure, Sandra Day O'Connor.

As other institutions are scorned more and more in America, from Wall Street selling our jobs out to the Chinese, from the gang of money-lusting partisan assholes in Congress, to Obama's supplicant media ....is there any reason the Court system is not immune to open derision?

jr565 said...

Unless sunsong is standing for incest, polygamy, bigamy and underage marriages, his/her collective all seems awfully limited. Perhaps then words like ALL shouldn't be used in the conversation, unless you want to stand by that designation.

Andy Krause said...

The thing I have trouble understanding and maybe a lawyer or professor can explain is the concept of standing. In my common sense logic the question I have is when does a law become unconstitutional? Is it so at the moment it is enacted? Is it so only at the time when a proper person is harmed? Is it so only at the time a justice decides? My common sense is that it is at the time it is enacted. Standing or harm does not alter this.

mccullough said...

Nice to see Ginsburg finally understands standing. Let the people of California vote out those officials who won't defend state laws. That is their remedy, along with moving to Texas.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

For there to be... a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury.

That's a totally well-established statement about standing, as most lawyers know (I hope!)


Isn't that a damn good argument for vacating the district court opinion? What case or controversy was there, when the plaintiffs and the state they were suing both wanted Prop 8 overturned?

MadisonMan said...

Further evidence that the Federal Govt should not be in the marriage business.

PikeBishop said...

Time for a 48 hour blackout of Facebook as the idiots on both sides will be out in full force. Got two DVR baseball games to watch.

jr565 said...

Cedar ford wrote:
Next up, Mormons and Muslims doing polygamy lawsuits, perhaps some polyandry lawsuits thanks to a few berobed clowns that seem to argue that denying any sort of marriage is a violation of the 5th and 14th and of course, deference to what any state

DOMA was a federal ban. Some of these other bans are local. So the DOMA decision says that the federal govt can't discriminate against people that were already married which seems to refer the choice to the states. Which, if its a states choice would Suggs that the states decide who can or can't marry. So if the state denies same sex marriage they have that right.
In the case op polygamy, it was the federal govt telling the state of Utah who should be allowed to marry, and threatend dissolution of the state itself if they didn't give up polygamy. Clearly along these lines, the federal govt overstepped its bounds. And therefore Utah should be allowed to have polygamy. Or those polygamist who are married now, should argue that the federal govt can't deny them rights as married couples since the ban on a federal level that was done when Utah was becoming a state should be unconstitutional. Those who have yet to marry should have to deal with the state and overcome the ban on polygamy, but those already married should say this decision should hold for their marriages as well.

traditionalguy said...

So, Marriage as a fatherhood role is no longer defended.

But gay lifestyle is affirmed as glorius.

Joy is the reaction.

Hmmm.

bagoh20 said...

"vehicle for the vindication of value interests."

They should carve that in Latin on the front of the Supreme Court building.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The prop 8 case seems to be a clear example of a problem with the existing doctrine of standing.

Where does this well-established standing doctrine come from? Is it in the Constitution? A federal law? Court precedent?

Alex said...

Good! A blow against bigotry, pure and simple. Christians are weeping in their cereal this morning. I hope they're really suffering from this. Suffering bad!

RichardS said...

Did SCOTUS just create for states a right to create specially protected groups?

And on the Prop 8 case is there a catch 22. The provision in question is part of the state constitution, not a statute. Hence the Court ruiled it against the federal constitution. But now SCOTUS says it may not review California's understanding of the U.S. constitution, and whether it trumps the state constitution here.

Alex said...

tradguy - you defend the institution of hetero-marriage, but gloss over the 50% divorce rate and other bad behavior(cheating, abuse, etc..).

mccullough said...

Ignorance is bliss. Standing is a well established doctrine interpreting the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III. It keeps the ACLU in check.

englishkanighit said...

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."

"DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot [sic] recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

"Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community."

Damn statism. The boot-licking worship of government reflected in these quotes makes me nauseous.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

mccullough-

Thanks for the info. It seems to me that, while standing is a useful filter to prevent the courts from being overwhelmed by third-party cases, in this example there was a clear controversy, and the state government was choosing to not represent the clearly expressed interests of the people of the state, so someone else should have been given the chance to represent those people.

caplight45 said...

Yesterday the television and cable were full of rabid liberals misrepresenting the VRA decision. I assume much of it was willfully deceitful. It looked like a clown show. I would imagine we will be treated to the same today on the DOMA decision, just with a different cast of clowns.

Nomennovum said...

I am truly glad DOMA was found unconstitutional -- not that I have thought much about it constitutionality, not have I read the opinions. This will eventually lead to SSM being the law of the land. My happiness results from two things that may seem contradictory but are not. (1) SSM may be the nail in the coffin that finally helps reboot our culture's thinking on marriage and the rights of husbands and fathers. (2) Even if we don’t get a total reboot, as homosexual couples, adopt or otherwise have kids, and, inevitably, divorce, this may be the kick in the balls this country sorely (heh) needs to rethink child custody and child support. With gays fighting over these issues, the female imperatives will be rendered moot (it will either be two men fighting each other or two women). It will be hard for the state to have two matrimonial laws: one for gays and one for straights. (Hard but not impossible, unfortunately. The state does love to discriminate, you know.)

william G. Hoppes said...

Read here that the standing issue on prop 8 was "expected", but as "not a lawyer" I am interested in the impact on the initiative process in California. For example, California citizens pass an initiative that those currently in state office find objectionable, they find a judge, any judge, to strike it down, and refuse to appeal. Then the citizens who voted for the initiative have no recourse through the courts, but to vote the currently office holders out the next election and go through the initiative process again? Am I understanding this ruling correctly?

Mark said...

IIB - Just because there was a controversy does not mean there was a case.

BarrySanders20 said...

Alex says: "Christians are weeping in their cereal this morning. I hope they're really suffering from this. Suffering bad!"

Christians are all about the suffering. Try another if you want to enjoy true schadenfreude.

But if you think all Christians are suffering over this you have a lot of ignorance to overcome.

Kevin said...

Ugh. Stay away from Facebook for a few days. Even if you are pro-gay marriage or neutral or whatever, the gloating still comes across as just nauseating.

PikeBishop said...

Kevin: the other side will be just as bad with "The country is damned" and "I'm moving to ______" threads. 48 hours away from FB for me.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Yeah, plus the VRA hysteria is bizarre. I had someone freaking out b/c the evil racists on the Supreme Court said the law, as currently written, is unconstitutional and that Congress needs a rewrite.

If they weren't evil, they would have rewritten the law themselves.

Apparently separation of powers in unknown to these folks.

I really, really, try to give liberals a fair hearing, but then they betray a total ignorance of basic elementary school civics, and I must just conclude they're arguing in bad faith and believe their entire opposition is pure evil.

Funny. I disagree with gay marriage, but don't think the answer is "The court is evil!"

BarryD said...

"At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry."

Uh, Roberts is 58. He was around in the '90s.

This whole "let's pretend" stance is getting old. That's ALL the law was about. "Stop the queers!" was pretty much the whole thrust.

"The DOMA decision appears to lean pretty heavily on the right of states to define marriage for themselves. We'll see how much of that survives when we got to the Prop 8 case."

Looks like 100%. Prop 8 was a state ballot initiative, found to violate California's Constitution by the California Supreme Court. So whatever you think of Prop 8, or of California's government, SCOTUS left it up to the state.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mark said...

IIB - Just because there was a controversy does not mean there was a case.

True. But there was enough of a case for the district court to take it, while allowing both sides of that case to be argued by people who wanted Prop 8 overruled. The ruling of the district court was not appealed by the state because it was the result they wanted from the beginning.

There is something wrong with the existing doctrine of standing as it applies to this case. The court should have recognized that, refined the standing doctrine accordingly.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

BarryD said...

Looks like 100%. Prop 8 was a state ballot initiative, found to violate California's Constitution by the California Supreme Court.

I think you have your history a little mixed up. California passed a law defining marriage as one man, one woman. The California Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional. Prop 8 then amended the California constitution to define marriage as one man, one woman. The federal district court struck it down as violating the federal Constitution.

So overturning Prop 8 is limiting states rights, not defending them.

paminwi said...

I don't understand how "standing" can be in force for the first decision in District Court but not after that. So, what the courts are saying is that you're a good enough person/group for the inital claim but after that the court says FU, you are not good enough to move this case forward from here?

hombre said...

"... the question I have is when does a law become unconstitutional?"

When five members of the SCOTUS, who think they are the Constitution, say so.

traditionalguy said...

@alex....hetero marriage is a part of the way of life I have experienced. And I hoped my grandchildren could see the same world...but if not then they will still be happy.

I am the one saddened. But life is still good.and I rejoice in freedom for all. Congratulations.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

paminwi said...

I don't understand how "standing" can be in force for the first decision in District Court but not after that.

Since it was the state of California that was sued in District Court, the state ( represented by the Governor/Attorney General ) would have standing to appeal. They chose not to. The people who organized the ballot initiative then appealed.

Paul Zrimsek said...

There is something wrong with the existing doctrine of standing as it applies to this case.

It's a poor fit for government-by-initiative, at any rate. Kennedy's dissent argues that California's own law on standing, which is more initiative-aware, should have controlled.

hombre said...

BarryD wrote: "... Roberts is 58. He was around in the '90s.

This whole 'let's pretend' stance is getting old. That's ALL the law was about. "Stop the queers!" was pretty much the whole thrust."

Assuming that even in morally relativistic America "Stop the queers" wasn't necessarily considered bigotry in the 90s, Congress may have intended that taxpayers not be required to subsidize gay marriage - which was generally illegal among the states.

Jeff Teal said...

Where is the freedom for single people who are discriminated against by the entire tax structure now?Why should not my sister and I who exist as a household in order to care for my 104 year old grandmother receive the same tax benefits as a LBGT couple who exist as a household for no other purposes than the selfish fulfillment of sex and companonship.?

JimMtnViewCa said...

I was in CA to see Prop 8 pass with a huge majority on a day in which candidate Obama won by a huge majority.
Clearly this was not the work of conservative voters.
Since the will of the People is of such little import the obvious path forward is to get rid of free citizens and enslave the populace. Then we won't have to waste time over their pesky concerns.

Ambrose said...

So defining marriage should be left to the States, unless of course they decide against SSM.

BarryD said...

Ignorance is Bliss, you are wrong about your history.

Prop 8 was not enacted by the state, per se. It was a ballot initiative, subject to certain constitutional requirements to be valid. Depending on the subject matter, it could require different majorities (simple, super, absolute).

The California State Supreme Court ruled that it did not meet those requirements since it got a bare simple majority. This was not sufficient to amend the state constitution in this way.

Now again, it doesn't matter one whit whether you like that decision or not. It's a state decision about a state matter based on the state constitution.

SCOTUS did not take away anyone's freedom. In fact, a new, identical ballot initiative could be voted on in the very next election, and if it receives the vote threshold that the California State Supreme Court indicated applies, it would become law.

Again, your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with that. SCOTUS left this to the state to decide.

Ballot initiatives are not free-for-alls. They still have to meet the requirements of the state constitution, to become law. This one did not meet them, per California. SCOTUS allowed that to stand.

I Callahan said...

The way I see this, this isn't over yet.

If a state (say, Texas) rules that gay marriage is invalid in their state, you can bet there will be numerous lawsuits challenging Texas' laws. The USSC will have to re-visit this in the future.

Thomas said...

Kennedy's opinion in the DOMA cases makes it perfectly clear which way he will rule when SSM finally comes up for a ruling on the substance.

Gay marriage will be the law of the land, and everybody who believes otherwise will be told they're the equivalent of Bull Connor.

BarryD said...

"I was in CA to see Prop 8 pass with a huge majority"

I want what you were smoking, because your memory is faulty.

It passed 52.24% to 47.76%.

As I recall, the live vote count was very close all night. If you were there, you weren't paying attention.

Of course, that has no bearing whatsoever on the SCOTUS case. But still, what you remember experiencing isn't what happened.

hombre said...

Deirdre wrote: "Funny. I disagree with gay marriage, but don't think the answer is 'The court is evil!'"

The dictionary definition of evil is: "1. a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked ...."

M. Scott Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness which results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children or other people in relatively powerless positions).

The Executive and Legislative branches qualify. The court is at least on the cusp.

BarryD said...

" The USSC will have to re-visit this in the future."

Of course.

The way they bust their butts to ensure that there's a huge market for their own services far into the future, you'd think they DIDN'T have life tenure. ;-)

Methadras said...

So subverting the vote of the people of California is now okay. Got it. What is the point in voting now since any disagreeable result will just end up in a lawsuit, billable hours to those lawyers that will make millions off it, send them upwards to several courts, end up in the supreme court possible and have it overturned? I don't get it anymore. You had a crapton of people put prop 8 on the ballot, you had a vast majority vote for it, the butthurt ensued and now we end up with this. Everyone wants to play the murky middle. No one can delineate anymore and say yes or no with definitive authority. This country is fucked with this kind of thinking.

Renee said...

@Jeff

Why does the government value sexual relationships over friendships?

Who knows.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

BarryD said...

Ignorance is Bliss, you are wrong about your history.
...
The California State Supreme Court ruled that it did not meet those requirements since it got a bare simple majority. This was not sufficient to amend the state constitution in this way.


Wikipedia disagrees with you. See Strauss v. Horton

I'm certainly willing to believe that Wikipedia is wrong. Do you have any links that support your statements?

Epiphyte - said...

"Prop 8 was a state ballot initiative, found to violate California's Constitution by the California Supreme Court. So whatever you think of Prop 8, or of California's government, SCOTUS left it up to the state."

Since prop. 8 amended the state constitution, I believe the District court rejected the amendment as a violation of the US constitution. When state officials refused to pursue the appeal on behalf of prop. 8 and the people who voted for it, the people lost the opportunity to challenge the district court's decision.

EMD said...

1) Feminists (abortion rights)
2) Lawyers (No Fault Divorce)
3) Hollywood (constant dissemination of fairy tales of how everything traditional is wrong, and everything that upends tradition has perfect endings)


Those people are us. The market for the lawyering and Hollywood is us. The market has placed value on no-fault divorce as a viable and preferable product, even though you may hate it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Here is the wikipedia entry for Prop 8 in general, giving the entire history.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If Wikipedia is wrong about the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8, its error seems to have infected Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v Schwarzenegger: "After the November 2008 election, opponents of Proposition 8 challenged the initiative through an original writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court as violating the rules for amending the California Constitution and on other grounds; the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 against those
challenges. Strauss v Horton, 207 P3d 48 (Cal 2009)."

Deirdre Mundy said...

Jeff-- since you and your sister are doing more good for society (caring for the aged) than a swinging young couple with no dependents, the state SHOULD give you preference.

"But we're in Luh-uhve!" is not a compelling reason to provide tax benefits. In the past, it was assumed that marriage was the means to producing future citizens.

In today's world, I guess that honor goes to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

BarryD said...

'"Stop the queers" wasn't necessarily considered bigotry in the 90s'

There's a lot of truth to that.

And a lot of things weren't considered bigotry in other eras, either. We do consider them to be bigotry now.

Congress could be full of bigots who don't call themselves bigots. In fact, it usually has been and still is.

There's a strong current of anti-white bigotry and overt hatred of males in some parts of Congress, today. It's just not called "bigotry" at the moment. Every era has its acceptable forms of hate, fear and loathing. Their social acceptability doesn't mean they're not bigotry.

Now WRT taxes, etc., that would hold up except for one thing. Bigamy is illegal. Gay couples who are married, automatically disqualify each other from being married to anyone else. So they're not going to receive any benefits or legal treatment other than what a straight married couple gets. They don't get any sort of double benefits.

So it still comes down to "stop the queers."

If you think that's the right thing to do, then you can say so. But at least be honest.

"Bearing false witness" is one of the prohibitions in the 10 Commandments. When SoCons try to force their religious beliefs into our laws, but then break one of the Big 10 in the process, it's the height of irony.

Nathan Alexander said...

@EMD
Pedophilia, murder, and rape is us.

With significant painful punishments for engaging in that behavior, we can't stop the behavior.

That means the market has placed a value on rape, pedophilia, and murder.

That being the case, we might as well pass laws making that action mandatory.

/sarc, but for the purpose of highlighting your sophistry.

Jay said...

BarryD said...

The California State Supreme Court ruled that it did not meet those requirements since it got a bare simple majority. This was not sufficient to amend the state constitution in this way.


Complete and utter bullshit.

The CA State Supreme Court said Prop 8 was the law of the land.

Judge Vaughn Walker in a District Court ruling, based mainly on his homosexuality, invalidated Prop 8.

Your assertion that prop 8 can be somehow repassed is so preposterous it doesn't merit any other response.

ihasch said...

Who care about the DOMA or the whole gay marriage issue? Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since the 90s and is completely irrelevant. NY State legislated gay marriage into law and no one cares any more.

Frankly gay marriage has become just a cheap opportunity for people to pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are. Our national debt is suicidal, long term joblessness is record breaking, and the rest of the world thinks our president is a fool. And now we have another massive and very costly piece of legislation that no one has actually read floating through the hallowed halls of congress. So let's all talk about gay marriage. Wow. When do I flee to Mexico for a better life?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

BarryD said...

"Bearing false witness" is one of the prohibitions in the 10 Commandments

Care to revisit you statements about Prop 8 history?

ihasch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leora said...

Salymander said I'm wondering how the Federal governments inability to define marriage laws different from state law differs from the states inability to define immigration policy that differs from the federal government (at least their policy goal).

Marriage is state responsibility, immigration is a Federal responsibility.

Leora said...

Salymander said I'm wondering how the Federal governments inability to define marriage laws different from state law differs from the states inability to define immigration policy that differs from the federal government (at least their policy goal).

Marriage is state responsibility, immigration is a Federal responsibility.

Fr Martin Fox said...

The saddest thing here isn't these rulings on marriage. It's the larger problem of utter disregard for fundamental values necessary to civil society.

> In the Prop 8 case, the people of California have been treated outrageously. The elected officers of the state have a moral duty to defend duly enacted laws.

This is an exercise of raw power, and liberals, do not expect any sympathy if this gets turned on you. And it will.

In better times, many of those who favor redefining marriage would, nevertheless, be offended to win this way. Not anymore.

> In the DOMA, Voting Rights, and the employment case this week, we have a general disinterest in the fundamental question: what does the law say?

Nope, all anyone cares about is outcome.

I daresay if the Supreme Court had come out and declared a right to "same sex marriage," no matter how ridiculous or absurd the justification, the left would dance with joy.

And, I think this sort of rot has set in on the right as well. Too many years of being willing to shred the Constitution out of concern for "security" and misplaced loyalty to Bush.

As someone at the National Review Online said, this is like doing an autopsy of the body politic.

Remember what Sir Thomas More warned in A Man For All Seasons:

What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Julie C said...

The real impact of the Prop 8 decision is that it guts the initiative process in California. Somewhere in this formerly great state, a lawsuit challenging Prop 13 is once again being cooked up. J. Brown can just decline to defend it. And I guess that's it then? According to Kennedy's dissent, this is exactly what he fears will happen.

mrego said...

So if States have the right to define and regulate on their own, why do we need the Interstate Commerce Clause again?

I think people should be required to get new marriage licenses every time they move to a new state within 30 days just like having to get a new driver's license in each state since state laws differ.

So some states have to give full faith and credit as per Article IV, Section 1 to other states same sex marriages now? But other states don't have to abide by those states' definitions against same set marriages? Is that equal?

Renee said...

Ihasch,

Lesbians only want cash gifts.

"Out of 210 people at a wedding… The only I gift I got from all was yours… And fluffy whip and sour patch kids. Your Facebook message had nothing to do with the gift. Weddings are to make money for your future.. Not to pay for peoples meals. Do more research. People haven’t gave gifts since like 50 years ago! You ate steak, chicken, booze, and a beautiful venue. To be exact the plates were $97 a person… But thanks again for the $30 gift basket my wife can’t even eat. If anything you should be embarrassed for being so cheap and embarrassing yourself walking in with a gift basket probably re gifted cheap ass"

garage mahal said...


Judge Vaughn Walker in a District Court ruling, based mainly on his homosexuality, invalidated Prop 8.


Awww, you mad bro?

LarsPorsena said...

@ ihasch said...

"................................

Frankly gay marriage has become just a cheap opportunity for people to pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are. Our national debt is suicidal, long term joblessness is record breaking, and the rest of the world thinks our president is a fool. And now we have another massive and very costly piece of legislation that no one has actually read floating through the hallowed halls of congress. So let's all talk about gay marriage. Wow. When do I flee to Mexico for a better life?"

6/26/13, 11:50

You don't have to move to Mexico. Mexico is coming here. Take a look at the Rubio-Schumer Gang of 8 Bill.

Jay said...

It is absurd for the Court to suggest that Congress does not have thepower to define the meaning of words in statutes that Congress itself has enacted. Just as the states have constitutional authority to make state policy about marriage, so too Congress has constitutional authority to pass a federal statute defining a term for federal programs created by federal law.

^That pretty much sums it up for me.

What these decisions reveal is just how ugly the supporters of SSM are. They hate you for disagreeing with them, think you're a monster, and will do and say just about anything, including outrageously not following their oaths of office, to achieve a perverse goal.

Tom said...

I was disappointed that Thomas didn't concur with the majority on Federalism grounds. He could have written a powerful concurring opinion on the limited role of the fed govt. The other conservative justices are very deferential to federal power.

Methadras said...

Per Scalia:

"But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race."

"It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."

"In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."


As I said, this decision was murky. Scalia bears out that any opposition to homosexual marriage on a federal level and now on any level merits that anyone who opposes it is an enemy of humanity. Now the attack on the church and any institution that opposes it can begin post haste and without further opposition. I told you this would happen and it will happen.

jr565 said...

Alex wrote:
Good! A blow against bigotry, pure and simple. Christians are weeping in their cereal this morning. I hope they're really suffering from this. Suffering bad!

Also, another blow to CLintons' legacy. Not that democrats would notice.

bpm4532 said...

Now on to the question of "What's special about 2?"

Any restriction on the number of people uniting in a single marriage would seem to be fair game for litigation on a denial of civil rights. Once it is allowed in one state, perhaps from a history of having overlooked or not prosecuted bigamy, the other states must accept that union and federal government must not discriminate against it.

Revenant said...

I'm glad to see Prop 8 go down in flames.

However, it bothers me a lot that a ruling on a law passed by the *people* of California can't be appealed by the people of California. What if the lefties on the court rule that Prop 13 is illegal? We'll be fucked.

bpm4532 said...

If they restrict it to two, the question of what is special about only two individuals entering into a marriage ultimately runs smack-dab into the biological essentials, not mere "love".

Jay said...

Now on to the question of "What's special about 2?"

Well, nothing of course.

I saw in the comments section of one of these article the triumphant, enlightened celbrators assuring us that marriage was meant for 2 people.

These idiots have no self-awareness.

ricpic said...

Alex said...

Good! A blow against bigotry, pure and simple.

DOMA, a defense of marriage as traditionally defined, is bigotry? Ya know, the biggest joke of all is that that great warrior against all things hateful, Althouse, probably agrees with you.

jr565 said...

"So defining marriage should be left to the States, unless of course they decide against SSM."


That seems to be the gist.

Salamandyr said...

Has it been determined how this fits the "full faith and credit clause"? With the defeat of DOMA, does the state of Missouri have to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts? Or is this decision only limited to the federal government recognizing a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts, while it exists in Massachusetts.

Since Missouri doesn't recognize gay marriage, does that mean the federal government will no longer recognize a couple as married if they move there?

This decision does not appear on the face of it to impose any obligations on the states, but perhaps my reading is wrong.

ihasch said...

@LarsPorsena-That's the bill I was referring to.
Maybe I'm getting old but things seem very out of balance in this country. Our political class seems completely inept. I had a crummy history teacher years back that was fond of saying that we were going to hell in a hand basket. I guess I've become that guy.

Palladian said...

Clinton's big-government wrong finally righted.

Methadras said...

Revenant said...

I'm glad to see Prop 8 go down in flames.

However, it bothers me a lot that a ruling on a law passed by the *people* of California can't be appealed by the people of California. What if the lefties on the court rule that Prop 13 is illegal? We'll be fucked.


I think you and I have had discussions before that the attack on Prop. 13 has been ongoing and is blatant. This will be next in California will be to repeal Prop. 13 and if that happens saying we are fucked will be like getting a paper cut or a hang nail. It will put 10's of millions of people in immediate monetary jeopardy.

Bryan C said...

"If the federal govt cannot discriminate against people who've already been married, doesn't this mean that the federal govt was wrong in denying polygamy to Utah? And more specifically to those who were married as polygamists?"

If Utah makes it legal, it would seem so.

The end result I'm hoping for is that any parties who want to be treated by the government as married say "we're married" and, as far as the government knows, they're married.

jr565 said...

Gay marriage, the issue where the democrats can rally behind the guy who passed DOMA without comment and then accuse those on the other side of the aisle to be bigots.

ricpic said...

Scalia: We might have let the People decide.

HERESY!!!

Jay said...

With the defeat of DOMA, does the state of Missouri have to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts?

No, the Court’s ruling does not affect Section 2 which provides that no state is required to give effect to another state’s recognition of same-sex marriages.

Baron Zemo said...

Jay said....
What these decisions reveal is just how ugly the supporters of SSM are. They hate you for disagreeing with them, think you're a monster, and will do and say just about anything, including outrageously not following their oaths of office, to achieve a perverse goal.


This is exactly right. They think you are not "decent" and will do everything in their power to force acceptance of SSM by everyone regardless of their own right to freedom of religion.

El Pollo Raylan said...

@Julie C and revenant: Excellent points on the fallout of this decision.

Baron Zemo said...

Methadras said....
As I said, this decision was murky. Scalia bears out that any opposition to homosexual marriage on a federal level and now on any level merits that anyone who opposes it is an enemy of humanity. Now the attack on the church and any institution that opposes it can begin post haste and without further opposition. I told you this would happen and it will happen.


Also exactly right. The attacks on the Catholic Church, the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews will commence immediately. The only religion which not be forced to comply will be the Muslims because of the threat of violence.

edutcher said...

Jay Retread said...

Let Freedom ring!

Retread defines freedom the way he defines a recovering economy.

LilyBart said...

Marriage will now officially become a joke.

Sadly, I think marriage was greatly weakened by heterosexuals and their casual attitude (easy come / easy go) approach.


Not marriage, rights.

In a Democrat dictatorship, national or state, your rights will be whatever the Democrats say they are.

slarrow said...

According to Kennedy's logic, the first state to allow multiple-partner marriages will force the federal government to recognize those as well. That'll go for any obscure, fringe "marital" arrangement: all the proponents need to do, according to this logic, is get it recognized by one state as "dignified and proper".

Rick Santorum was right.


Scalia was right.

FIFY

sunsong said...

Great day for America and moving closer to equal right for all.

Yes, equal right.

Only if you're a Democrat constituency.

And that right will only be what the Democrats say it is.

edutcher said...

Baron Zemo said...

As I said, this decision was murky. Scalia bears out that any opposition to homosexual marriage on a federal level and now on any level merits that anyone who opposes it is an enemy of humanity. Now the attack on the church and any institution that opposes it can begin post haste and without further opposition. I told you this would happen and it will happen.

Also exactly right. The attacks on the Catholic Church, the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews will commence immediately. The only religion which not be forced to comply will be the Muslims because of the threat of violence.


Thread winner.

Wonder if it will start in Charleston Harbor again?

Amartel said...

"I was in CA to see Prop 8 pass with a huge majority on a day in which candidate Obama won by a huge majority.
Clearly this was not the work of conservative voters."

Don't forget Obama robo-called "black" and "Hispanic" communities all over Cali, who supported Prop 8, ... saying he was against same-sex marriage.

Then he got elected.

Then, several years later, in need of money (as usual) he "evolved."

A totally natural process, of course.

This is what happens when you follow the leader. You get LED ABOUT. Trifled with. Used as a pawn. Exploited. Your rights are a political convenience, no more. What's next? You HOPE that your cult leader's interests coincide with your best interests. (Nope.)

Bryan C said...

"Also exactly right. The attacks on the Catholic Church, the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews will commence immediately. The only religion which not be forced to comply will be the Muslims because of the threat of violence."

That is a serious problem, but it's a different problem. Fighting against SSM won't protect churches. SSM is just one of many proxies being used for that purpose, like Obamacare's contraception mandates. If we really want to win, the protection of religious liberty is a fight that must be fought on its own merits.

hombre said...

BarryD wrote: ""Bearing false witness" is one of the prohibitions in the 10 Commandments. When SoCons try to force their religious beliefs into our laws, but then break one of the Big 10 in the process, it's the height of irony."

Actually, the height of irony is for a moral relativist ("And a lot of things weren't considered bigotry in other eras, either. We do consider them to be bigotry now.") to fail to note that his morality is relative and to refer to one of the Ten Commandments in support of his bullshit.

Stop the queers then. Don't stop them now. I say to-may-to. You say to-mah-to. What are God's Commandments to you?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Another point on how civil society is dying...

Set this in a larger context, which I can indicate by the following items:

> Pro-"gay marriage" forces are moving rapidly toward the position (as Scalia's dissent observes), that disagreement = bigotry. This movement is just beginning to grow.

> Persuant to that, more and more legal and social penalties will be directed against a rather substantial portion of our society that will be our version of the "recusants." Somewhere in the near future, the winning side will switch from ridiculing the notion to protesting with indignation that it should be otherwise.

> Meanwhile, we have the HHS mandate and its effect on religious freedom.

> Meanwhile, it's hard to deny, with a straight face, that if the HHS mandate on contraception survives, something like it on abortion won't soon follow.

> Meanwhile, we have several moves, within the federal government to stigmatize those who do not embrace the new agenda on "gay marriage" and the morality of same-sex behavior.

> In particular, we have forces at work in the military to stigmatize "recusants" there.

> Meanwhile, we have little eruptions here and there, within the military, of a move to view Catholics and Evangelicals (i.e., the two largest organized opposition to the new morality) as "extremists" ala al Qaeda and thus "the enemy"--and to punish these groups for "proselytizing."

So what does it all add up to?

Here's your caution, progressives, if you care:

At some point, this effort succeeds at convincing a significant portion of people that they no longer care that much about the "republic for which it stands."

Consider what happens to enlistments when Evagelicals and Catholics decide the military isn't a good place for them?

What happens to civil society when it sinks into the minds and hearts of some portion of Catholics and Evangelicals--it doesn't have to be all or a majority--that their country doesn't love them?

Be clear about something: these trends are going to provoke some conflict among Catholics, and among Evangelicals, precisely because there will be plenty of those who will, as in St. Thomas More's time, who will go along with the new regime.

But that conflict--which lefties will love to observe--will radicalize the recusants.

Beware what you are inciting here:

Telling many, many millions of Americans that their country (via law and culture and social sanction) officially despises what they hold dear is courting disaster.

Lefties, you may think the country doesn't need all those millions of "haters," but you may be surprised.

garage mahal said...

They hate you for disagreeing with them, think you're a monster, and will do and say just about anything, including outrageously not following their oaths of office, to achieve a perverse goal.

Let's hug it out Jay.

Jay said...

BarryD wrote: ""Bearing false witness" is one of the prohibitions in the 10 Commandments. When SoCons try to force their religious beliefs into our laws, but then break one of the Big 10 in the process, it's the height of irony."


This is one of the dumber things I've ever read.

You do realize that the foundation of "our laws" comes from the bible, right?

Or is it your asumption someone just made up that murder, stealing, etc are all wrong along the way?

edutcher said...

They're now the Ten Suggestions.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

hombre said...

BarryD said... -snip-

Actually, the height of irony is for a moral relativist ("And a lot of things weren't considered bigotry in other eras, either. We do consider them to be bigotry now.")


hombre- In defense of BarryD, I don't think he's being a moral relativist. I think he's clear that the things that are considered bigotry now are not only wrong now, but they were wrong in the past too, even if the people then did not see it that way.

And I suspect he believes that people in the future will properly judge today's ssm opponents in the same way.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

I suppose now it's prudent for constitutional amendments, and more particularly constitutional amendments (vaguely or otherwise) against sodomy, to include a clause about the right for citizens to kill without punishment any judge that declares the amendment unconstitutional.

jr565 said...

"The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others."
And how was this not the same with the banning of polygamy? Is Anthony Kennedy going to defend polygamy with the same all encompasing rhetoric?

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

Fr. Martin -
Especially when you notice that the 'haters' are concentrated in rural areas. Can a decadent empire survive without the provinces that produce its food?

The 'haters' are also the only ones reproducing........

Methadras said...

The thing is, is there is a larger game afoot. This is all a scam and a sham now. Every man for himself is basically the antithesis for conservativism, but rather that individuals share the same benefits of natural law of life, self-defense, liberty, freedom, and to pursue those goals for your own interests without government impedance. These are all gone or are going away now thanks to radical leftism, a poisonous and now demonic ideology that breeds hatred, callousness, subjugation, and evil. You who follow it are dooming all of us along with yourselves and you don't care.

Revenant said...

I was in CA to see Prop 8 pass with a huge majority

It got 52% of the vote. If you think you remember seeing it pass with "a huge majority", your memory is playing tricks on you. :)

Revenant said...

Pro-"gay marriage" forces are moving rapidly toward the position (as Scalia's dissent observes), that disagreement = bigotry.

More accurately, they are moving towards ("long ago reached", really) the position that laws that have the effect of discriminating against a class of people need to have a rational basis. Laws banning gay marriage do not.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:

More accurately, they are moving towards ("long ago reached", really) the position that laws that have the effect of discriminating against a class of people need to have a rational basis. Laws banning gay marriage do not.

according to who? People who agree with gay marriage?

I Callahan said...

More accurately, they are moving towards ("long ago reached", really) the position that laws that have the effect of discriminating against a class of people need to have a rational basis. Laws banning gay marriage do not.

Here's the thing: that group was NOT being discriminated against. Any gay man or woman could have married anyone of the opposite sex at any time. That is the same right that heterosexuals have. No disparity.

What this has done is to change a meaning of a word from what it was for thousands of years, to something completely different. So they change the meaning, declare discrimination, and the USSC codifies this into law?

Is this really what you're defending, Revenant?

jr565 said...

Do you accept the rational basis FOR traditional marriage (ie. that it promotes the mother and father who gave birth to the baby as the family structure society promotes).If so, why would you be a bigot for supporting marriage as it stands.
And if you don't accept that premise, why are gay marriage advocates clinging to the traditional marriage structure as opposed to say a polygamous structure.
Incidentally I could list off plenty of rational basises for ordering marriage around a polygamous structure rather than two people alone. Shouldn't the law be changed then because there is a rational basis for polygamy?

hombre said...

Ignorance is bliss wrote: "hombre- In defense of BarryD, I don't think he's being a moral relativist. I think he's clear that the things that are considered bigotry now are not only wrong now, but they were wrong in the past too, even if the people then did not see it that way."

Support for traditional marriage is wrong now and was wrong in the past and amounts (amounted) to bigotry?

Thanks anyway. Historically, there is neither metaphysical nor cultural support for the "rightness" of same sex marriage. That cultural support in some quarters has now evolved for it is evidence of moral relativism in those quarters. Accusations of "bigotry" are political devices intended to forward same sex marriage by demeaning its opponents and their motives.

BarryD is not clear about much, including his moral relativism.

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

Revenant wrote: 'Pro-"gay marriage" forces are moving rapidly toward the position (as Scalia's dissent observes), that disagreement = bigotry.

More accurately, they are moving towards ("long ago reached", really) the position that laws that have the effect of discriminating against a class of people need to have a rational basis. Laws banning gay marriage do not.'

Not only is your assertion not "more accurate," it does not address the point made by Scalia. Debating legal doctrine is one thing, behaving civilly toward an opponent is another.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
More accurately, they are moving towards ("long ago reached", really) the position that laws that have the effect of discriminating against a class of people need to have a rational basis. Laws banning gay marriage do not.

I think you'll find that there is a rational basis for every law in existence. And you either agree or disagree with the rational basis. And every law also descriminates against those who run afoul of the law.
Considering this, your standard is completely hollow. And it simply means, laws should be changed because you don't agree with the laws. That's not a very good grounds to argue discrimination, since by their very nature laws discrminate.
What is the rational basis for our voting age being the age it is versus the age it isn't? If you disagree with the voting age being what it is for rational reasons, does that mean that society can't set a voting age at the age it is?


Renee said...

@jr565

Or no structure at all.

Meanwhile in Vermont this month.

http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_23515441/fatherhood-initiative-helps-reconnect-dads-their-kids

Fatherhood Initiative helps reconnect dads with their kids

"Our work is creating a culture where the expectation for all dads is to be a responsible, positive presence in the lives of their children," said Mrowicki, who represents Putney, Dummerston and Westminster in the Vermont House of Representatives.

A big task the initiative would like to tackle is how to break down the institutional barriers that stand between men and their children, especially in divorce and blended family situations. These barriers often exclude dads from everyday activities such as school conferences and home visits from parent educators."


Was marriage the bond that kept men with his children?

Renee said...

@jr565

Or no structure at all.

Meanwhile in Vermont this month.

http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_23515441/fatherhood-initiative-helps-reconnect-dads-their-kids

Fatherhood Initiative helps reconnect dads with their kids

"Our work is creating a culture where the expectation for all dads is to be a responsible, positive presence in the lives of their children," said Mrowicki, who represents Putney, Dummerston and Westminster in the Vermont House of Representatives.

A big task the initiative would like to tackle is how to break down the institutional barriers that stand between men and their children, especially in divorce and blended family situations. These barriers often exclude dads from everyday activities such as school conferences and home visits from parent educators."


Was marriage the bond that kept men with his children?

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
More accurately, they are moving towards ("long ago reached", really) the position that laws that have the effect of discriminating against a class of people need to have a rational basis. Laws banning gay marriage do not

Marriage discriminates against brothers and sisters who want to marry each other. Other than the ick factor what is the rational basis to deny people who love each other from marrying? The only rational arguments against it are that it's somehow wrong. But arguing that it's wrong is similar to arguing that traditional marriage is right. Why is it not wrong because those who don't like it have a hangup about it? or believe outdated beliefs about how families should behave towards one another?
And the other argument against it is children who are born might have defects. This wouldn't be a problem with gay siblings, would it? And even if there is that possibility, should you deny people who love one another a fundamental right that they are entitled to BUT for your hangups? And what business it is of yours?

Baron Zemo said...

Fr Martin Fox said...

But that conflict--which lefties will love to observe--will radicalize the recusants.

Beware what you are inciting here.


Very true Father. Very true.

jr565 said...

Also in this world of abortion what's wrong with a brother and sister saying "Fine, if it has birth defects we'll abort it".
What else do we have to oppose incestual marriages?

Now, you may not agree with my rational basis to allow for incestual marriage (nor do I)but so what? The person making the argument does. And in the meantime those denied their ability to marry the person they love (Whoevery that might be) is NECESSARILY being discriminated againt.

Dave said...

Fr Martin Fox said..."Here's your caution, progressives, if you care:

At some point, this effort succeeds at convincing a significant portion of people that they no longer care that much about the 'republic for which it stands.'"

So - you suggest that the ongoing American struggle to define what "liberty and justice for all" means should be abandoned by those who don't agree with you or the whole country will just "go to Hell in a handbasket." Or as you put it - "civil society is dying."

Father, what you see as death others see as new life and hope. May the God of Love bring you peace.

jr565 said...

Dave wrote:
So - you suggest that the ongoing American struggle to define what "liberty and justice for all" means should be abandoned by those who don't agree with you or the whole country will just "go to Hell in a handbasket." Or as you put it - "civil society is dying."

Father, what you see as death others see as new life and hope. May the God of Love bring you peace.

NAMBLA might see their fight as an ongoing struggle to define what liberty and justice means. And they might see weakening laws on child sex as new life and hope.
Do you want to stand for NAMBLA's pursuit of liberty and justice?

jr565 said...

What is the rational basis for denying NAMBLA what they want? What is the rational basis for defining a child the way we do? Coudln't we apply any other rational basis to that question? One that gives NAMBLA what it wants?
When talking about life in terms of abortion when protection is afforded is open to huge debate. Why wouldn't when a kid became an adult not be viewed the same way?
Maybe "protecting children" as we define them now is not based on a rational basis that we can agree with.
For example, the prophet Mohammad married a 6 year old and waited to consummate the marriage till she was 8 or 9 when she menstruated. Why is that not the time when girls become women? Or if you look around the world, children can work in factories. And here, the left wants to give girls the ability to have abortions without their parents consent and have no restirction on morning after pills. If you're old enough to buy a mornning after pill and you're 8 it means that you're having sex as an 8 year old and society is treating you as an adult. So then why shouldnt a sexual predator be viewed as a sexual predator if he views you as fuck worthy?
Now, you may not agree with NAMBLA wanting to lower the age of consent, but it is based on a rational basis argument. Other than your disagreement (which is probalby based on your ingorance and bigotry) on what basis would you discriminate against people who want to marry who may be underage?

Fr Martin Fox said...


Fr Martin Fox said...

Here's your caution, progressives, if you care:

At some point, this effort succeeds at convincing a significant portion of people that they no longer care that much about the 'republic for which it stands.'


Dave said...

So - you suggest that...

No, what follows bears no resemblance to what I said--so it's not what I'm "suggesting," but what you are saying...

...the ongoing American struggle to define what "liberty and justice for all" means should be abandoned by those who don't agree with you or the whole country will just "go to Hell in a handbasket." Or as you put it - "civil society is dying."

Father, what you see as death others see as new life and hope. May the God of Love bring you peace.


I think what I said is plain enough. If the "new morality" folks turn tens of millions of Catholics and Evangelicals--and for good measure, Mormons and other folks--into "recusants," because they will not genuflect to the golden statue being erected over our society...

You will reap a disastrous whirlwind.

Alienating a substantial portion of this country, from this country, is disaster. But that's the course the advocates of the new morality are set upon.

Good luck with that.

jr565 said...

Revenant wrote:
ore accurately, they are moving towards ("long ago reached", really) the position that laws that have the effect of discriminating against a class of people need to have a rational basis. Laws banning gay marriage do not

The voting age. We'd all agree that those who can't vote are discriminated against correct? Granted the law wouldnt describe it as discrimination, they would simply say that that is the voting age.
Are underage voters not a class of people who can't vote? Therefore therefor being discriminated against.
The question for you is, can we even have a Voting Age under your argument. You say, when it comes to marriage that there is NO rational basis to deny gays the right to marry, ingnoring the rational basis for ordering marriage around a man and a woman. Clearly those who are arguing for traditional marriage therefore have a rational basis for their position, you just think its wrong or bigoted.But that doesn't meant there is NO rational basis.
So, back to the voting age. What is the rational basis for making the voting age 18? Are 17 year olds incapable of voting? Are 16 year olds? Are 15 year olds? At some point you're going to have to say the voting age is X or give up on the concept of a voting age. And whatever decision you make is going to be based on a rational basis that many may not agree with. Like if your voting age is 18, 17 year olds might object that they too should be able to vote.

So how should we apply your standard to other laws?

Fr Martin Fox said...

By the way, the Bush-Obama National Security State is already doing a lot to alienate Americans from their own country--at least, their government.

"...and to the republic for which it stands"--at what point do people say, huh? What republic?

In the newer Star Wars trilogy, at some point, people realized they were on the wrong side. No longer defending the republic against traitors, but helping the empire oppress the people.

jr565 said...

The proponents of gay marriage seem to be arguing that it can't be illegal because to make it illegal is discriminatory, and if discriminqtory must be allowed. But how is that different than any law, or even any marriage restriction?
If it's illegal to have a polygamous marriage does that mean that we must legalize polygamy as polygamists now have unequal protection under law?

It all boils down to, society can't make any rules about marriage at all. Because any rule or restriction would necessarily hurt people who don't meet the criterion for marriage. And under the logic of gay marriage, because they don't they must be given access to marriage.

Mark said...

How funny Rev Fox sees the oppression of populace by the federal government, but fails to see how his side is oppressing the populace from the statehouse.

Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas .... you mimic the claims of the other side.

Seems to me more like the bloviating of people who want power over others than people being oppressed.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Mark said...
Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas .... you mimic the claims of the other side.

This man obviously despises the state-by-state mechanism.

jr565 said...

Mark wrote:
How funny Rev Fox sees the oppression of populace by the federal government, but fails to see how his side is oppressing the populace from the statehouse.

Seems to me more like the bloviating of people who want power over others than people being oppressed.

If you had any restriction on marriage at all wouldn't it lead to people being oppressed. Are you against any restriction on marriage at all, therefore?

wyo sis said...

I wonder if Alex will be as excited to see property owners crying in their cereal when prop 13 is overturned.
What can be done to one side can be done to the other when the tide turns.

Mark said...

jr, your babbling about marriage is insane. Desperate.

No one agrees with your points. Ann won't even dignify it with a response.

But do go ahead. You reaffirm the idea that your side is raving bigots.

jr565 said...

Mark wrote:

Seems to me more like the bloviating of people who want power over others than people being oppressed.

If govt passes a law, either on the federal level or state level isn't it essentially about power over other people. So, are you arguing that there should be no govt? or no laws?
Or that only the laws you don't like are about "power over other people" whereas the laws you are ok with are just laws and there is no compulsion involved.

jr565 said...

Mark wrote:

No one agrees with your points. Ann won't even dignify it with a response.

But do go ahead. You reaffirm the idea that your side is raving bigots.

How is my argument bigoted? I'm saying your argument is bullshit, self serving and makes no sense. It has no bearing on whether I think gay marriage should be legal or not. I'm questioning the entire premise of your argument which seems to be as flimsy as can be.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 240   Newer› Newest»