The Orwellianly named Marriage Equality Act, now the law in the State of New York, further solidifies the state's power to restrict who can get married, and who cannot. Far from granting marriage rights to all people equally, it merely broadens the category of whom may marry.
And it's not merely an oversight: the law states explicitly that the intent is to only allow homosexual marriages that would be otherwise legal, if not for the fact of the two partners being of the same sex. So other marriages are intentionally and explicitly left out of this legislation. There is no actual equality here: the marriage of gay brothers -- despite the fact that there is absolutely no more reason to restrict their marriage than there is that of any other gay couple -- is still illegal under New York law.
If we want to talk equality, then let's be honest and truly equal; otherwise, as in this case, "equality" is just a synonym for selfishness.
At least New York went through the legislature, rather than trying to shoehorn anti-equality rules into the 14th Amendment, such as David Boies and Ted Olson are doing in the federal case against California's Prop. 8. If you want to discriminate against incestuous marriages, fine, but don't pretend the 14th Amendment says it's not OK to discriminate against gays, but it is OK to discriminate against siblings.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 26, 2011 05:56 PM | Email ThisHowever, regardless, civil marriage WAS outlawed in every state until a few years ago. There's two kinds of marriage, social and civil, and social is unrestricted and civil is heavily restricted. And New York (as I note above) maintains those restrictions in all but one case.
As to a "victory for love," those people are, frankly, sick. It's one thing to put your parts in other parts where I think they shouldn't go; but to actually believe that government recognizing your love for someone else is a victory for your love ... that is completely and utterly disturbing. And frankly, anyone who believes this is a victory for love has absolutely no claim of any kind that they just want to be left alone, or that they want the government out of their bedroom, and so on: they demanded -- and got -- government to be involved with their romantic relationships.
Posted by: pudge on June 26, 2011 06:03 PMYour reasoning has its origin only in hate toward gays, a desire for their unions to forever be second-class, or even criminal. This is why younger secular voters have such a strong distaste for the modern conservative movement.
Posted by: Socialmobserver on June 26, 2011 07:08 PMObviously false.
The discrimination occurs when the state tells a man he can marry a woman but not a man. That is where equal protection breaks down.
Yes, exactly. But that argument only works if the object you argue for is actual equality. In the case of gay marriage, such as we now have in New York, it's not, because there are still adult couples that are denied legal recognition of their marriages.
Siblings ... are not in any way guaranteed equal protection of the laws.
Ummmm. You base this on ... what? EVERY argument for equal protection of gay marriage also applies to sibling marriage. Can't have children? Check. Makes many people feel icky? Check. Isn't "traditional"? Check. On what possible rational or legal basis could you claim that sibling marriages can be denied equal protection, where gay marriages cannot?
This is, of course, my point: New York is continuing to discriminate, though it is pretending it is not.
This is why the other equal protection alternative to granting the right to marry someone of the same gender is to eliminate state sanctioned marriage altogether
Yes, this is a position I've advocated for many years.
... instead only granting access to marriage-like state privileges (automatic parental rights or inheritance by surving spouses, for example) through civil unions - to both hetero and homo couples.
Well, not quite. Strike "both hetero and homo couples" and replace it with "any two consenting adults," and then I am on board. As soon as you say it must be a couple of a particular form, then you are not eliminating state-sanctioned marriage at all, you're just changing the name. The actual solution is to grant those privileges/protections/etc. to any two people (for the sake of argument here, we'll limit it to two) who are of a certain age.
Your reasoning has its origin only in hate toward gays ...
Nonsense. You cannot find a single thing in what I wrote to back up this bizarre claim.
... a desire for their unions to forever be second-class, or even criminal.
Flummery. In fact, it's just the opposite: I want civil unions for ALL, and civil marriage for NONE, and for no crime in such things to even be constitutionally possible. Mt view -- as explicitly expressed above -- is actual equality.
This is why younger secular voters have such a strong distaste for the modern conservative movement.
Because, like you, they make up bogeymen where they don't exist, in order to fuel their own hatred?
The above statement (which is quite literally true) is perhaps a twisting of facts and language, but not nearly as much as Pudge's twisting into "New York Reinforces Marriage Discrimination".
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 27, 2011 01:12 AMRichard: I suppose if you had an argument against what I wrote, you would provide it. I twisted nothing. This law does NOT provide for marriage equality, it provides for extending marriage restrictions to one additional class of couples.
They obviously do not care about actual equality; if they did, they would throw marriage open to any two consenting adults, rather than merely broaden the list of who may participate.
This isn't hard to grasp, and I am not sure why you don't get it.
Uh...who exactly is talking about sibling marriage?
Is there actually anyone claiming that the 14th amendment applies or does not apply to siblings wanting a marriage license? Citation?
New York law makes it illegal, and the new law explicitly continues that. Whether they say "sibling marriage" or not, the effect is intentional.
Is there actually anyone claiming that the 14th amendment applies or does not apply to siblings wanting a marriage license?
I don't see what you don't get. Gay marriage activists are pushing for laws and rulings that would -- by their own words, for the sake of "equality" -- result in expanding marriage to only gay couples, and no one else. If you are arguing to expand "equality" to only one class, and not to everyone, then it's not actual equality. This is obvious.
In other words, it's ok, constitutionally, to discriminate in all kinds of everyday ways. It's just not ok to deny equal protection of the laws by race, gender and a few other classes. Gender discrimination and specifically enacted protections for gays are the issues at hand in gay marriage. So, when you start equating the rights of gay couples to marry each other with siblings, etc, its reasonable to question your motivations.
Posted by: Social Observer on June 27, 2011 08:12 AMYou're incorrect. (And note that you are disagreeing with Mike here, who I am pretty sure would agree with all I am about to say.) The 14th Amendment reads: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It doesn't say anything about equality of gender. This isn't about protected classes of people at all: the equal protection clause is for ALL people.
Now, there is a caveat to the above: laws regarding some specific classes -- such as racial and religious -- are automatically given greater scrutiny. But there is no precedent or law that gives sexual orientation the same level of scrutiny. More importantly, however, the level of scrutiny doesn't change the fact that ALL people are entitled to equal protection, regardless of any "class" they are in.
You are simply wrong to say that equal protection only applies to certain classes, and to say that the level of scrutiny reserved for certain other classes also necessarily applies to gays.
(I'd also note that obvious, that differentiating in levels of scrutiny between classes is itself a clear violation of the equal protection clause ... but that's an argument for another day.)
What is not debatable is that if you're going to say equal protection requires us to recognize gay marriage, but you are only looking to expand marriage to a specific group instead of making it actually equal, then you're not doing justice to the argument you are making, and I'll consider you to be dishonest or incompetent, and will ignore your claim.
Posted by: pudge on June 27, 2011 11:03 AMAdditionally, gender discrimination is inherent in a law that says a woman can marry a man but not another woman if she is a lesbian. This means application of an intermediate scrutiny by which gay marriage bans could not be upheld. In fact, Judge Walker makes a very compelling argument that a gay marriage ban, based on a series of ludicrous and outdated assumptions, cannot even survive a rational basis test. A ban on siblings marrying, even if it was only justified for the sake of " proceeding with caution on social change." would meet this standard as would an increased likelihood of genetically compromised off-spring. If you are trying to put the rights of millions of very real, loving gay couples who seek to enjoy the privileges and kind of social stability promised by marriage on par with some group of unidentifiable handful of sibling couples who, in theory, want to marry, then, yes, that shows an insensitive and biased dismissal of what these rights mean to gay people, their friends, families and, increasingly, society as a whole.
Posted by: Social Observer on June 27, 2011 11:07 AMBut it isn't a strong precedent.
gender discrimination is inherent in a law that says a woman can marry a man but not another woman if she is a lesbian
No, it is not. That's nonsense. It is not discriminating against her because she is a woman. Therefore it is not gender discrimination.
Regardless, you didn't even attempt to justify your (false) claim that equal protection only applies for certain protected classes.
A ban on siblings marrying, even if it was only justified for the sake of " proceeding with caution on social change" would meet this standard ...
Only if you toss out the text and intent of "equal protection" (or you admit that it doesn't apply to gay marriages). Statists who make this sort of argument don't understand that the main purpose of the mention of rights in the Constitution is to protect individual rights FROM the majority; saying that one group should be protected because the majority supports it violates the entire point.
By the exact same logic we could say that gay marriage could be outlawed in states that find it more offensive, such as most of the South ... not to mention mixed race marriages.
... as would an increased likelihood of genetically compromised off-spring.
That doesn't apply to gay sibling marriage, so, no.
If you are trying to put the rights of millions of very real, loving gay couples who seek to enjoy the privileges and kind of social stability promised by marriage ...
Civil marriage by government makes no such promise. You're confused.
... on par with some group of unidentifiable handful of sibling couples who, in theory, want to marry ...
I put the rights of all people -- and the protection of the laws for those rights -- on par with the rights of all other people, yes. That's what the 14th Amendment actual says. But you don't care about that, obviously.
... then, yes, that shows an insensitive and biased dismissal of what these rights mean to gay people, their friends, families and, increasingly, society as a whole.
Well, you're right that I couldn't care less about their feelings. But it's not just them: I really couldn't care less about anyone's feelings, not when dealing with matters of government. I can't imagine why this is important to you, or anyone else, whether I have any feelings about other peoples' feelings, but yep, you got me there: I am insensitive.
That doesn't change the fact, however, that the 14th Amendment demands that equal rights for gays be applied to everyone else, equally.
People who hate the rule of law don't care about this, but those of us who love it, do.
"That doesn't change the fact, however, that the 14th Amendment demands that equal rights for gays be applied to everyone else, equally."
Can you cite a federal case regarding the applicability of the 14th amendment to siblings?
That question makes no sense. I said "everyone else," not "siblings." "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The argument we constantly hear from gay rights activists is that if gays do not get govt recognition of marriage, then they are being denied equal protection of the laws. This must also necessarily apply to ALL people -- where we have a couple of consenting adults -- who wish to have government recognition of their marriage. There's no way around it, except to do as Social is attempting: pretend that the 14th Amendment is about specific classes of people (that is, to pretend that the 14th Amendment says the opposite of what it actually says).
The establishment of Gay Marriage is another of a series of symbolic aggressions and assaults by the privileged, well-educated, and influential against the culture, values, and beliefs of ordinary Americans. The American elite has simply chosen to exercise the contemporary equivalent of le droit du seigneur with the sacrament of marriage as its victim. Our rulers are once again demonstrating in the most dramatic possible manner the power of the establishment community of fashion to violate the most cherished cultural institutions and traditions of the plebians at will.http://neveryetmelted.com/2011/06/27/libertarianism-and-gay-marriage/
I can't marry a male. A homosexual male can't marry a male. We both have precisely the same right. So where's the discrimination?
It would be one thing if I, as a straight male, COULD marry another male (An absurd example, I know, but it's to illustrate what discrimination, per se', is) and a homo male could not do the precise same thing.
But neither of us can marry a male... so again... where's the discrimination?
Because using this nonsensical definition of discrimination, how is it that 17 year olds are not allowed to vote?
I'm allowed to vote. That a 17 year old isn't is far more discriminatory then both a straight and homo male not being allowed to marry someone of the same gender.
In fact, both a straight and a homo male have PRECISELY the same right... to marry someone of the opposite gender, if they'll have us.
So this whole "discrimination" thing is a ruse. And, of course, once successfully applied, the usual marriage issues... multiple marriage, underage marriage, sibling marriage... it's just a matter of time.
But hey... whatever floats your boat. I just wished the other side had been a little more honest about it.
Posted by: hinton on June 27, 2011 02:47 PMWell, it depends on how you look at it. But regardless, my point is merely that IF it is discriminatory against gays, it is discriminatory in the same way against others, such as sibling couples.
both a straight and a homo male have PRECISELY the same right... to marry someone of the opposite gender, if they'll have us.
It depends on whether you define marriage as a right "to marry someone of the opposite sex," or a right "to marry the person whom you love" (in both cases, of course, "if they'll have you"). If the latter, then you have one person who has a right to marry the person whom they love, and another person who does not.
Because using this nonsensical definition of discrimination, how is it that 17 year olds are not allowed to vote?
Because they are dumb. :-)
So this whole "discrimination" thing is a ruse. And, of course, once successfully applied, the usual marriage issues... multiple marriage, underage marriage, sibling marriage... it's just a matter of time.
While the EXACT same logic is used against gay marriage and incest marriage, that's not the case with young marriage and multiple-partner marriages. So while it IS merely a matter of time, if we are to be consistent, for sibling marriage, it isn't necessarily for the others.
Pudge has this exactly right.
Posted by: Mom on June 27, 2011 04:32 PMYou may not like the idea of subjecting laws with discriminatory purpose against suspect classes to a higher level of scrutiny, but this is very strong precedent, going back more than 75 years. And, don't forget why. Because the reasoning on which you rely was used to justify separate but equal in Plessy v. Ferguson, anti-miscegenation and other laws, like the Alabama statutes called out in Loving v. Virginia that provided greater criminal punishment for mixed-race couples committing adultery (ie., the law was applied equally because both the black person and white person involved in the mixed-race affair were subject to the same enhanced sentence compared with whites or blacks having affairs with people of the same race).
My point about a infinitesimal (or non-existent?) number of siblings who want to marry is not to argue that individuals shouldn't be protected against the tyranny of the majority under the 14th Am., but that there is no meaningful level of harm or inferiority imposed on siblings by the majority compared with the second-class status that even a Washington-style civil union law imposes on gay couples. In other words, the plight of sibling rights is in no way comparable to the plight of gays in this country.
So, why do I care what you think? Well, I don't care what you individually think. But, I do care that there is still a mass of people, albeit a rapidly shrinking one, who stand in the way of people that I personally care a lot about gaining access to the important rights and privileges that come with marriage, whose relationships are deemed inferior by the state and whose kids (in other states, not WA) suffer potential threats to the stability of their families because of these discriminatory and harmful laws.
I also well-understand that the people who wrote th 14th Amendment made it broad for a reason. They recognized the evils done to blacks, and wanted to make sure that the rights of ALL people, in perpetuity, would be protected equally.
You may not like the idea of subjecting laws with discriminatory purpose against suspect classes to a higher level of scrutiny, but this is very strong precedent, going back more than 75 years.
Yes, and it's wrong. Again: it defeats the very letter and intent of the 14th Amendment to give higher levels of scrutiny to some laws regarding some people, as opposed to others, because when that happens it is de facto unequal protection of the laws.
And, don't forget why.
Because liberal justices, who don't care for the rule of law, wanted it to apply to certain types of cases they favored, moreso than others they did not.
Because the reasoning on which you rely was used to justify separate but equal
That's complete and utter nonsense. I am arguing for actual equality; you compare it to people justifying inequality!
My point about a infinitesimal (or non-existent?) number of siblings who want to marry is not to argue that individuals shouldn't be protected against the tyranny of the majority under the 14th Am., but that there is no meaningful level of harm or inferiority imposed on siblings by the majority compared with the second-class status that even a Washington-style civil union law imposes on gay couples.
More nonsense. You're actually arguing that forbidding a couple's marriage -- not even giving them any legal status whatsoever -- is NOT harm, while giving full legal status IS harm! How can I even begin to approach such a ridiculous claim?
In other words, the plight of sibling rights is in no way comparable to the plight of gays in this country.
Yes, it is self-evidently far worse for sibling couples. There's not even any rational debate to be had on this point. Having legal status is, again, self-evidently better than having no legal status. I can't even imagine what sort of reasoning could possibly lead someone to the opposite conclusion.
I do care that there is still a mass of people, albeit a rapidly shrinking one, who stand in the way of people that I personally care a lot about
And this brings me back to my point: you don't care about the rule of law, but only about selfishly getting your way. That's what's given us this terrible affront of differing levels of scrutiny based on what type of "class" is affected in the first place; it's what made our Supreme Court blanketly ignore the entirety of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th since its ratification; and it's where most people on the side of gay marriage, like you, are coming from right now.
You simply want gay marriage, and you don't care how you get it. You are not actually principled about equality; you want equality for things and people you care about, and that's the end of it for you.
I, on the other hand, what actual equality for everyone. I'm not the one on the side of anti-miscegenation laws and Plessy v. Ferguson; if either of us is, it's clearly you: you're the one literally arguing for special legal consideration for your favored class of people.
In this flavor, we have Orwellian abuse of the word Orwellian:
The Orwellianly named Marriage Equality Act, now the law in the State of New York, further solidifies the state's power to restrict who can get married, and who cannot.
The state of New York has had this power for centuries; ending discrimination against same-sex marriages merely exercises an existing power. One may as well argue that the legislature's changing the highway speed limit "further solidifies the state's power over vehicles on public roadways."
Far from granting marriage rights to all people equally, it merely broadens the category of whom may marry.
To end a form of discrimination which had no justification other than bigotry against the victims of said discrimination. (Only here, at SoundDelusional, would this be considered a bad thing.)
And it's not merely an oversight: the law states explicitly that the intent is to only allow homosexual marriages that would be otherwise legal, if not for the fact of the two partners being of the same sex.
Because having legislators write laws clearly and carefully is a bad thing!
Yes, if the only reason the parters could not marry was their being the same sex, the state had no legitimate interest in continuing the prohibition. If there were other, legitimate reasons for prohibiting marriage, then those reasons remain valid. (Duh.)
So other marriages are intentionally and explicitly left out of this legislation.
Because the legislators were addressing gay marriages. (Duh.)
There is no actual equality here: the marriage of gay brothers -- despite the fact that there is absolutely no more reason to restrict their marriage than there is that of any other gay couple -- is still illegal under New York law.
Yes, because there are legitimate reasons why siblings, and other close relatives, may not marry. Those reasons don't apply to unrelated gay couples, and therefore this legislation does not apply to them either.
If you want to discriminate against incestuous marriages, fine, but don't pretend the 14th Amendment says it's not OK to discriminate against gays, but it is OK to discriminate against siblings.
Easily the clearest sentence pudge has ever published here.
However, he does eventually admit his motivation is his personal feelings about people who he has never met, and whose private sexual acts he will never observe:
As to a "victory for love," those people are, frankly, sick. It's one thing to put your parts in other parts where I think they shouldn't go; but to actually believe that government recognizing your love for someone else is a victory for your love ... that is completely and utterly disturbing.
If the state is going to hand out privileges, then it should hand them out equally. Saying I can marry a woman, but I cannot marry her brother*, is the very definition of gender-based discrimination, and the State of New York was right to end it.
*In recognition of the original poster's weird fixation on sibling marriage -- not to imply that has any relevance here!
Posted by: tensor on June 27, 2011 11:47 PMUm. So you're saying this act DID provide for marriage equality, even though I proved it doesn't?
The state of New York has had this power for centuries
Yes. I never implied otherwise. "Further solidifies" means it has had that power, not that it is a new power. My argument, obviously, is that the state SHOULD NOT decide who can, and cannot, get "married." Gay marriage proponents pretend to agree with me, but in fact, do not.
a form of discrimination which had no justification other than bigotry against the victims of said discrimination.
Yes, that is precisely what the new law continues, as I've proven.
if the only reason the parters could not marry was their being [close relatives], the state had no legitimate interest in continuing the prohibition.
There, I fixed it for you.
Because the legislators were addressing gay marriages.
Exactly! They weren't actually providing marriage equality, they were merely providing for gay marriages. That's my point.
there are legitimate reasons why siblings, and other close relatives, may not marry
False. There is NO reason that doesn't also apply to gay marriages.
Those reasons don't apply to unrelated gay couples
False. I defy you to bring up a single one.
he does eventually admit his motivation is his personal feelings
You're a liar. I have no personal feelings about any of this, and never implied otherwise.
If the state is going to hand out privileges, then it should hand them out equally
Yes. And it is not equal. That's my point, which despite your careful attention to my words, you continue to miss.
Marriage in New York State, by act of its legislature, and in spite of everything you've always heard, is for everybody, and every combination of everybodies.
Except, you know what -- it's not. And, what's more, won't ever be.
For all the legislature's grandeur and power, and the fervent encouragement of The New York Times, no aggregation of human beings enjoys the power to redefine marriage.
What New York has done, amid much trumpeting and self-congratulation, is create a secular-political institution and give it, spuriously, the name of marriage, according to whose regulations two men may join themselves to each other as may two women.
It's a sad and shabby charade, with consequences that will likely prove proportionate to New York's size, population and megalomania.
... Playing with real people's real lives and offering cheap and transitory satisfactions for the sake of political gain is more the mark of fascism than of American democracy. Or at least it once was.
New York's gay marriage law will hurt New Yorkers
Friday's decision by the New York State Legislature to redefine marriage shows not only the weakness of New York's legislators, but also the enormous spending power wielded by the small but vocal minority seeking to redefine marriage and the family.
A recent poll showed that nearly 60 percent of New Yorkers support marriage as it has always been understood. The fact that New York's legislators deliberately ignored the calls of their constituents to defend the institution of marriage shows how little they respect the will of their people and how much they fear the homosexual lobby.
Another Victory for Self-Indulgence
Gay marriage is the child of no-fault divorce, which was itself born of the sexual revolution. In a time when the hard-earned experience of two full generations of sexual experimentation have taught us unequivocally that the two-parent, mother-father household is our nation's best bulwark against abuse, poverty, addiction, and criminality, we should be moving away from the notion that our culture and our lives are best-served by legally protecting sexual experimentation and tinkering with the institution of marriage. Instead, we have scrutinized the cultural toll and said, "More, please." After all, the heart wants what it wants, and we shouldn't be unfair in doling out the sexual goodies.
Gay marriage proponents speak the language of liberty, but so often one form of liberty (sexual liberty) is granted while other forms (free speech, religious freedom) are taken away. In the liberal definition of "diversity" there is room for many sexual practices but only one way of thinking. Thus, we now live in a world where the state attempts to force Catholic charities to place children in same-sex families, college students are punished for speaking against same-sex parenting, graduate students are thrown out of college for refusing to morally affirm homosexual sex, tax exemptions are denied when churches don't make their property available for gay weddings, and social work licenses threatened merely because a school counselor supported a state marriage amendment. In each of these cases, enumerated constitutional liberties were threatened for the sake of protecting a state-approved idea -- the idea that there should be no moral distinctions drawn between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
When it comes to marriage, we know the institution that predates the state itself -- the two-parent, mother-father household -- is an enduring bulwark and building block of civilization of itself. We also know that experimentation with and deviation from that form has caused an enormous amount of national suffering. And yet millions of Americans celebrated New York's latest marriage experiment. I fear that we'll continue to reap the cultural whirlwind of our own selfishness.
Does NY's New Gay Marriage Law Protect Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Unions?
But, is the debate truly over? Already, new questions are arising over the rights of individuals and businesses to refuse serving or working for gay couples.
*All emphasis mine
Destroy the culture and you destroy the freedom of America.
Thanks liberalism.
ENFORCE culture and you destroy the freedom of America.
The real solution is to abolish government control over marriage.
The real solution is to abolish government control over marriage.
And government control over a lot of other institutions as well.
You know we are in trouble when there is a debate re: government regulation of Happy Meals and Grandmas are getting their adult diapers searched by yet another three letter acronym Federal Police.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 28, 2011 02:21 PMThe answer to most societal problems is usually less government.
But I also believe people need to wake up and connect the dots: that the erosion of our cultural standards in the last 50 years are what ALLOW the government via the politicians to increasingly regulate and control.
What's that saying? If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
BINGO! That's where we are as a culture, as a society.
I read an absolutely horrifying article today:
Oral sex expected of Gen Y: survey
ORAL sex is now so commonplace among Generation Y women that many say they feel it's expected of them.
But then the liberals came along, and their idea was the ends, and "by any means necessary" was their method. They hated the rule of law because it was a roadblock to whatever their goals were. They threw out the Constitution, threw out math, threw out science ... whatever they wanted, that is what they would take.
I could write a lot more about this, including linking it directly to climate "science," abortion, and many other issues, but I gotta go. :-)
Our liberty is enshrined in our laws, but liberty should not be license for opportunities for the flesh. Our liberties, protected and permitted as they are, should not be exploited to do anything and everything we want, including things harmful to oneself, to one's family, to one's neighbors, to one's culture, to one's country. That misunderstanding and abuse of freedom is what Pope Benedict XVI calls a "confused ideology of freedom," one that can engender "the self-destruction of freedom" for others.
Um. So you're saying this act DID provide for marriage equality, even though I proved it doesn't?
Your making the same empty claim over and over proves nothing about the world outside your own head. Just because you repeatedly claim that gay unions and incestuous unions are alike does not mean the rest of us need take your claim seriously.
My argument, obviously, is that the state SHOULD NOT decide who can, and cannot, get "married." Gay marriage proponents pretend to agree with me, but in fact, do not.
Since we gay marriage proponents had argued for the extension of state-granted marriage privileges to homosexual couples, we obviously DID NOT agree with you. (We said that IF the state was going to grant such privileges, and it obviously does, THEN it should be fair about doing so. I'm sorry if that subtle bit of logic threw you.) The argument against state-recognized marriages started coming from you bigots after gay marriage started becoming legal; it was, and is, nothing more than a "take my ball and go home" response.
Yes, that is precisely what the new law continues, as I've proven.
That last word does not mean what you think it means.
There is NO reason that [prohibition on incestuous marriages] doesn't also apply to gay marriages.
The prohibition on incestuous marriages has several foundations; one is the risk of inbreeding. Are you seriously claiming that homosexual unions of unrelated adults can produce inbred children?
If not, what the heck DO you mean, other than you don't like either kind of union?
I have no personal feelings about any of this, and never implied otherwise.
No, you've stated your bigoted feelings quite clearly and explicitly:
As to a "victory for love," those people are, frankly, sick. It's one thing to put your parts in other parts where I think they shouldn't go; but to actually believe that government recognizing your love for someone else is a victory for your love ... that is completely and utterly disturbing.
No one cares. Maybe you could pay a therapist to help you understand why you obsess over the private lives of persons who don't want to know you, and who would never let you view their private interactions.
Posted by: tensor on June 29, 2011 12:00 AMIt's really cute how you pretend I didn't destroy all your points the first time.
Your making the same empty claim over and over ...
You have proven yourself incapable of DEMONSTRATING it is empty. I provided arguments; you did nothing to counter them, and instead just pretend that you don't need to. On the contrary, strictly based on the arguments presented here, your denial is the only claim that's empty.
Just because you repeatedly claim that gay unions and incestuous unions are alike does not mean the rest of us need take your claim seriously.
If you want to convince any rational person I am wrong, you do need to take it seriously, yes. That's how reason works. I know you're not used to it, but it's what we do over here.
Indeed, reason further dictates that if you want to claim two things are different, the burden is on YOU to demonstrate it. That is why the gay-marriage argument has been winning in the last decade: because opponents of gay marriage have not proven themselves capable of demonstrating a difference between hetereosexual and homosexual unions, besides the obvious. It's terribly sad that you are now switching sides of the argument in order to beat up on sibling couples.
Since we gay marriage proponents had argued for the extension of state-granted marriage privileges to homosexual couples, we obviously DID NOT agree with you.
Many do agree with me. I've discussed it with hundreds of people, and many gay and lesbian folks are on my side. The first time I heard the word "decoupling" in terms of separating government from marriage was from an Australian lesbian I know.
(We said that IF the state was going to grant such privileges, and it obviously does, THEN it should be fair about doing so. I'm sorry if that subtle bit of logic threw you.)
Which is precisely what *I* said; please learn to read. The problem is, of course, that what you want -- extending the privileges to gays -- is NOT fair or (as the Constitution requires) equal. This is self-evidently true, because it excludes some consenting-adult couples! Whether that lack of equality is justified or not is up for debate; but you've provided no serious reason to take your side.
The argument against state-recognized marriages started coming from you bigots after gay marriage started becoming legal
You're a liar. I've been making this argument since 1995 ... when I got my own marriage license, and I realized how ridiculous it was that government should be able to dictate who can get married, and under what conditions. This was long before gay marriage became legal anywhere in the U.S. Indeed, it was before DOMA, and before Lawrence v. Texas, which most people seemed to agree (at the time) would not lead to gay marriage. So gay marriage in the U.S. wasn't even really on the horizon when I started making this argument.
The prohibition on incestuous marriages has several foundations; one is the risk of inbreeding.
Sorry, that argument has been abolished by gay marriage activists, who have proven -- and courts have consistently backed them up -- that procreation is not the main purpose of marriage, such that we can discriminate on the basis of it. As marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient for inbreeding, this is a non-starter. Again, it is terribly sad that you are now taking the anti-gay-marriage argument as your own, in order to attack sibling-sexual couples.
Are you seriously claiming that homosexual unions of unrelated adults can produce inbred children?
Of course not: rather, YOU just apparently claimed that homosexual unions of RELATED adults can produce inbred children. Why do you assume sibling couples would be heterosexual? It's rather closed-minded and homophobic of you. Let's make this easier, then: give me one reason why GAY sibling couples should be disallowed from marrying.
If not, what the heck DO you mean, other than you don't like either kind of union?
What I've explicitly stated: that New York does NOT have marriage equality, and that equal protection of the laws demands that if we are going to force states to accept gay unions, they must also accept all other unions between two consenting adults.
No, you've stated your bigoted feelings quite clearly and explicitly
You're lying again. Nothing in there was about any personal feelings. I expressed the view that people who need government approval for their love are mentally ill; this is not a feeling, but an analysis. I expressed the view that homosexuality is wrong in some way; again, this is a belief, not a feeling of any kind. Perhaps you are referring to the word "disturbing"? If so, that was meant to imply the people are disturbed, not that I am disturbed by them. That was a poor word choice on my part, but in context, it seems clear to me.
Maybe you could pay a therapist to help you understand why you obsess over the private lives of persons who don't want to know you
You're a liar. I obssess over no one's private life. We are talking about nothing more or less than government recognition of unions, which is not a "private" matter in any sense of the words.
What is so incredibly hypocritical here is that if I were to say, "I think homosexuality is sinful, but I fight for the rights of gays to marry," you would applaud me, even though I would be "obssessing over the private lives of persons who don't want to know" me. But if I do a similar thing with sibling marriage ... you attack me.
Why are you so siblingphobic? Is it because you have a deep-seated sibling-sexual tendency? (See, I can play this game as well as you.)
My objection to most sibling unions is purely scientific-based on peer reviewed science. Especially, but exclusively, when it comes to offspring. I can't find equivalent issues when it comes to homosexual relationships.
Like I said, if you want to live in a country of libertines, you're in the wrong place.
Posted by: Henry James on June 29, 2011 11:01 AM...Abraham Lincoln once famously asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" Four, he answered, because a tail is not a leg, even if you call it one.
USA TODAY argues that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law, whether that means traditional marriage, gay marriage or civil unions.
I understand the impulse.
But as an answer, it evades and presumes precisely the questions at hand: Are same-sex unions really the same as unions of husband and wife? Do they further the same interests and serve the common good in the same way? Does marriage have an important public mission that the law needs to recognize and support?
If so, redefining marriage as a civil, legal and public institution in order to further a false equality is a poor trade-off indeed.
... Gay marriage is not an increase in liberty; it is a government takeover of an institution that government did not create and should not redefine.
When the government endorses a lie about human nature, there will be consequences.
We were told that same-sex marriage was necessary for meeting couples' concrete needs. Now, we're told that that was all wrong.
Though they supported its passage, you see, Franke and her partner will not seek a marriage license under the new law. They fear that in practice it might force them to be legally married in order to hold on to shared employment benefits and social respectability. They want to keep their domestic partnership, which gives them "greater freedom" than "the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage"--the freedom to form relationships that "far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow, legal definition of marriage."
Franke leaves out just how these relationships "far exceed" marriage, perhaps not trusting her readers to see them as improvements after all. But then the Times had already divulged the empirically supported "open secret" about how often partners in same-sex civil marriages expressly reject sexual exclusivity.
The latest canard is that the defeat of the conjugal conception of marriage is inevitable because there isn't even an argument for it. But the core argument is simple, and pieces like Franke's bolster it: As many liberals now concede and even embrace, redefining marriage leaves no principled reason--none at all--not to recognize relationships of every size and type.
Next Step: Persecuting Churches?
When the New York legislature passed a law last Friday legalizing same-sex marriage, all of New York's Roman Catholic bishops signed a statement warning that they now expect efforts to enact laws attacking churches that defend the truth.
Efforts to sanction churches for defending the truth will not be starting now, they have already started.
America's liberal establishment has already shown how it can flout the Constitution and use government to force churches to act against their own moral teachings.
How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps
Step #1: From Unthinkable to Radical
Step #2: From Radical to Acceptable
Step #3: From Acceptable to Sensible
Step #4: From Sensible to Popular
Step #5: From Popular to Policy
Read the whole thing
Incorrect. I neither expressed any such conviction about homosexuality, nor did I express a lack of negative conviction about sibling marriage (you sibling-phobe!).
Homosexuality, as well as sexual love of close relatives, are both entirely natural. How could they not be? They happen entirely within nature. Therefore, they are natural. I don't know of any other definition of "natural." Even if homosexuality is a choice, it's still entirely natural.
The only way you could argue homosexuality isn't natural, that I know of, is if you want to get into dualism and offer that our spiritual side isn't part of the natural world, and it is that side of us that -- through choice or by providence -- is what makes someone homosexual. Then maybe it's not natural, but that's an odd argument I wouldn't want to have to defend.
No, I'll go with everything man does being natural.
Then you're living in the wrong country, you would be much more at ease living in Somalia.
I know nothing whatsoever about what Somalis think about homosexuality. I suppose you mean they have stiff penalties for homosexuality? If so, then you're being extremely dishonest, since I've expressed no sentiment of any kind whatsoever that could possibly be taken as desiring any sort of penalty whatsoever for homosexuality. On the contrary, I've argued explicitly that homosexuals -- indeed, all people in all sorts of couple relationships -- should be treated exactly equally by all our civil authorities.
I do know, however, that these days when liberals bring up Somalia in the context of libertarianism, they usually mean to imply that Somalia has some similarities with libertarianism. While this may be true, Somalia actually has more in common with modern liberalism: in both cases, you have rule of man by force against the rights of individuals for some idea of a common good, whereas libertarianism is rule of law to protect the individual rights of all.
My objection to most sibling unions is purely scientific-based on peer reviewed science. Especially, but exclusively, when it comes to offspring.
So you are NOT against sibling unions, then: you are only against heterosexual sibling unions, but not against homosexual sibling unions. What an odd position you put yourself in: giving gays MORE marriage rights than straights!
I can't find equivalent issues when it comes to homosexual relationships.
Then you aren't listening to the pro-gay-marriage responses to anti-gay-marriage arguments, one of the most common of which is: marriage doesn't have to be about procreation. If you think we shouldn't have "inbreeding," then outlaw that, but -- as we've been told over and over by gay marriage proponents -- marriage and procreation are distinct, and as the courts have said clearly, we cannot exclude people from marriage just because they are unable to procreate: with gays it would be lack of physical ability, and with heterosexual siblings it would be lack of legal ability, if you outlawed it; and if you don't outlaw it, what business do you have telling people they can't marry because of it, when they can do it regardless of whether they are married, and won't necessarily be more likely to do it if they do marry?
Like I said, if you want to live in a country of libertines, you're in the wrong place.
You mislabel me. I am not -- by most standards, and certainly not Seattle standards -- a libertine. I am a libertarian. I am fully capable of, and comfortable with, saying that I believe some things are morally wrong, while actively defending the rights of people to make their own choices about those things.
Seattle is a liberal city. South Carolina is a conservative state. This all comes down to gay unions.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 29, 2011 11:52 AM
Boeing simply did not want its planes being made in a city where gay marriage would become law. If planes are going to fly straight, they have to be made by straight people. South Carolina is the Bible Belt. Their opposition to gay marriage makes them qualified to build planes.
... How dare Boeing move from an inevitable right to marry state to a state that bans gay unions! This is just an attempt to get around gay union rules.
... This proves that gay unions lead to lower productivity in the workplace.
Texas currently does not allow gay marriage. Texas has seen a massive increase in jobs. Businesses therefore are deliberately moving to states that ban gay unions.
Exasperated gay rights advocates will point out that the issue is not gay unions but labor unions. This is code for attacking heterosexual couples, since only they can create a situation that results in labor. Like most work stoppages, these labor situations last about nine months.
... Some would say I am divorced from reality, but that is also code for the next new industry to make millions of dollars off of recent legislation.
...That's right...gay divorce lawyers are coming to a theatre near you. This will lead to more questions.
If a gay divorce lawyer forces their clients to split their property, how do they decide who gets the condo in Seattle and who gets the house in South Carolina?
The loser may never get to build an airplane.
Such is life when companies try to evade gay union laws.
Liar..."It's one thing to put your parts in other parts where I think they shouldn't go..." see comment #1. You would be better served laying off the pipe!
"I suppose you mean they have stiff penalties for homosexuality?"
No, I mean you can marry your sister there if you want, or your mother if that satisfies your oedipal desires better. It's a libertarian paradise, you'll love it.
"If you think we shouldn't have "inbreeding," then outlaw that"
That's enforceable! What are you going to? Put them in jail once they have a child with birth defects?! Come on, get real. Not to mention your the one being dishonest here, as this would mean taking legislation to the bedroom. What's the point of having freedom to marry when that marriage would carry restrictions that non-sibling marriages do not have. I have no problem with platonic sibling relationships.
Posted by: Henry James on June 29, 2011 12:55 PMYou apparently cannot read. I expressed my view that homosexuality is wrong, not that it is unnatural. I will assume you are just severely ignorant rather than dishonest when you incorrectly question my own honesty.
It's a libertarian paradise, you'll love it.
I already demonstrated the fact that this is a tired old lie. Libertarianism is about rule of law protecting individual rights ... while Somalia is the opposite. You are, once again, either ignorant or dishonest.
That's enforceable!
So you admit you are wrong to say their marriages should be outlawed. If you cannot prevent their procreation anyway, why try to prevent their marriages, when it is obvious that won't have the desired effect?
Come on, get real.
That's my line to you.
Not to mention your the one being dishonest here, as this would mean taking legislation to the bedroom.
No, once again, you are the one being ignorant or dishonest. I didn't say we SHOULD outlaw it. I said if that procreation your concern, you should focus your legislative efforts on your actual concern, and not marriage.
What's the point of having freedom to marry when that marriage would carry restrictions that non-sibling marriages do not have.
I never implied such a restriction would apply only to married couples.
I have no problem with platonic sibling relationships.
You also have no problem with homosexual sibling relationships, by your own words. You only have a problem with HETEROsexual sibling relationships.
Had you claimed it without such authority I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but to do so arrogantly is outright dishonest. And you question me in the process without having the faintest clue of the extent of my knowledge of the subject. Shame on you. You're some sociopathic piece of work! I'm going to stop paying attention to you, since you obviously call people liars and ignorant to hide your own lacking.
Posted by: Henry James on June 29, 2011 05:46 PMLiterally, you actually just claimed that Somalia is about rule of law protecting individual rights. That's what you just actually said.
Wow.
New York bishop launches protest against 'Catholic' Gov. Cuomo over gay 'marriage'
The bishop says he will refuse the politicians participation in events at parishes and schools, and will turn down any honors the legislators award them.
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn said the move is "intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State."
"More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation," he wrote in a statement. "Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced, and voted in favor of same-sex 'marriage.'"
... The bishop's announcement comes as influential canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters of Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary has renewed his call for the state's bishops to deny Communion to Catholic Gov. Cuomo, due to his persistent campaign for same-sex "marriage," in addition to his public cohabitation with girlfriend Sandra Lee, a host on the Food Network.
"Cuomo's long pattern of conduct in regard to 'gay marriage' triggers, in my opinion, an obligation on his part to refrain from approaching for holy Communion per Canon 916 and, should he approach anyway, upon ministers of holy Communion to withhold that august sacrament from 'those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin' per Canon 915," the canonist, who was recently appointed as a consultant to the Vatican's Apostolic Signatura (the Church's highest court), wrote on his blog June 26.
In the same-sex "marriage" campaign "no one played a more important, and indeed a constitutionally essential, role" than Gov. Cuomo, said Peters. "Without Cuomo's long-standing and vigorous public support for 'gay marriage', without his unswerving political efforts to advance that project and, most specifically, without his signature on the bill (placed there with obvious enthusiasm and much self-satisfaction), New York would not have legalized 'gay marriage' on June 24."
Peters suggested New York's bishops issue a "public announcement" that Cuomo is barred from Communion, saying this "befits the markedly public character of Cuomo's conduct and responds better to the danger of scandal presented to the faithful by his actions."
...Peters also said he believes the governor's conduct warrants a canonical investigation under Canon 1717, which applies a "just penalty" to those who "in a public show or speech, published writings, or in other uses of the instruments of social communications ... gravely injure[d] good morals."
This has been long been a soapbox of mine. It's about time the Catholic Church stood publicly against these phony Catholic-when-convenient-for-votes politicians.
This will also be a good drum to beat against pro-bort Cantwell ... and Murray, Gregoire, Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, every Kennedy, and the rest of the phony Catholics who pretend piety while subverting/perverting teachings of the same Church to which they claim fidelity. I despise those hypocrite liars and, even more, in regards to the stupid and barely paying attention public, I despise that it appears they are faithful Catholics, when in fact nothing could be farther from the truth. I only hope that our new Archbishop will not have inherited finger-in-the-wind disease from Archbishop Brunett and will have the fortitude to be as strong as this Bronx bishop.
New York clerk fights for right not to participate in same-sex 'marriage'
"If there's any possible way to not do it legally, then yes, I would not want to put my name on any of those certificates or papers," MacEwen told the political news service. "That's their life, they can do it, but I don't feel I should be forced into something that's against my morals and my God."
And the truth ALWAYS comes out:
Top gay blog laments: 'WE ALWAYS LOSE' when voters decide on marriage
A post on the Queerty blog Monday concluded that President Obama's silence on gay "marriage" results from a recognition that most American voters oppose it.
"Even LGBT organizers agree that they'd rather pass marriage equality by legislature than at the ballot because at the ballot WE ALWAYS LOSE," wrote Queerty's Daniel Villarreal.
THESE articles confirm the extraordinary value of blogs and the people who write them, read them and pass them on. These facts and truths are not disseminated by the Old Left Media: they can't and they won't expose themselves for the agenda driven ideologues they are. As much as they color the news they equally lie by omission. It is this new media that gets the truth out. And America increasingly know it.
Thanks for the venue SP.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 29, 2011 08:49 PMYou have proven yourself incapable of DEMONSTRATING it is empty.
The burden of proof is upon the claimant. You have claimed over and over and over that incestuous unions are somehow "equal" to gay unions, without even an attempt at showing why - other than both offending your tender sensibilities. (We liberals do logic over here, blah blah blah...)
Of course not: rather, YOU just apparently claimed that homosexual unions of RELATED adults can produce inbred children.
Either you're really desperate, or you really are as dumb as this statement makes you look. You explicitly stated that gay marriages and sibling marriages are "equal", and you did not give the genders of the siblings, so I am free to consider marriages of opposite-sex siblings who can produce children. You then compounded your folly, declaring we once prohibited gay marriage and sibling marriage for exactly the same reasons. Despite your flailing denial to the contrary, one reason we prohibit sexual relations -- married or otherwise -- between consenting related adults is because of the harm their inbreeding might inflict upon their children. Since such a reason cannot apply to gay unions, your entire set of claims about the "equality" of these disparate unions collapses.
And, please, the subject of this post is the action of a duly-elected legislature, committing the will of their constituents' to law. Your wholly-unsupported claims about "the courts" or our federal Constitution have nothing to do with this.
Why are you so siblingphobic? Is it because you have a deep-seated sibling-sexual tendency? (See, I can play this game as well as you.)
False! (See, yadda yadda yadda...)
Posted by: tensor on June 29, 2011 11:04 PMOK. Then you are against the court cases trying to force us to legalize homosexual marriage. The argument from the pro-gay-marriage side -- and backed up by the courts -- is that the people wishing to keep homosexual marriage illegal are the ones with the burden of proof.
You carelessly assume that everytime someone makes an argument, the burden of proof is on them. Not so. In cases of equal protection, all the claimaint has to do is demonstrate inequality, which I've clearly done; it is then up to the other side to demonstrate that the inequality is justified, or that there are essential distinctions that make it not unequal. (Even under the weakest level of scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that the law is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.)
You've done none of this. Neither has the anti-gay-marriage side done it, which is why the court cases have swung heavily toward gay marriage.
The ONLY ARGUMENT you've offered is that of procreation, which is sad, because you're literally and explicitly arguing against one of the primary tenets of the pro-gay-marriage claim: that procreation and marriage are separate, and government cannot reasonably consider procreation as a condition for marriage. Now you argue against that. Why do you hate gay marriage?
This argument that marriage and procreation are separate, other than being obviously true, has already won the day in and out of court because of gay marriage proponents. And now you want to undo all that!
You have claimed over and over and over that incestuous unions are somehow "equal" to gay unions, without even an attempt at showing why
Yes, just like no one has ever shown that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions. All one has to do is show that the treatment under the law of those unions is unequal, not that the unions themselves are equal; then the government must justify that unequal treatment.
We liberals do logic over here
Not very well, I'm afraid.
You explicitly stated that gay marriages and sibling marriages are "equal", and you did not give the genders of the siblings, so I am free to consider marriages of opposite-sex siblings who can produce children.
No, you're incorrect. You are free to do as you like, yes, but when you make an argument against all sibling unions, and your argument against them is regarding procreation ... don't blame me for your sloppy logic.
Also, I did give the genders, actually. In my second paragraph I explicitly referred to "the marriage of gay brothers."
So do you, in fact, have an argument against gay sibling unions? Or are you in favor of legalized homosexual sibling marriage, and against only heterosexual sibling marriage? That's Henry's position, is it yours? (Of course, Henry said a lot of dumb things, like that Somalia's system is based on the rule of law protecting individual rights.)
And, please, the subject of this post is the action of a duly-elected legislature, committing the will of their constituents' to law. Your wholly-unsupported claims about "the courts" or our federal Constitution have nothing to do with this.
As usual, you are lying or you cannot read. The post itself was about both duly enacted laws AND federal court cases, quite explicitly. Not only would I be free to discuss what I wish, as I solely define the topic as I wish, but it was defined that way from the very beginning.
And you're lying when you say anything I said is "wholly-unsupported." [sic] I've backed up everything I've said, and you've offered no arguments against any of it, except for the procreation thing, which a. self-evidently doesn't support your argument against all sibling unions, and b. denies one of the primary legal arguments for equal protection of gay marriages.
You carelessly assume that everytime someone makes an argument, the burden of proof is on them. Not so.
Comedy gold! You might as well just explicitly admit that you lost, instead of implicitly admitting it, but hey, it's your call to make.
The ONLY ARGUMENT you've offered is that of procreation...
Learn to read already, willya? I noted the very real possibility of inbreeding was a reason we prohibited sibling marriages. You claimed that prohibitions valid against gay marriages had the same basis as prohibitions against sibling marriages, which is simply nonsense.
Yes, just like no one has ever shown that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions.
In case you missed it, the legislature of the State of New York just accepted arguments for the equality of both.
Also, I did give the genders, actually. In my second paragraph I explicitly referred to "the marriage of gay brothers."
Nice try. Throughout your deranged rantings, you were clearly referring to the general case of sibling marriages, just as you were referring to the general case of gay marriages. (I'm here assuming you were addressing New York's recent law on gay marriage.) Care to give an example of gay sibling marriage ever happening, any time, anywhere?
This argument that marriage and procreation are separate, other than being obviously true, has already won the day in and out of court because of gay marriage proponents. And now you want to undo all that!
How about less of what you claim I'm arguing, and more of showing how gay and sibling marriages are somehow equal? Because you have not even yet tried to make that case.
... but when you make an argument against all sibling unions, and your argument against them is regarding procreation ... don't blame me for your sloppy logic.
That last word does not mean what you think it means. (Also, too, I noted that prohibition against inbreeding is ONE reason we ban incestuous marriages, not that it was the entire set of reasons.)
So do you, in fact, have an argument against gay sibling unions? Or are you in favor of legalized homosexual sibling marriage, and against only heterosexual sibling marriage?
pudge, I have some news for you: you are the only person, from here to New York and back again, who thinks that incest is somehow relevant to gay marriage. Nobody else here has made that screwy connection.
As usual, you are lying or you cannot read. The post itself was about both duly enacted laws AND federal court cases, quite explicitly.
Your imagined connection between incest and gay marriage was the basis of your false claim that New Yorkers were lying when they said their law was about marriage equality. Your confusion of the federal argument against Prop 8, which is a legitimate topic for the federal 14th Amendment, with the actions of a state legislature acting entirely within their legal powers, is not my concern. (It does add to the already-towering humor value, though!)
And you're lying when you say anything I said is "wholly-unsupported." [sic] I've backed up everything I've said...
How do you keep out-doing yourself? You've written a post, and of these 50+ comments since, you've written 23 (!) of them. In not ONE of those 24 places have you linked to the text of a court case, or even given the title of one; even your one link, at the top of the post, is to the wikipedia article about the New York marriage-equality law, not to the positive text of the law itself. You have cited nothing, shown nothing, proven nothing, and your "logic" consists of accusing your opponents of making your own crazy claims.
I really didn't think anything could have made me prouder of my home state right now than marriage equality does, but you've consistently delivered great satisfaction. Maybe in your next ranting response, you'll tell me how I'm somehow arguing against New York's marriage-equality law? Go for it!
The Somalian legal system is a body of customary law called the Xeer, and it's defined by property rights. It keeps the whole country from falling into chaos since it's devoid of a central government. So yes, Somalia is ALL about the rule of law that protects individual rights. Arrogance and ignorance truly go hand in hand with you.
Posted by: Henry James on June 30, 2011 02:44 AMNo, it isn't, because no, it DOESN'T. Somalia has the absolute lowest ratings from africa.com on political and civil rights. Every freedom index that bothers to rank Somalia lists them at the bottom of the pile. You yourself intervened somehow there ... why would that have been necessary if Somalia's rule of law protected individual rights?
You're ridiculous.
Posted by: pudge on June 30, 2011 06:55 AM
Also, too, I noted that prohibition against inbreeding is ONE reason we ban incestuous marriages, not that it was the entire set of reasons.
I've repeatedly asked for reasons that apply to gay sibling marriages. NO ONE has EVER given one, except for those that apply to ALL gay marriages.
So do you, in fact, have an argument against gay sibling unions? Or are you in favor of legalized homosexual sibling marriage, and against only heterosexual sibling marriage?
pudge, I have some news for you: you are the only person, from here to New York and back again, who thinks that incest is somehow relevant to gay marriage. Nobody else here has made that screwy connection.
So the answer is "no, I am not in favor of them, but I cannot, for the life of me, tell you why, without impugning all gay marriages." You only give procreation as a reason, which obviously doesn't apply here. You have no reason to be against them, but you are, which means you are either a sibling-phobe, closet homophobe, or both.
So, after eliminating all the things you are ignorant and wrong about that I've already addressed, there wasn't much left. But the important part remains: you're a bigot who doesn't believe in equal protection.
Some other examples of restricted marriages by NY Law:
85 year old man and his 94 year old sister -- probably wouldn't even care about the whole sex part, definately couldn't have children, but do desire the financial benefits of marriage.
50-60is First cousins, past child bearing years, for sake of argument both sterile.
To me, I agree the state should not be in the marriage business. If it wants to regulate what benefits can be passed/assumed by couples, then it should address those issues instead of lumping them into the whole "marriage" argument. If I am single, why am I "discrimated" against when it comes to Social Security death benefits (for example)? The whole structure was set up in a time of age with assumptions that are not present any more (e.g., assuming a single, male breadwinner and the fact that the wife would be dependent upon the income from the husband). The same goes for a host of other "benefits."
Posted by: tc on June 30, 2011 08:45 AMYou should pay closer attention to what you read, the link you provided strongly endorses the establishment of a central government. Something that is at the heart of the political imbroglio there. UN presence coincides with a push to establish a central government, when the UN left in 95, those expectations and the violence associated with them receded. Once that pushed resumed in 2001, violence escalated. So I would argue that those rankings are not the result of Somali society-which is traditionally stateless- not being about the protection of individual rights, the existence of the Xeer demonstrates that to be false, but the result of clans maneuvering to gain influence in expectations of the formation of a central authority.
I fail to see your argument about the role of intervention in securing individual rights. "Peacekeeping" efforts in Somalia, especially in 93, had nothing to do with protection of individual rights. They may have sold it as such, but the reality on the ground was far from that. It was all about supporting the formation of a central governing body.
Posted by: Henry James on June 30, 2011 09:48 AMIf individual rights were protected, if there were true freedom in Somalia, then why would you try to impugn libertarianism by a comparison to Somalia? You were trying to compare libertarianism to the horrorshow part of Somalia. That's where you being a damned liar comes in, you see.
YOU said: "[Somalia is] a libertarian paradise, you'll love it." You were absolutely not trying to imply that Somalia is a place where individual rights are protected. You were trying to imply that because of lax regulations and controls, that Somalia is a terrible place to live. You can't have it both ways. You're a liar.
I fail to see your argument about the role of intervention in securing individual rights.
It's simple: if individual rights were secured, they wouldn't need outside intervention.
It was all about supporting the formation of a central governing body.
Right. Which they wouldn't have needed to do if individual rights were already secured.
pudge, I have some news for you: you are the only person, from here to New York and back again, who thinks that incest is somehow relevant to gay marriage. Nobody else here has made that screwy connection.
Thanks!
Posted by: tc on June 30, 2011 12:24 PMBishop Thomas Tobin of Providence has issued a strong statement lamenting the passage of legislation allowing for civil unions in Rhode Island, and warned Catholics that they cannot be involved in such unions.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on June 30, 2011 02:52 PM
The legal acceptance of civil unions, the outspoken bishop said, involves "a social experiment that promotes an immoral lifestyle, is a mockery of the institution of marriage as designed by God, undermines the well-being of our families, and poses a threat to religious liberty."
You are trying to tie libertarianism, which relies on the rule of law, to the many negative aspects of Somalia, which are due to the LACK of rule of law.
Your rampant dishonesty is unwelcome in a civilized discussion.
http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/156902250X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309487055&sr=8-1
Since you insist in taking into account that Somalia currently lacks rule of law, and given the opinions of your fellow ideologues on the constitution of the Somali state, the logical conclusion can only be that Somalia is an example where libertarianism has failed. Your dogmatic views and sociopathic behavior were never conducive to a civilized discussion to begin with.
Posted by: Henry James on June 30, 2011 08:12 PMHow could I not?
... and given the opinions of your fellow ideologues ...
You cited no such things.
... the logical conclusion can only be that Somalia is an example where libertarianism has failed.
Utter nonsense, though I was wondering how long it would take you to get to that argument.
The obvious fact is -- which you concede -- is that it never WAS libertarian. They never HAD the rule of law. They have tried to implement it on a nation in chaos, and have had very limited success bringing the rule of law to the nation at large. To say this is a failure of libertarianism, rather than a failure of Somalia, is idiotic: ANY attempt to implement ANY system of government in Somalia, for the last couple of decades at least, would have been similarly doomed.
Your dishonesty, again, is extremely tiresome.
Your dogmatic views ...
I am no more dogmatic than you.
... and sociopathic behavior
You could use a dictionary.
... were never conducive to a civilized discussion to begin with.
Nonsense. I am "civilized" to those that are. Your very first words to me were lies: you falsely accused me of saying homosexuality was unnatural, and falsely claimed I was defending treating incest better than homosexuality. That was your first sentence.
Your second sentence attempted to impugn my views by dishonestly comparing them to a society that you now finally admit doesn't uphold them.
On the only actual point you made -- in your third sentence, when you explicitly claimed that you are opposed to sibling unions only because of the possibility of inbreeding -- I pointed out that this necessarily means you would therefore allow gay sibling marriages, but not straight ones. I responded with an actual argument ... yet you, who purport to be interested in civility, never responded to this fact.
So please do not talk to me of lacking civility: I responded to you with the civility your initial comments deserved, and I continue to do so.
A Martian who visited modern America today might well think that half the population was homosexual-and the other half wished it were.
This is bizarre, especially when you look at the actual statistics which show that as few as 2% of the general population identify themselves as "gay."
... Look at TV. In September 2010, The New York Times noted that homosexual television characters are at a record high.
Look at schools, where the children might not learn basic historical or mathematical facts, but they do learn that "Heather has two mommies."
From coast to coast, the push for same-sex marriage is in the headlines.
Historically, these things have been imposed on "we the people" by judicial fiat.
The first official same-sex marriage in the United States was between two lesbians in Massachusetts in 2004, brought about by an ACLU lawsuit. Thanks to judicial fiat in that state, the 1780 constitution, written largely by John Adams, was twisted by that state's highest court to impose same-sex marriage.
Incidentally, that first legal same-sex marriage has already ended in divorce.
... What has happened in Massachusetts as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage?
For starters, the militant homosexual agenda has begun to take over. Already, the Catholic Church, which has helped place orphans in loving homes for centuries, can no longer operate in Massachusetts because the Church cannot in good conscience place them in homosexual homes. So the children are out of luck.
Meanwhile, Bay State first graders have access to condoms at some public schools.
How to Destroy a Culture in 5 Easy Steps
Step #1: From Unthinkable to Radical
Step #2: From Radical to Acceptable
Step #3: From Acceptable to Sensible
Step #4: From Sensible to Popular
Step #5: From Popular to Policy
->> A MARKETING CAMPAIGN COCO-COLA COULD ONLY ENVY:
Selling Homosexuality To America
->> INTERESTINGLY, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO "THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA" ON IT'S OWN AND OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF ANOTHER ARTICLE.
STRIKE, DESTROY ... AND HIDE...
IMAGINE THAT.
"...written by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill and appeared in Guide Magazine, a homosexual publication, in November 1987. This landmark article has become a "bible" of the homosexual movement, and has since been widely re-published on the Internet and elsewhere. It outlines strategies and techniques for a successful widespread propaganda campaign to confuse and deceive the American people and demonize opponents. Like all propaganda, their methods are based not on solid intellectual arguments, but instead upon emotional manipulation of the public in an attempt to gain widespread sympathy and approval for homosexual behavior."
The Overhauling of Straight America
->> And, like the lazy sheep they are, gullible America (read: LIBERAL FOOLS) fell for it hook, line and sinker. Roman Empire DOPES.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 1, 2011 10:55 AMPolitics and politicians, after all, follow the culture. And there has been a concerted, decades-long effort by Hollywood and the media to legitimize homosexuality and to put same-sex relationships on a par with traditional male-female relationships.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 1, 2011 11:27 AM
... Our problem as conservatives has been to draw the line between tolerance and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters (a good thing) and putting homosexuality on a social, legal and cultural par with heterosexuality (a bad thing).
Simply put, we have not been able to draw that line. When Hollywood and the media propagandize about homosexuality -- which they do incessantly -- we have been left defenseless. Consequently, misplaced notions of "rights" and "equality" have quickly overwhelmed the reasonable and modest notion that society should affirm a traditional sexual ethic and historic understanding of marriage.
