Straight Marriage Is Doooooomed
Tweet
Damn, I better find some woman and get married quick because gay civil unions are now legal in New Hampshire and according to conservatives that means that straight marriage is going to die real quick. Right? Right.
50 Responses to “Straight Marriage Is Doooooomed”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Yeah, and we did it RIGHT — with a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Unlike Massachusetts, where four of seven judges said it was legal, and then the legislature did everything within the law (and a few things outside of it, but there was no way to hold them accountable) to avoid either voting on the matter, or letting the people vote on it.
It’s a simple matter of whether or not “the ends justify the means.” In New Hampshire, we said no. In Massachusetts, a few said yes, and rode roughshod over everyone else.
My only grouse is that I don’t recall any politicians running on the platform of “I’ll make civil unions my top priority,” which is pretty much what they did, but I can live with that. They’re all up for re-election next year, and if enough people are angry over the civil unions, then they’ll toss a bunch of the backers out on their asses.
But I don’t think that’ll happen. A few people are annoyed over the whole thing, but I don’t think anywhere near enough to undo it.
And for the record: I support the civil unions law. And, in a few years, once enough people have seen that it does NOT mean the end of the world, I think gay marriage will pass. I just want it done the RIGHT way — and, as usual, New Hampshire is in the forefront of showing the rest of the nation how it’s done.
J.
Unlike Massachusetts, where four of seven judges said it was legal, and then the legislature did everything within the law (and a few things outside of it, but there was no way to hold them accountable) to avoid either voting on the matter, or letting the people vote on it.
I know, right? I can’t believe those legislators in Massachusetts! It’s almost like they actually think the people made some kind of organized decision to appoint them as their representatives for the purpose of crafting law!
“Yeah, and we did it RIGHT — with a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Unlike Massachusetts, where four of seven judges said it was legal, and then the legislature did everything within the law (and a few things outside of it, but there was no way to hold them accountable) to avoid either voting on the matter, or letting the people vote on it.”
Oh fuck off. There are three fucking branching of the government and in Massachusetts the judges did their fucking job, making sure the laws are within the state’s constitution.
Why is this difficult for conservatives to understand?
C.S., I’ll remember those the words the next time the Supreme Court issues a ruling that will have liberals wetting their pants.
“The justices did their fucking jobs.”
That’s all we have to say.
So, really, Jay… has Brown v. Board pissed you off your entire life, or just the time you’ve been blogging?
No Oliver, it’s too soon after Jessica Alba…Rebound marriages are a bad thing.
Unlike Massachusetts, where four of seven judges said it was legal, and then the legislature did everything within the law (and a few things outside of it, but there was no way to hold them accountable) to avoid either voting on the matter, or letting the people vote on it.
There you go again, complaining about the 2000 presidential election, where Gore got a half million more votes, but the SCOTUS prevented the Florida courts from deciding how Florida votes should be counted, which was the state’s right under the Constitution.
And then said that its decision was not a precedent.
So, really, Jay… has Brown v. Board pissed you off your entire life, or just the time you’ve been blogging?
Is that supposed to mean something?
oh brother … let me see if i got this straight … the Constitution allows citizens the right to petition for a redress of grievances, which includes going to courts for remedy, but it’s wrong for gay people to seek any remedy outside of an election. This is the case even though the argument used by those opposed to gay rights is actually a false one, as Jay himself states: “… in a few years, once enough people have seen that it does NOT mean the end of the world, I think gay marriage will pass.” Following that logic, could it not be the case that the “right” thing happened in New Hampshire in part because the example of Massachusetts proved that gay marriage, even if accomplished the “wrong” way, does not mean the end of the world?
It seems astonishing to me that someone could argue in favor of a minority denying themselves their Constitutional rights because a majority of people hold a false belief against them.
Do you think before you take your high and mighty centrist positions, Jay?
Is that supposed to mean something?
I didn’t really think it was a complicated question, sport. I assume from your vitriolic assault on judicial intervention in civil rights law, you would likewise think Brown was an unfair and terrible decision, especially coming from some judges- never elected by “the people” who- overrode the law and popular opinion of the state of Kansas. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, why do you think otherwise?
I assume from your vitriolic assault on judicial intervention in civil rights law
I think you’re confusing me with Jay Tea, sport. I was just making a wisecrack to CS about his retort to JT which basically boiled down to, “Don’t like it? Tough titties.”
That being said, I can see JT’s point (which I believe fafaroo misses) because the Mass. Supreme Court’s reasoning in issuing their ruling was based on a very narrow interpretation of the Mass. state constitution. It’s always easier for some parties to seek such redress in courts, than through the political process, especially if you’re going to petition a court that will be favorable to your point of view on the issue. Do you think gay-rights activists chose Mass. as their battleground for this fight by chance?
In addition, I think people attempting to have marriage recognized as some sort of inalienable right, worthy of recognition and protection by the government is going to open a pandora’s box.
I’m not gung-ho about the issue in either direction. I’m not worried at all about what effect two men or two women marrying is going to have on my own marriage, but at the same time I don’t see why civil unions aren’t good enough for gay people. Why should they care if the state recognizes them as married or not? Unless I am wrong, there’s no additional benefits.
I don’t see why civil unions aren’t good enough for gay people.
Sure, it’s separate. But it’s equal.
Actually, I agree with Jay on this–sort of. I think “civil unions” should be the limit of government recognition of all domestic partnerships, gay or straight. “Marriage” is a matter of spiritual union that is rightly the province of the church.
“Do you think gay-rights activists chose Mass. as their battleground for this fight by chance?”
Maybe I’m missing your point to. Citizens of Massachusetts acted on their Constitutional rights to seek relief from discrimination and the court ruled in their favor based on its reading, however narrow, of the state Constitution. And you have a problem with this because it was all just “too easy”? Really?
But then you suggest that gays should be satisfied with something that they clearly aren’t satisfied with, that is civil unions as a substitute for marriage. You seem to suggest that they ought accept your understanding of their needs and desires as opposed to, you know, their own. Why exactly should gays accept your idea of what’s best for them?
It’s always easier for some parties to seek such redress in courts, than through the political process, especially if you’re going to petition a court that will be favorable to your point of view on the issue. Do you think gay-rights activists chose Mass. as their battleground for this fight by chance?
You say this all like it’s some kind of outrageous conspiracy or something. Judiciary is a check on Legislature by means of its authority to interpret laws passed by the Legislature, including the most ultimate law of the state. Per the rightful authority of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the constitution of the state of Massachusetts (even if it’s “narrow,” whatever the hell that means) allows gays to marry… so, yes, I guess activists did “select” Massachusetts, what with it having a constitution that allows gay people to get married. Why should they try to have a referendum or a law passed when the law already gives them what they want?
Personally, I think the state issue is moronic but for a completely different reason, that being the complete irrelevance of geography to human rights. This isn’t like gun ownership or driving ages or minimum wage where local elements factor into the situation. Either you think gay people have the right to marry or you don’t. Their ZIP code shouldn’t be a factor in the logic. The same applies to the death penalty, abortion, anti-gay discrimination and other issues that right-wingers tend to lean into a “state’s rights” argument whenever it bothers then that they’re not getting their way.
That said, my apologies for the mistaken identity. My earlier question, then, still applies to Jay Tea and I anxiously await his response.
Actually, I agree with Jay on this–sort of. I think “civil unions” should be the limit of government recognition of all domestic partnerships, gay or straight. “Marriage” is a matter of spiritual union that is rightly the province of the church.
Actually, in my estimation, “marriage” is just a word. If the government allows legally-united gay couples to enjoy all the benefits and potential downfalls legally-united straight couples enjoy, then that’s the important thing.
Gay couples in New Hampshire who undergo the civil union process should go ahead and tell people that they’re married. Use the word at every opportunity. You can’t nullify their union because of a terminological argument. They can call their significant other their “partner,” or they can call them their “spouse.” Free speech, bitches.
After enough time, the words will stick, except for those people who will continue to wail “Nuh-uh! You’re civilly unionized! To your partner! It’s not the same!”
Citizens of Massachusetts acted on their Constitutional rights to seek relief from discrimination and the court ruled in their favor based on its reading, however narrow, of the state Constitution. And you have a problem with this because it was all just “too easy”? Really?
I’m saying that the ruling in Mass. was part of an overall larger fight which is to have gay marriage legally recognized in all 50 states. I don’t have a problem with it. I’m just saying that it is so.
But then you suggest that gays should be satisfied with something that they clearly aren’t satisfied with, that is civil unions as a substitute for marriage. You seem to suggest that they ought accept your understanding of their needs and desires as opposed to, you know, their own. Why exactly should gays accept your idea of what’s best for them?
You’re giving me too much credit. All I did was ask if there are any benefits if the state recognizes and/or legalizes gay marriage beyond what is recognized under laws that permit civil unions.
You say this all like it’s some kind of outrageous conspiracy or something.
Not an outrageous conspiracy. Just fact and part of the process gay rights advocates have outlined. They’ve sought to get gay marriage legalized in one state and then the next step is to have it recognized in other states under the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution.
Per the rightful authority of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the constitution of the state of Massachusetts (even if it’s “narrow,” whatever the hell that means) allows gays to marry
I said the court’s interpretation of the constitution was narrow.
As for my view, I’m with Quaker regarding the state and marriage.
“I’m just saying that it is so.”
If I can quote you from up the thread: “Is that supposed to mean something?”
We all know that gays activists want gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. That’s obvious and knowing that doesn’t have anything to do with the constitutionality of the effort or the merits of the issue itself. Unless you think it means something, why even mention it?
And Jay, you didn’t just ask, “if there are any benefits” to state recognized gay marriages. You asked: “Why should they care if the state recognizes them as married or not?”
That is an entirely different question when you consider that gay activists probably consider state recognition itself a benefit, regardless of what other state benefits that might have.
If you don’t have a problem with the state sanctioning gay marriage, who cares if any other benefits accrue to the so recognized couple? And regardless, whether benefits accrue or not, the ultimate aim is for equal treatment of gays and straights. If the state recognizes as a marriage the union between a man and a woman, it should do the same for a gay couple as well.
Equality of recognition under the law has important implications for employment benefits, among other things. If the state recognizes a domestic partnership between gay people as having the same standing as a marriage between heterosexuals, then the ability of an employer to discriminate in offering employment benefits will be diminished.
I’m for it.
That’s obvious and knowing that doesn’t have anything to do with the constitutionality of the effort or the merits of the issue itself. Unless you think it means something, why even mention it?
I mentioned it as part of the discussion revolving around seeking remedies through judicial process vis a vis the political process to have gay marriage legalized. It’s not a big news story to know that right now, the political landscape across the country is not ready to accept gay marriage. Therefore, waiting out the political process is not what gay rights advocates and supporters of gay marriage are going to do. Therefore, they are seeking remedy in the court system. Better for them to start in an area where a court will be more open to their viewpoint on the issue. I’m just stating facts so please stop trying to attach motives to what I am saying.
And Jay, you didn’t just ask, “if there are any benefits” to state recognized gay marriages. You asked: “Why should they care if the state recognizes them as married or not?”
Yes, followed by the statement, “Unless I am wrong, there’s no additional benefits.” The question and statement went together.
If you don’t have a problem with the state sanctioning gay marriage, who cares if any other benefits accrue to the so recognized couple?
I’m merely asking because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that people are more open to the acceptance of civil unions than they are gay marriage. If the only additional benefit as you say is to have the government recognize the marriage, then what’s the point? I wouldn’t expect anybody would care whether or not some pinhead in government recognizes them as being married so long as the same protections were being afforded.
If the state recognizes as a marriage the union between a man and a woman, it should do the same for a gay couple as well.
“Should” is a matter of opinion. The issue with gay marriage is that advocates believe the government “must” recognize gay marriage because marriage is deemed to be a “right” worthy of such protection and recognition. Can you make a compelling argument that marriage is a right and not a privilege?
“I’m merely asking because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that people are more open to the acceptance of civil unions than they are gay marriage.”
Jay, you’re forgetting here that a majority of gays want gay marriage to be recognized. When you ask why they would want this if they don’t get any other benefit you are also forgetting that having that state recognize gay marriage is a pretty huge benefit in itself as a means of curbing discrimination in other arenas. The current lack of recognition itself is reason enough to pursue Constitutional means to remedy that.
If they choose to do so through the courts, and not elections, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have a problem with it unless they want to argue that the First Amendment is wrong. Do you want to make that case, as the other Jay seems willing to do?
And if you want to get into the right vs privilege thing, I think you’d be hard pressed to convince any straight person that the state should be able to rescind their right to get married on the basis that marriage is a privilege and not a right. If you have no inalienable right to marriage, what prevents the state from forcing you to separate from your current wife because you don’t plan to have children because marriage is for procreation, or whatever? Or maybe the State should be allowed to keep you from marrying because you and your partner of a different race, or you owe child support from a previous marriage or your partner is in prison.
Courts have struck down laws prohibiting marriage in all those instances as they violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. Indeed:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm
If you would prefer to live in a country in which marriage was not a fundamental right but can be prohibited by the state for whatever reason, fine by me. But my guess if that you would have to move to a seriously repressive country to enjoy the clarity of your “sensible” stance.
If marriage is a fundamental right, why then is bigamy and polygamy illegal? Why can’t a person legally marry a family member? Why are there age restrictions?
There are all sorts of restrictions and prohibitions placed on marriage, so the argument that it is a fundamental right really isn’t valid.
BTW, the link you provided is misleading in its comments. The court did not reason marriage was a fundamental right. The decision in Zablocki v Redhail was 5-3-1. Only Justices Burger and Marshall in their opinions stated marriage was a fundamental right. Justice Stewart and Justice Powell made clear that while concurring with Marhsall on the ruling, their concurrence was not based on any view of the right of marriage (Stewart in fact said that not only was marriage not a fundamental right, but no explicit right to marry at all), but rather that Zablocki’s lack of money shouldn’t restrict his liberty and that’s where the Wisconsin law erred. Justice Stevens issued a concurrence that was similar.
If you would prefer to live in a country in which marriage was not a fundamental right but can be prohibited by the state for whatever reason, fine by me.
There you go again. You have to learn to distinguish between what a person claims is factual and what their personal views on the subject are. Just because I believe that marriage is not a right, and rather a privilege, doesn’t mean it is something that I ‘prefer.’ I’m just making an observation and stating an opinion.
“There are all sorts of restrictions and prohibitions placed on marriage, so the argument that it is a fundamental right really isn’t valid.”
You see, Jay, you’re sort of asserting your lay persons opinion, which doesn’t mean shit, in the face of a legal opinion by the Supreme Court, which sort of carries a whole lot more weight because it’s effectively, you know, the law of the land.
You are, however, also mistaken in your reasoning because you don’t seem to understand what the court decided in the Zablocki v Redhail (1978).
The Court didn’t assert that because marriage is a fundamental right, any and all marriage should be allowed by the state or that no restrictions can be placed on marriage. It ruled instead, as seen in the quote i provided, that because marriage is a fundamental right, any laws that would regulate it are subject to the higher Constitutional standard of “rigorous scrutiny.”
As Justice Marshall wrote:
Ultimately, I am not asserting opinions here. I am asserting legal facts which show that the highest court in the land has found and reaffirmed that American citizens have a fundamental right to marry. Not an unlimited right, but a fundamental right. The law of the land is that marriage is a fundamental right. That’s a fact, my friend. Not an opinion. If you disagree, fine, but you can’t deny that marriage is a fundamental right in this country. The courts say it is.
Now would you like to argue that the state has a sufficiently important interest in banning or not recognizing same sex marriage?
There are all sorts of restrictions and prohibitions placed on marriage, so the argument that it is a fundamental right really isn’t valid.
This doesn’t make sense. We have plenty of fundamental rights in this country that come with restrictions and regulations. The old chestnut is that the First Amendment doesn’t provide you the freedom to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. If you mean to say what your sentence above seems to say, then you’re essentially arguing that a right isn’t a right at all unless it comes completely unfettered by laws of any kind; in which case we have no right to vote, we have no right to bear arms, we have no right to a fair trial…and the Founding Fathers instead ratified a Bill of Privileges.
And, Jay, Marshal delivered the opinion of the court.
And Jay, are just trying to play devil’s advocate here or something or are you actually trying to have a serious discussion?
When you write:
Just what exactly are you claiming is factual and what are you claiming is your opinion? What, in other words, does “believe” mean here? You say that you BELIEVE that marriage is a privilege but turn right around and suggest that you may not necessarily PREFER this to be so.
So which is it? Do you believe it is a fact that marriage is a privilege, or is it your opinion that marriage is a privilege despite whatever the legal facts may be?
Or is the entire sentence simply a hypothetical?
If I’m supposed to distinguish the difference between what is factual and what is your opinion, you may want to be a little clearer yourself. If don’t want to simply come out and state your beliefs without all this ambiguity, what’s the point of even having this discussion?
You see, Jay, you’re sort of asserting your lay persons opinion, which doesn’t mean shit, in the face of a legal opinion by the Supreme Court, which sort of carries a whole lot more weight because it’s effectively, you know, the law of the land.
Well, I can find the opinions of courts that ruled in the opposite (the NY State Supreme court for instance ruled that NY’s ban on gay marriage is not unconstitutional – In Hawaii the court said marriage was not a fundamental right). If your goal is merely to appeal to authority in a discussion about the rights of marriage, then what’s the point?
You are, however, also mistaken in your reasoning because you don’t seem to understand what the court decided in the Zablocki v Redhail (1978).
Actually, I understand perfectly what the court decided. I was specifically pointing out in the link you provided that it was misleading to say that the court in Zablocki found there was a fundamental right to marriage.
Spider, there are certain instances where certain types of marriage are not just restricted, but banned outright by the government. For instance, I cannot marry my brother. If marriage is truly a fundamental right, wouldn’t the prohibition against marriage to my brother be a violation of my fundamental rights?
“If your goal is merely to appeal to authority in a discussion about the rights of marriage, then what’s the point?”
I think I’ll stick with appealing to the majoritiy opinions US Supreme Court which I believe takes some precedence in legal matters in this country.
As for your understanding of that opinion in Zablocki v Redhail, it isn’t a question of what the dissenting opinions stated. You plunged into an argument that marriage couldn’t be a fundamental right otherwise the state couldn’t outlaw bigamy or polygamy but that’s clearly not what the majority opinion stated.
It is actually your entire point here that isn’t vald because Marshall plainly wrote in the majority opinion that finding a fundamental right to marriage did not preclude states from regulating marriage. It just meant that their laws had to meet a higher Constitutional test. That’s it.
“If marriage is truly a fundamental right, wouldn’t the prohibition against marriage to my brother be a violation of my fundamental rights?”
Jesus, you really aren’t paying attention are you?
“If marriage is truly a fundamental right, wouldn’t the prohibition against marriage to my brother be a violation of my fundamental rights?”
This seems like some variation of the incredibly vapid argument that opening the door to gay marriage necessarily opens the door to marrying your dog.
And you didn’t actually answer my previous post. Are you stating, plainly, that a fundamental right is a right which cannot be regulated? Because, again, if that is your contention, then there are no fundamental rights in America whatsoever.
SpiderJ said:
Actually, asking the “where does it end” question isn’t completely out of line. OK, when it gets to your dog, it surely is. The benefits of marriage which would accrue to the dog as spouse are nonsensical (Dog making medical decisions when you’re incapacitated?) and, if for no other reason, because your dog can’t clearly express its consent to the union.
But what about three consenting adults who all want to be hitched to each other? If it is OK for him and her to marry, and OK for her and her to marry, why not him and her and her?
It really comes down to how you define a marriage:
A legal union between two consenting adults of the opposite sex?
A legal union between two consenting adults?
A legal union between consenting adults?
Gee, what a stunning turn of events. An absolute stampede to kick me around, with the actual facts of the matter trampled underneath. I could never have expected this.
Here’s a Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of how gay marriage came about — and the aftermath:
1) Supreme Judicial Court declares, in the absence of the legislature taking any action, that gay marriage is legal.
2) Large groups of Massachusetts residents get extremely angry over this, and decide to undo the decision.
3) They choose to put a question on a statewide ballot defining marriage as one man, one woman.
4) They started gathering signatures to require the question be put on the ballot.
5) They submitted a significantly higher number than required signatures (I want to say 2 or 3 times as many) demanding that the measure be considered.
6) Under the Massachusetts Constitution, that meant that the matter had to be voted upon at a Constitutional Convention, which was a joint session of the legislature convened as a Constitutional Convention.
7) At that convention, the measure would have to garner less than 25% of the vote. Unless the opponents could muster 75% or better of the joint legislature, gathered as a Constitutional Convention, the measure would be placed on the vey next statewide ballot.
The Massachusetts legislature met in a Constitutional Convention, tabled the measure, and recessed. They convened again, tabled it again, and then recessed again. Then they convened one last time on New Year’s Eve and filibustered until after midnight, and they were legally obligated to adjourn — without ever voting on the petition initiative, killing it.
9) The petitioners were outraged, and took the Legislature to court for violating the Massachusetts Constitution and not giving it the mandated vote.
10) The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature had, indeed, violated the Massachusetts Constitution by not voting on the petition initiative. But they said that the combination of there being no enforcement provision in the Constitution to handle a case where the Legislature simply refuses to obey the Constitution, coupled with the fact that there was no legal remedy (the Legislature didn’t violate the Constitution until their Convention ended, and once it was ended it could not be reconvened, as their deadline has passed) and the principle of separation of powers, meant that the court’s ruling was utterly unenforceable.
Say whatever you like about me. That doesn’t change one whit that there is a legal ruling on the books that the Massachusetts legislature deliberately chose to violate their oaths of office and the Massachusetts Constitution to keep gay marriage legal.
But that’s OK. I’m sure that they’ll never, ever strip the people of their right to place questions on the ballot ever again. After all, if you can’t trust the Massachusetts legislature (85+% Democratic, by the way), who can you trust?
J.
I think I’ll stick with appealing to the majoritiy opinions US Supreme Court which I believe takes some precedence in legal matters in this country.
Exactly. Appealing to authority. Try and think for yourself and not just say, “Marriage is a fundamental right because the Supreme Court said so.” The Supreme Court said at one time that slavery was legal. Let me hear YOU explain why YOU believe marriage to be a fundamental right.
If I’m supposed to distinguish the difference between what is factual and what is your opinion, you may want to be a little clearer yourself. If don’t want to simply come out and state your beliefs without all this ambiguity, what’s the point of even having this discussion?
No, what I am saying is stop attaching motives to my statements. If I state that I don’t believe marriage to be a fundamental right in this country, it doesn’t mean I am opposed to gay marriage.
This seems like some variation of the incredibly vapid argument that opening the door to gay marriage necessarily opens the door to marrying your dog.
You didn’t answer the question and stop with the absurdity of men and dogs. Polygamists are already citing the recent Lawrence v. Texas decision in their appeals to have laws banning polygamy overturned.
And I didn’t say such rights could be regulated. I am asking for somebody to provide a rational and reasonable explanation why certain types of marriage are fair game to be banned, but others are not. You need to be able to reconcile your viewpoints. If you believe marriage to be a fundamental right and that the state needs to provide a compelling interest against same sex marriage, then please provide the compelling interest for why laws banning bigamy, polygamy and incestuous marriages.
Jay TEA (because the other Jay, who I’m still convinced is the same goddamned person, is too stupid to know who we’re talking about.), Sounds to me like the legislators were in the wrong here, not the judges. And yet, you and your ilk are whining about “judiciary activism”? If the people REALLY hate the homosexuals that much, then they can vote to remove their legislators from office. If they keep their jobs, then the people have spoken on the issue. Simple as that.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: modern-day liberalism is nothing but facade for the morally bankrupt in this country. After all, why would a true liberal who supports gay marriage, stand in the way of polygamy or any restrictions on marriage that exist today? Because their real intention is to make a mockery of God and the religious institution that is marriage. Nothing more, nothing less. Any wonder that most, if not all of those who call themselves “liberals” today also claim to be “atheist” or “agnostic”? Funny too that those claiming “And that’s FINAL!!!” about the Mass. Supreme Court’s activism that led to gay marriage in that state are most likely the of the same ilk still screaming “Blasphemy!!!” about Gore vs. Bush 2000.
I don’t even know where to begin. One Jay can’t actually articulate his own position on the issue without all manner of double talk. I understand you can be in favor of gay marriage while still believing that it is not a fundamental right. Do you understand that finding it a fundamental right does not mean the state can’t regulate marriage to prohibit incest or polygamy, right?
At the same, I’m not sure why you feel you can scold me for not presenting a wholly original argument for the status of marriage as a right, when all you’ve done is spit up the lamest of the lame right wing talking points on the subject as if you dreamed up all on your own. You’ve essential argued that marriage can’t be a right because that would mean men would have the right to marry their sisters. That is neither an positive argument for it being a privilege nor a valid argument period. As has been pointed out multiple times now, finding marriage to be a fundamental right does not prohibit the regulation of it.
As for the other Jay, how exactly do the actions of MA legislature negate the Constitutional right to seek a redress of grievances through the court? One has nothing to do with the other but you seem to want to lump them together to somehow taint the original court decision.
At the same time that election makes gay marriage more legitimate than court decisions is ridiculous, especially when you yourself don’t believe that the arguments against gay marriage have any merit. You expect gays to bow before ignorance instead of seeking to claim their rights through a Constitutional process? That’s kind of stunning. Just how long would you wait patiently while a basic right was denied you because a majority of people thought it was icky?
MrGreyGhost,
Wow. That was a parody, right?
I realize it can be confusing for some of you (especially Zython, apparently), but there are actually two of us with similar names. I am “Jay Tea,” and in my other life I am the main page editor of http://www.wizbangblog.com. The other fellow, “Jay” of no last name, apparently runs a blog called “Pop And Sports.” I am not he, he is not me. I have never read his blog — but now that I’ve taken a peek at his URL, I just might. I have no interest in sports, so it’ll probably be a very brief visit.
Oliver, should he deign to do so, could also verify that we post from different IPs. My home IP is clearly identified as a New Hampshire IP.
Fafaroo, let me make it clear for you. I support civil unions, and I support gay marriage. But I support more the rule of law, and doing the right things for the right reasons in the right manner.
The Massachusetts Constitution clearly gives the citizenry a way of implementing Constitutional amendments, through the ballot initiative process. The legislature has discovered a way it can deprive the people of that clearly-defined right. The people turned to the courts for redress of this grievance, and were told they were out of luck — the courts had no way of redressing it. So the whole part about the people of Massachusetts having the right to initiate amendments to their state Constitution, guaranteed by that very Constitution, taken away whenever the legislature feels like doing so.
That is the price of gay marriage in Massachusetts, fafaroo. A right guaranteed by the state Constitution.
Whereas here in New Hampshire, we paid no price. We simply did it the legal way, through a duly passed and signed law.
I think I understand your problem, fafaroo. Here in New Hampshire, we acted with “integrity.” Go look it up; you might find it enlightening.
J.
Yes, what a travesty it was for blacks to go through the courts for their rights rather than wait for racism to slowly shuffle off. Come on.
As has been pointed out multiple times now, finding marriage to be a fundamental right does not prohibit the regulation of it.
Actually, it hasn’t been pointed out multiple times. It took raising issues such as bigamy and incest for you to finally admit that marriage of certain types can be prohibited even though you’ve been arguing gays should be able to marry because the courts have said marriage is a “fundamental right.”
when all you’ve done is spit up the lamest of the lame right wing talking points on the subject as if you dreamed up all on your own. You’ve essential argued that marriage can’t be a right because that would mean men would have the right to marry their sisters.
Don’t even try it. I made no such argument so can the “right wing talking points” drivel. I asked you to explain your position. You argue that marriage is a right and as such that gays have the right to marry. So again, I ask you to reconcile that with those that want to marry a relative or more than one person. What separates the two and why should one group be allowed to marry but not the other?
Look, if you support gay marriage just….because then fine. Say that. But don’t go on about rights and providing excerpts from Supreme Court decisions when you’re not sufficiently prepared to defend your position.
Yes, what a travesty it was for blacks to go through the courts for their rights rather than wait for racism to slowly shuffle off.
Oh for crissakes dude. Apples and freaking oranges.
Oh for crissakes dude. Apples and freaking oranges.
Well, they’re both fruit. (Pun not intended)
And Jay Tea, you clearly acknowledged my post, but failed to address the core issue there. If what you say is true, I agree the legislators were in the wrong, but all they succeeded in doing was changing the playing field. The issue of gay marriage is still on the table in the form of the general election. If the people feel that their hatred of homosexuals is so important, they can vote to remove them from office, The legislators have taken a gamble with this, and we’ll see if it pays off (if it hasn’t already).
“Actually, it hasn’t been pointed out multiple times.”
You obviously weren’t paying attention. In the very first thing I quoted above it states:
if you had been paying attention from the beginning, it would have been clear to you that the court’s majority opinion left open the ability of the states to regulate marriage if their laws met the higher Constitutional test of “rigorous scrutiny.”
I will wager that you stopped paying attention as soon as you read “fundamental right,” so eager ou became to launch into the hackneyed argument that if gay marriage, why not man dog marriage. I mean I can’t believe you are trying to pretend that raising the specter of incest or polygamy is some kind of dazzlingly original argument that you arrived at on your own relying solely on your careful and rigorous reasoning skills. I mean, please.
If, instead of wracking your brain to come come up such uniquely penetrating questions as “what about polygamy?,” you were actually paying any attention at all, you would know that according to the Supreme Court, states can limit the right of marriage if they can show “a sufficiently important state interest” in doing so and that the law “is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.”
I think there are very compelling state interests in prohibiting minors to marry, incest or polygamy. All three can be effectively limited with narrowly tailored laws that effect only minors, polygamists and relatives who want to marry. I don’t think there’s any compelling state interest in prohibiting homosexuals to marry. Can you name some? Would you like to actually offer something to the debate?
Zython, “if what (I) say is true?” Why the HELL would I make up something so easily checked?
Here’s the Boston Globe’s account of the incident: http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/11/10/legislature_again_blocks_bid_to_ban_gay_marriage/?page=full
Ignore the particulars of the case, look at the big picture. Forget that the subject at hand was gay marriage, and see the procedure: over 170,000 people in Massachusetts signed petitions to put the question on a state-wide ballot. The legislature, which was Constitutionally obligated to either pass or reject the measure, met and tabled and recessed until two days after the election; met and tabled and recessed to their last day in office; then met and stalled until their terms expired.
The vote referred to in the article was for one of the recesses, not on the measure itself. Under the state Constitution, of the 200 legislators, the measure only needed 50 to get on the ballot, and 151 to kill it. The supporters of the ballot question had 87 votes, 37 more than necessary. The opponents had a bare majority. But instead of voting on the measure, they voted on a recess — which only needed a simple majority.
The Constitution’s INTENT is clear: IF enough people sign the petitions, THEN it ought to take extraordinary measures by the Legislature to keep it off the ballot. The “extraordinary measure,” in this case, is a supermajority: 3/4 of them. They found a way to thwart that requirement and kill it with a simple majority, and there’s not a damned thing anyone can do to compel them to do otherwise.
Yes, they can remove the individual legislators who broke their oaths, but they can’t do anything about the institution as a whole. As long as the individual legislators are willing to take the risk, there’s nothing that can take that power away from the institution.
And remember that of those 200 legislators, over 170 are Democrats.
Here in New Hampshire, the state GOP got a huge black eye from the 2002 phone jamming scandal. Several went to jail, and the party ended up paying a huge fine. We’re still feeling the consequences of it, as this November the same two politicians at the heart of it — John E. Sununu and Jeanne Shaheen — are going head-to-head again, and I just KNOW Shaheen will be making an issue of it this time around.
As disgraceful and disgusting as that action was, it pales compared to this example from Massachusetts. It wasn’t a Senate seat at stake, but a fundamental right of the people. It wasn’t a conspiracy by a few well-placed people with more cunning than scruples, it was a majority of the legislature. And while the courts offered a legal remedy to the aggrieved party in New Hampshire, there was literally nothing anyone could do for the people who were stripped of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to petition and place a question on the ballot.
That just highlights why I’m so damned proud to be from New Hampshire, and relieved that I’m not from Massachusetts. We put the guys behind the phone jamming scandal in jail. In Massachusetts, most of the legislators who betrayed their oath to protect and defend the state’s Constitution were re-elected — and generally by comfortable margins.
That’s my only consolation. As much sympathy as I have for the people of Massachusetts, the old rule holds true — generally, people get the government they deserve. They’re more subjects of the Commonwealth than citizens, and they’re just fine and dandy with that.
J.
Jay Tea: “C.S., I’ll remember those the words the next time the Supreme Court issues a ruling that will have liberals wetting their pants.
‘The justices did their fucking jobs.’
That’s all we have to say.”
Jesus Fucking Christ, why do you have to be so stupid?
There’s a difference between disagreeing with a ruling, and disagreeing with their position in government. Anyone who moans and complains about activist judges needs a remedial civics class.
Jay: “Oh for crissakes dude. Apples and freaking oranges.”
Really? Cause every single argument I’ve heard to stop Gay marriage was also used to stop interracial marriage. So I think there’s a lot more crossover than you will admit.
“Forget that the subject at hand was gay marriage.”
Okay. But can you also try to remember that the original court case and what happened in the legislature, after the fact, are two separate things? There’s obvious a reason to be upset with the Massachusetts legislature but you seem to want to conflate its actions with the original court ruling to make one vast conspiracy to deprive Massachusetts citizens their Constitutional rights. In your first post, for instance, you wrote:
But Jay, when four of seven judges hand down an opinion in a case, that is not equivalent to a few riding “roughshod” over the many. It’s actually a clear cut example of the rule of law that you claim to care so much about. Going to court to seek a redress of grievances is not the “wrong” way to do anything. It is, again, an example of the rule of law.
When the original ruling came down, what was your position? As a solid supporter of the rule of law I can only assume that, while disagreeing with the decision, you respected the process through which it was determined. Right? Because that’s what supporting the rule of law means. If, on the other hand, you said, I support the decision but this was the wrong way for them to get what they want, well, that’s not supporting the rule of law. That’s actually a position that undermines the rule of law as it attacks the legitimate, constitutional role that the courts played in the issue.
MrGreyGhost said:
Typical.
Step 1: Take someone’s position, claim “well, if you support that then you must clearly also be in favor of this” and give the most extreme, outlandish example possible. Then attack them for that outlandish position rather than their actual one.
Step 2: Make up outlandish motives and (again) attack what you’ve made up rather than anything the person has actually said.
Step 3: Start making up “facts”.
God!
Jay said:
Oh, for crissakes, dude. The struggles for people trying to get their civil rights are directly comparable, whether it be based on race or sexual orientation.
The same arguments against it are used.
Jay Tea said:
Huh? The price of gay marriage is a non-responsive legislature? So if gay marriage wasn’t allowed in Massachusetts then that price wouldn’t ahve to be paid, right? And the legislature would work right? But soley because gay marriage is allowed it doesn’t?
Jay Te said: