New York has legalized marriage equality. I can’t express how happy I am. Blame my RINOness.
Here is the one thing I want and answer for, thought. Many, but not all, conservatives decried judicial activism when judges declared marriage equality legal, saying that it was the auspice of the legislature. Now that the NY (and other) legislature has approved of marriage equality, the argument is that this is something that should be decided by a referendum of voters.
My question is, what happens when demographics change enough that voters decide in favor of marriage equality? Will the conservative argument then be “Save us, judges!”
I’m just confused is all, and HotAir.com commenters have provided me no answers!
Either way, congratulations New York. I’m too proud for words.
well personally I am a believer in the legislative process so I say if this is what NY wants more power to them.
Hopefully that group of empty ball sacs over in Congress will follow suit. Actually, in honor of Tesla’s (my cat) response to getting furminated tonight, I shall forever refer to the dishonorable members of Congress as anal sacs; they are, after all, physiologically and metaphorically alike.
How does believing in equal constitutional rights under the law make a person a RINO?
I don’t think you’re a RINO for applauding this. In fact, I have argued before that representatives or the voters should decide this question, not judges.
Question: Would you not cheer the voters here in California for making their voices heard, too, with Prop. 8? If not, why not?
This has never been about marriage equality. It has been about redefining what marriage is, and forcing this new definition on states that don’t want it redefined.
Once marriage is redefined at the federal level, any marriage from one state, which fits such new definition, must be honored in a state that doesn’t want it.
I’m not sure what your point is about judicial activism. Activism is determined case by case. You can’t say that, just because a conservative judgment may be on the opposite side of a liberal activist judgment, it is also necessarily activism.
You know I really don’t care what folks do in private. I don’t give a damn unless it involves kids or rape or what-not… What I’m sick of is the agenda of the LBGT I liken it to the middle east problem. No matter how much give there’s a next step. Civil unions should have been enough. It offered all the benefits of marriage without the paper. Now we see across the country that schools must be trained to teach the gay lifestyle. This is dead wrong. Then we hear the gay issue is the same as the civil right issue. Dead Wrong too. You can be gay or not gay, you can’t change your color.
I find it funny that conservatives would be okay with this. It’s just another slap at tradition. The delve into the abyss continues. All you have to do is look at our nation now. And ask yourself were you safer, happier and better educated before the “progress”? The answer is no. Our education system has been on a downward spiral since the “Paddlin board” was removed. Now we got all kinds of counseling for bad behavior and now we are going to promote some more moral depravity.
My opinion of course… Now go ahead and let the “Racist” “Homophobe” unenlightened, neanderthal comments flow. Don’t really give a damn.
You can be gay or not gay,
No, you fucking cannot. You can choose whether or not to act on your orientation, just like anyone who is straight, but you cannot change who you want. That being said, the claim that “gay rights” in this regard is the same as the civil rights movement makes me want to punch people in the throat.
My opinion of course… Now go ahead and let the “Racist” “Homophobe” unenlightened, neanderthal comments flow.
I do believe that you have been here long enough to know that anyone calling you a homophobe simply for opposing gay marriage will be told, not so politely, to get out. I am pretty damn offended that you believe otherwise.
I was hoping you’d post about this when I was scrolling through my twitter feed last night. As you know, I don’t give a crap about gay marriage except to the extent that I’m against any governmental recognition of marriage on other than a contract basis. But it is an interesting point that you raise. It’s hilarious watching everyone on both sides of this issue go scurrying to whichever argument they believe will advance what they want.
I don’t especially care what legislatures in other states do –and yes, the legislature is much preferred to the courts–, but I have a feeling that the Full Faith and Credit legal arguments aren’t going to confine SSM to the states where it has been enacted. Eventually the SCOTUS will rule that TX and MS have to accept any marriage performed elsewhere, and that’s going to be… interesting.
For the record, I hold what I think is (or at least used to be) the Jonah Goldberg position, which is that I’m not really for it, but I think it’s probably inevitable, and when it happens the earth probably won’t split open and swallow us up.
Eventually the SCOTUS will rule that TX and MS have to accept any marriage performed elsewhere, and that’s going to be… interesting.
Well, technically SCOTUS is going to have to rule on DOMA first. I still say that my solution to the problem, which is for Congress to exercise Article III powers to remove the issue of marriage from the purview of the federal courts, is the better solution. And by better I do also mean completely hilarious to watch the shrieking about doing that as well.
I don’t think DOMA stands a chance.
Oh yeah, I didn’t mean to imply that it did, thus the technically comment. Right now, I’m somewhat of a supporter of the FMA, simply because that’s the only way I can see (apart from my super genius Article III solution), to keep SCOTUS the hell out of it.
Ok, I totally oppose the idea but am enjoying the hilarity of the mental image at the same time. Nice…
Obviously folks believe you come out of the womb gay or straight. I sure as fuck don’t believe that, but it has served the gay agenda well I guess. Well Personally I’m really glad this issue has been solved in New York, Gays are free to marry, but they can’t smoke in public, eat certain foods, own a gun, etc etc… New York is one of the top 5 states ranked the least free in the nation. But at least gays can marry… good prioritizing.
Can’t wait till the gay culture Islam culture clash that should be fun to watch.
The nation is sinking in debt, we have 3 wars going on, we have staggering unemployment, we have an assault on our freedoms like no other time in history.. But Oh wait.. Gays can marry and some stupid bitch killed her kid in Fla… Stop the presses.. Sigh.
We have so many more important issues and so much danger ahead. I guess Gay marriage is win for some so hang on to it. It may be something that will help when we’re mirroring greece and kenya… Whooo Hooo
I think it’s almost impossible at this point to believe that sexual orientation doesn’t at least have a strong biological component. Look up the correlations for finger length ratios of lesbians, and look at the correlations of male homosexuality to the number of older brothers.
Maybe that sort of stuff isn’t determinative or fatalistic, but biology is certainly influential.
Obviously folks believe you come out of the womb gay or straight. I sure as fuck don’t believe that, but it has served the gay agenda well I guess.
You know what else isn’t put up with around these parts? Assuming that queerness comes with the non-optional leftist politics “gay agenda” action pack. Again, if you’d paid even moderate attention to this here crapblog you’d know that a. this is probably the queerest place on the right side of the blogosphere and b. there’s a massive disagreement by those of us who post here about gay marriage. Stop it with the gay agenda crap, all that shows is that you buy into the concept that all queers think the same. That’s idiotic.
We have so many more important issues and so much danger ahead. I guess Gay marriage is win for some so hang on to it. It may be something that will help when we’re mirroring greece and kenya… Whooo Hooo
Hey, guess what? Sometimes people on blogs post about things that you think aren’t important! Welcome to the internet!
Personally, I’m a “meh” on this issue and don’t a fuggity flying fuck what happened either way, but at least the electoral process took precedence on this one. That’s the way it should be.
But I do have one question, since I have not been following the nuts & bolts on this issue, so please pardon my stupidity in asking:
Was there a provision in the NYS law regarding taxes/marriage penalty/etc? Will gay married couples be taxed at the same rate as if my wife & I moved to NYS?
Yes. Gay couples getting married in NYS will get the shiite taxed out of them just like every other married couple there.
Hey! We beat you to it! Suck it, NY State!
Nope really didn’t know this was “the queerest place on the right side of the blogsphere” Don’t really care. I don’t broadcast my heterosexuality. Nor do I mention too much my friends who happen to be gay. I really don’t care. I do know that the folks I call friends who happen to be gay are not celebrating gay marriage in New York (And are against it in CA) They are perfectly fine with the civil union legislation that affords them the same benefits without the paper.
You say queerness doesn’t come with the gay agenda action pack yet you celebrate the victory of it? Odd.
I really couldn’t care less if folks are gay. Seriously I don’t give a damn. What is important is that tolerance is a 2 way street. I am expected to tolerate the gay lifestyle choice, you better damn well tolerate my choice not to subscribe to it.
I guess I’m more pissed than most because here in Cali, we had a proposition that would have allowed gay marriage if it failed. It was written by the current Gov. Moonbeam. The prop. failed to give the gays what they wanted by the same margin Obama won his job now. We’ve been fighting in court ever since. Which tells me all I need to know about the Gay agenda drivers. They don’t give a damn about the people, it’s about them. We the people voted, we the people won… should be end of story until the next voting period. Nope not special interests, we go to court…
Just like NY, except the people didn’t vote. The legislature did. It will still end up in court I’m sure of it.
You say queerness doesn’t come with the gay agenda action pack yet you celebrate the victory of it? Odd.
I beg your pardon, when the hell was I celebrating it? Since you appear to be unable and/or unwilling to read through the whole thread, let me repeat what I’ve posted earlier in this same comment thread – As you know, I don’t give a crap about gay marriage except to the extent that I’m against any governmental recognition of marriage on other than a contract basis. To say that I am celebrating takes a rather ridiculous amount of overreading into my statements.
I was not the author of this post. So, you know, I suggest that you be more careful about noting who wrote what and to whom you are replying.
Since moving to the Left Coast, and having the opportunity to vote on these precious referendums, I have found them to be the most convoluted intentionally incomprehensible bits of language that made it nearly impossible to actually understand what it is a person is voting for, much less whether one is voting for or against it. My husband and I loathe this state and are moving as soon as a job opportunity presents itself.
In the meantime, I have little faith in any referendum put forth, since the writers of said legislation seem to not actually want the voters to comprehend what they are voting for. The point of this little diatribe is to say that I wouldn’t be surprised it Prop 8 fell victim to the same spurious lack of clarity.
Not every one chooses to observe a religion or own a weapon, but the Republican philosophy is that government has no business dictating whether those rights are acted upon. Why is it acceptable for government to dictate the language and ritual used by same sex couples who choose to legally and “spiritually” unite? The DoMA act is implicitly accuses same sex couples of being sinful, immoral, and shameful. It gives society the right to treat same sex couples as less than equal under the eyes of the law.
Besides, hetero- sexuality is shoved into our faces everyday in advertising, in media, casually, walking down the street. A couple kissing during a riot gets international attention, and I get to kiss my husband and hold his hand publicly in every “westernized” nation on the planet. My married lesbian neighbors with the beautiful little girl, cannot safely do the same.
We all have agendas, and we all do our best to convince others that our view is the correct and just one. The gay agenda is no more a threat to the fabric of society than the Christian agenda, or the NRA agenda, or the Vegan agenda.
So unless they have you tied to a stake and are preparing to burn you, holding a gun to your head, or force-feeding you a dick, or tofurkey, then quit acting like such a victim!
Me acting like a victim? WOW that’s rich… The victimhood awash with the “Gays” the “blacks” the Hispanics” the Islam believers” the Democrat base as whole. I point out that WE THE PEOPLE have been pushed aside again and you come up with some “We’re to stupid to understand what we voted for” answer? WOW… Yeah that’s great….
Hetero-sexuality is shoved in your face? Um.. That’s because it’s NORMAL. It’s the way of life, it’s procreation its how you come to be here on this earth. It’s required to keep humans relevant. It’s required to continue as a species. Don’t act like such a victim…
Oh I know, that’s different, or sexist or some other label. My Agenda? Yeah I have one, it’s called RIGHT. It’s called Americanism. The agenda of right v wrong. What is right is simple so simple it’s stupid. My agenda is to have everyone be an asset to our nation rather than a burden. My agenda is to make welfare obsolete by only granting it to those who truly need it like invalids/mentally challenged and truly disabled. My agenda is to punish those who commit crimes with the harshest punishment fitting the crime as to make sure others see what happens if you do it. My agenda is simply to stop the madness the progressives have placed us in. My agenda? More guns in the hands of citizens, less crime, more sanity in the courts and less dumbassery in society. My agenda? Yeah that’s crazy….
The gay agenda is peppered with the anti-war crowd, anarchists, ANSWER, Communist sympathizers, The most liberal of the liberal and the future under that agenda is anti-MY agenda.
Robert, you did notice that this wasn’t directed at you, right? See below.
Yeah I noticed they clarified after I posted the comment. I also noticed I was the only one to bring up Prop 8 and that it was mentioned in the comment. I also noticed the reference to “heterosexuality” which was in my comment too.
The comment was ambiguous and vague but it contained answers to my comments.
Then it was clarified after my post was published.
Robert,
My political philosophy is almost identical to yours. Regarding the referendums, I felt like a complete moron trying to figure out what the hell I was voting for. I didn’t call anyone stupid, I accused the authors of CA referendums of intentionally making the language confusing.
I am a disabled combat veteran who served 10 years in the US Army. My husband is a disabled combat veteran who served 18. I’d say we are pretty much pro-American. We also believe that we fought to prevent government from criminalizing the rights of the individual, like say Saudi Arabia, China, Egypt, Pakistan, etc ad nauseum. We live in the greatest country on this planet, and we are the greatest because we make certain that every fool out there(including me) gets to dump his/her shit into the public sphere without fear of being attacked, or arrested, or executed.
I agree that heterosexuality is the biological order of the day with respect to the continuation of the species, but that is not the point. I was, in part, responding to your anger towards the gay agenda. I, too, am fed up with everybody else’s agenda(excluding the ones for which I am in favor). I simply accept and respect the right of other American citizens to have and hold an agenda. I may not respect the agenda itself, but I don’t believe that anyone has the right to criminalize that agenda unless said agenda is going to directly cause harm or interfere with the property, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of other Americans.
I honestly don’t believe that this is a state’s right issue, either. Majority rule is always correct when it comes to protecting the rights of the people and always suspect when it comes to restricting or removing them. Isn’t that the point of the justice system, though, to make certain that the majority hasn’t turned into a mob or a minority hasn’t become a law unto themselves?
My apologies. I didn’t notice the author, I just noticed you came to the defense first so I ASS-U-ME’d it was you. Many folks have more than one login/handle..
Either way. Movin on.
P.S. That was a general rant directed at no one in particular.
My feelings on the subject are this: marriage is a state issue and I’m fine with New York doing this. I live in Oklahoma and we are not about to legalize gay marriage, as is our right not to do so. I’m a federalist. Let NY be NY and let OK be OK.
[...] Thank you, New York. (doubleplusundead.com) [...]
As long as the authority over marriage is the purview of states, then it should be up to the voters of each state to decide, either directly through referendum if the states permit, or through the legislature. Period.
The legislatures are empowered to define the terms used in their statutes, and do so all the time. It is not the place of a panel of judges, or a single judge, to deconstruct and reformulate these definitions sua sponte, as with what happened in California.
That is why I can both dislike what happened in New York, and still acknowledge that the proper procedure was followed in New York, and flagrantly abused in California.
The suggestion that the matter be removed from the jurisdiction of Article III courts creates a specific problem, because as others have observed, there will be full faith and credit clashes. To remove the authority to resolve that Constitutional conflict will not only violate the spirit and the purpose of Article III jurisdiction, and could also have unforeseen consequences that I’m sure you would want to avoid…a reading of previous rulings on marriage rights by the Supreme Court should make that obvious. (Cases like Zablocki v. Redhail, or Loving v. Virginia).
Good for New York, seriously…now if only they’d not be a Marxist authoritarian hellhole in literally every other way…
I’m just confused is all, and HotAir.com commenters have provided me no answers!
If you’re looking for Hotair’s commentariat to give you an answer, you’re fucked, and your date’s last name is Husqvarna.
Many, but not all, conservatives decried judicial activism when judges declared marriage equality legal, saying that it was the auspice of the legislature. Now that the NY (and other) legislature has approved of marriage equality, the argument is that this is something that should be decided by a referendum of voters.
I definitely decried the judicial activism, but I remember writing the post approving the last state’s passing the legislature…Vermont? Think it was Vermont, my memory is crap and I think it was on Ye Olde Blogge, and I’m too lazy to look to begin with… Anyway, I’m about where Alex is on it, government should only be involved as far its duties in administering the contract and making sure all parties are of age and consent to the contract. But mostly I’m noting my non-hypocrisy on this issue because I see a number of homocons ready to throw the hypocrite flag, but they ain’t gonna get a chance to do so with me. Mostly I’m just saying it’s time to bask in my glorious intellectual consistency and general awesomeness.
Bask, bitches.
I’m not a bitch, I’m a bastard.
But then, you knew that, since you met me last fall.
And I don’t bask on command.
Hell, I have trouble doing it on request.
LOL
Aargh. This is going to be long. Sorry-up-front.
The elephant in the room here is one that I’ve been hammering Gabe’ with at the HQ to respond to for maybe 4-5 years plus (well, truthfully, not for a long while, since I’ve been inconsistent about even reading Ace for the past couple of years …so I don’t know when the last time was): to wit.
When do your Fourteenth Amendment rights (and make no mistake, this is the real hammer in the legal argument for the gay rights marriage movement: the “equal protection under the law” clause of the federal constitution) trump my First Amendment “Bill of Rights” rights (this being: the federal government can make NO law *respecting* NOR “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” of religion) …which is, in this case, my religious belief to NOT recognize single sex unions as “holy matrimony”? Or, marriage, if you will.
Because, bottom line, this is where the problem lies. First vs. Fourteenth. Because of frelling stupidity, and misdirection, and lack of both common sense and religious fervor (surprisingly, that “religious fervor” is from the progressive and LGBT movement: call it what you will, I call it Humanism The Religion disguised as politics, and call bullshit on that …at least I know when I’m sittin’ in a pew), we’re headed for a potentially gargantuan secular crisis.
And the entire progressive agenda is forcing the issue, due to their mistaken logic of forcing sexual orientation (and honestly, I don’t give a crap about the nurture vs. nature crap: whether it’s a learned practice or a genetic “feature” is irrelevant to the debate …though homosexuality makes little frelling Darwinian sense to my rational scientist half btw: such a genetic attribute – it would have to be a recessive – would logically HAVE to have been a non-survivor trait in the accepted sense of dominance for genetic survival: how the frell does a gene which cannot possibly pass on its progenitor’s primary genetic attribute possibly “insure” survivability for the gene …it simply boggles) into a protected class status as a hammer into legally enforced social acceptance by religious communities.
…because the progressive movement isn’t after marriage equality per se, so much as it is after forced [social] acceptance (and validation) by religious communities. Period.
News flash. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen (acceptance, that is).
(And Rob’, ATC believes pretty much as you do about gay marriage as law – she’s agin’ it, for well-thought-out reasons, as she has often – and effectively – enumerated over the years in threads …heh: that’s one reason why I’m proud to be one of her “minions” as it were …if she’ll still have me after I post this, of course …though I’m a staunch conservative Christian fundamentalist, slightly to the right of Herod, as the saying goes …even Jesus hung out with some rasty sorts by preference, over the religious “leaders” of the time …I figure if it was good enough for the incarnation of the Deity, it’s good enough for me: good people is good people and “…all have sinned and fallen short” yada-yada. So you be barkin’ up the wrong tree by shakin’ her chain, dude: she’s one of us …gawd I love me some mixed metaphors LOL.)
See …I’m *never* going to be changed in my core religious beliefs, by any law …and maybe more importantly, in my VERY well thought out and logical, deeply held and studied, doctrinal beliefs (I’m, in essence, a literalist in my view of the Bible …hence, a real Neanderthal when it comes to my faith …by the brilliance of adopting compartmentalization intellectually, I’m both a Creationist – do they still use that term – AND a Darwinian HAHAHA …so I don’t have a bit of an issue holding wildly divergent viewpoints and giving them absolutely equal credence, without even breaking a sweat, internally, So There).
So, to me (and the millions of Christians with a dog in this hunt), homosexuality (not, you might notice, homosexuals) is proscribed as being not merely sinful, but as one of the rather major sins (perhaps not on the order of the big Ten, I’m willing to recognize, but certainly it don’t take more than a cursory reading of the text to realize that the practice is, er, rather badly frowned upon by the Big Guy).
Hence I will never accept homosexual marriages (as marriage, which is defined by the texts, is a holy sacrament, ordained by God), because of this. Period. (Well, until you give me a better doctrinal argument, maybe …but be forewarned: I argue really, really good, and this argument is on my ecclesiastical turf, and so while based upon rationality, has almost nothing to do with secular reasoning at all …you will lose, should you try and ignore that.)
But – having said all that – I ain’t got a problem at all with legalizing civil contracts with full force of law that give equal rights to domestic unions as are give to marriage. None, nada, nothin’. The government has every right to promulgate and enforce constitutionally sound laws, and the citizenry has the responsibility to accept, tolerate, and obey such.
So the government can put its weight behind the concept of civil unions (which are, if you think on’t, remarkably “equal” rights, inasmuch as you should NOT have to actually be “same sex” if you want to enter into one of those contractually rather than marriage …which means, if you want to separate out heterosexuals & homosexuals [nurture or nature, makes no difference to me] into two groups – which wouldn’t be my preferred practice, and certainly not my gestalt, but “whatever works for yez” – both “groups” would have equal access to such secular contract laws, and preclude judicial activist style [progressive agenda] “forcing” of the 14th amendment …square pegs should not be forced into round holes: it’s bad for the peg, and bad for the hole), and I don’t have a moral issue or constitutional issue or legal issue or what-ever-in-hell problem with it. Hell, the government can even recognize and legalize marriage asfatg, without me having much issue with it.
…it helps me to compartmentalize, actually (which is always a welcome thing to me).
But marriage as definition is based upon an ancient institution and holy sacrament at the core of my religious gestalt …and government stays the frell out of it, period. No compromise. I will fight, and die. No problem-o. (I’m just as adamant as a Muslim on the subject. Seriously.) I have zero tolerance of a government mandate to make me accept gay marriage; currently, I’m just in wait-and-see mode.
…and guaran-damn-tee I ain’t the only one.
Which brings me to the point (and you thought I’d never get there: fie): look north. See Canada? See what’s happened up there?
Christian pastors cannot even sermonize about homosexuality without being thrown into court, and jail, and etc., up in the Dominion of Snowville. In essence, the practice of a religion has fallen under hate crime laws in Canada. Core Christian doctrine is a frelling crime up there.
That’s where we’re headed with this. Because the gay movement wants, not merely legal acceptance, not even tolerance, but rather government enforced social acceptance under penalty of law.
…prob’ly because that worked out so very well with Roe v. Wade, Eh.
Imbeciles.
I ain’t blind, suckers. I can reason where this one’s goin’ pretty damn clearly.
Well …except for the religious protections already afforded by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (those legal protections to religious communities don’t exist for our beer-swizzling northern neighbors) to us Neanderthals.
A point where laws trump the Constitution, (“you say activist judges, I say tomato, we’re not going to work the whole thing out” …to the tune thereof), because the law [progressive judges] had so twisted things around, that it’s taken 200 years for common sense to even figure out the reason why individuals were granted the right to own firearms in the Bill of Rights (which, quite bluntly, was to shoot and kill the King’s men when they frelling acted tyrannical) for overt purposes of forcing religious communities to change core beliefs for the purpose of a progressive agenda that I maintain is a political cover for Humanism II, the Religion (be happy to flesh out that argument btw, should you be at all curious: been thinking on’t for almost 30 years now).
…and so using the 14th amendment to recognize gays as a protected class is a bullet headed straight for the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights. Uh, there’s a reason why the founders made it the first btw (of course, you’d have to have read and frelling understood history to get that point).
News for yez: this ain’t Roe v. Wade.
Constitutional crisis coming, baby.
You wanted it? You got it.
(Which is why I’m for a well-written “marriage amendment” that allows marriage as historically practiced – man & woman – to be protected, while at the same giving civil unions federal uniformity: that’s the bone I’ll throw to the progressives, to keep this from becoming civil insurrection, or worse: religious war. Gawd, that’s simply insane. We’re already involved in one religious war: do you want a second Civil War on this issue?)
Marriage as “equal right” achieved through legal means in this progressive activist fashion, keeping in mind the growth of “hate crimes” laws (bad mistake, that direction) is going to mean that a Christian pastor who refuses to grant holy sacrament (or frell, refuses to perform the civil-prescribed duties), is eventually going to be subject to tort and civil redress. Jail, and punitive fiscal damages if you need it put more clearly.
And the excrement will hit the fan sometime around then. And the backlash is going to lose the progressives far more than it gained them (pendulums swing you damn fools). To quote Ace (or at least paraphrase the head Ewok), you could pretty much have had it all – in the legal sense – and yet you risk having nothing at all.
First vs. fourteenth children, first vs. fourteenth. Coming soon to a logical mind near you.
…sigh: figure I’m going to catch hell for this.
When do your Fourteenth Amendment rights (and make no mistake, this is the real hammer in the legal argument for the gay rights marriage movement: the “equal protection under the law” clause of the federal constitution) trump my First Amendment “Bill of Rights” rights (this being: the federal government can make NO law *respecting* NOR “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” of religion) …which is, in this case, my religious belief to NOT recognize single sex unions as “holy matrimony”? Or, marriage, if you will.
Because, bottom line, this is where the problem lies. First vs. Fourteenth. Because of frelling stupidity, and misdirection, and lack of both common sense and religious fervor (surprisingly, that “religious fervor” is from the progressive and LGBT movement: call it what you will, I call it Humanism The Religion disguised as politics, and call bullshit on that …at least I know when I’m sittin’ in a pew), we’re headed for a potentially gargantuan secular crisis.
Two completely, and I mean COMPLETELY separate issues. Your First Amendment right is sacrosanct, even with this NY law, the STATE of NY recognizes the marriage, you as an INDIVIDUAL have the ability to personally recognize it or not. You also have the right to change the law by supporting politicians who see things your way. Religious organizations DO NOT have to recognize or administer gay marriage as per the law in NY, or any other states that have changed the law.
Now, will the left try and force religious institutions to recognize, affirm and administer? Of course, they’re Marxists and authoritarian douchehammers, it’s what they do. When they do try and strip religious institutions of their 1st Amendment rights, then they’ll have to be pushed back. That’s up to us to do.
(as marriage, which is defined by the texts, is a holy sacrament, ordained by God)
This is where the truly fundamental difference exists. The personal (cultural) definition of the word, marriage.
I will defend to the death, your right to believe and expound on the arcane rules and regulations of your higher power, however, as a staunch atheist (baptized and raised Christian, with a family who aches to bring to The Word of God to everyone in the world), disagree with that definition.
I entered into a legally binding contract with my husband by a Justice of the Peace, but when people ask me if I am “married” I do respond in the affirmative. I don’t correct them and explain that despite my deep and abiding love and commitment, to the man who I choose to spend the rest of my life with, my legal contract was not ordained by god and thus I am not married.
Am I married? My husband and I are atheists, and we do not recognize the need for sanction by a holy text or a supreme being. I fully support and respect the desire and need of any one who does choose recognition by a higher power. I don’t recognize the gay community as a protected class, any more than I recognize a particular religious group as a protected class. However, I do recognize their right to the same benefits and tribulations that the rest of the supposedly non-protected class receives.
So am I married or not? I despise unions, so I will glare harshly at you if you tell me that I am unionized.
P.S. Anyone who still loves Farscape enough to use “Frell” as their go-to curse word, is A-OK in my book…regardless of the dren they may spout
HAHAHA. I’m such a Farscape fanboy …and I really like the word (actually, my wife prefers I use it instead of the Anglo term, if I don’t want to “suffer the consequences” IYKWIM).
As to this being dren though.
My core argument is that this whole thing is less about the LGBT community being a separate-but-equal protected class, than about their desire for social tolerance & acceptance by the dominant culture and the religious community sub-cultures (American is still a hugely, and profoundly, Christian nation …it really would be dren to not recognize that …it was founded as a republic by people who recognized the desire of the majority to practice their Christian denominal beliefs without fear of government pogroms). As such, “gay marriage” is just a dodge.
And it’s going to result in a constitutional crisis.
And by-the-by: I don’t CARE if anyone thinks I’m a backwards hillbilly redneck simpleton with quaint beliefs in the Great Sky Father of Voodoo. I’m so frelling compartmentalized, that’s not even something I disagree with …well, all that much (and, in the abstract). Snick-snick: “I resemble that remark”.
But. If you want to discuss the word as such, the problem with the terminology in this case is that we’re not talking about a simple word that is first mentioned in the latest edition of the Urban Dictionary. We’re talking about a cross-cultural practice that has traditional meanings that date back thousands of years, that is deeply woven into doctrinal practices of religious communities that date back thousands of years, and is a probably deeply woven into the warp and weft of not just culture, but hardwired into homo sapiens genetically (I kid you not, I may be a Christian fundamentalist cretin, but I’m also a stone-cold Darwinian). You can’t change the stuff of what we are, by mandate or just because you want to. It don’t work that way.
And, the question of “are you married”? Sure. Why not. It was a civil union, of course. In essence (using Urban Dictionary terminology). But though civil, it is also recognized in the “old fashioned sense” since you and JC [John Carter] are not same-sex (and even being a Martian and a Virginian doesn’t change that lol).
And I’ll tell you something else DejaT: atheism is as deeply a religious concept (granted, using my terms, and my rational conceptual worldview), as deism. Which is a way of saying, you have a dog in this hunt, too, if you will. You have every right, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as written by the founders, to think that It All Just Happened By Chance So There.
But that’s not the issue I’m raising here. I think it’s a distraction, actually.
What the deeper issue is …is that by making the cultural and religious concept of marriage a fourteenth amendment issue and creating a protected class out of thin air (as it were), the progressives have set the 14th amendment on a collision course with the 1st amendment.
And culturally, This Is Not A Good Thing.
I repeat myself.
Imbeciles.
Granted, I ain’t no Jeff Goldstein, and he do explain it WAY better than me. But. Words mean stuff. Marriage means marriage. It will be another epoch (or Punctuated Equilibrium hahaha …what a jackass that guy was, eh) before that meaning changes.
(Which is why I’m for a well-written “marriage amendment” that allows marriage as historically practiced – man & woman – to be protected, while at the same giving civil unions federal uniformity: that’s the bone I’ll throw to the progressives, to keep this from becoming civil insurrection, or worse: religious war. Gawd, that’s simply insane. We’re already involved in one religious war: do you want a second Civil War on this issue?)
Yes. I believe some of them do want that conflict. Humanism has to discredit Christianity. Has to. But then you probably know that its been their aim since 1933, when they published their first manifesto which so very boldly outlined their intent to subplant the moral code that has been the basis of western civilization with one of their own that is based on nothing but hubris, and whatever reason has dictated that “truth” is at that moment. Yes, there is a conflict that too many people either cannot yet see, or have chosen to ignore.
This is only one front in this offensive, one more way to subvert the intellectual and moral underpinnings of our law and government. This is a means to create conflicts with in the “dusty old document” itself. Add it to 100 years of usurpation of power through expansive legislation, and judicial activism, and now the ubiquitous move to “revise” the “dusty old document” that no one understands, and replace the republic with something “more democratic”, because that would be good n stuff, fer sher.
Will it stand? Probably. Will it create probems for federalism? Probably. Is this a feature of a plan, and not an abberation? Certainly.
Respectfully, DPU, this is just plainly lacking as argument. We’re already there. (Even discarding how well as a tactic that’s worked out in Roe v. Wade. Wait? I think not.)
What about the Catholic Charities example in Massachusetts?
What about the Canadian examples? “Me” as “an individual” (granted, north of the 48) – a pastor sermonizing in a church about the Book of Romans – has already been subject to criminal and civil penalties and admonishments.
…there are other examples too.
The core of this observation isn’t about when the left tries. This is the “try”.
I maintain that by making the crux of the core legal argument defining gays as a protected class the legal basis of using the fourteenth to force recognition of gay marriage (which, again, I say is a dodge), and because of deeply held doctrinal beliefs by religious communities that are already constititutionaly protected, that a constitutional crisis was – and is – inevitable.
This issue pits the 14th against the 1st. Surely you can see that.
…and events have already proved my point. (Not just those two examples cited: there are the European examples too: I’ve been following this, er, phenomenon, quite some time …it’s not confined to US national borders.)
It just seems so, so transparent an issue: I wouldn’t have expected a demurral as to this being “separate issues”. Or something to worry about “later on” afatg.
I’m worried now. I know a LOT of thoughtful Christians who are worried now. They see where this is going. We’ve lost too many battles, to watch constitutionally mandated religious protections continue to erode without worrying.
Is a pastor or priest going to continue to be able to perform religious marriages that are also legally recognized by the secular authorities …and refuse to perform “gay” marriages with the very real threat of jail or civil punishment facing him?
This isn’t a later thing. This is a now thing. Simply sayin’ it ain’t so don’t make it not so.
I don’t know why Catholic Charities keeps being brought up because it’s completely bogus. I’m adamantly opposed to such entaglements between Church and State regardless of the status of same-sex marriage. These “faith-based” arrangements violate the First Amendment IMO and have negative consequences for both. It is ridiculous for religious institutions to take public dollars and contract with the State yet then whine about having to comply with State restrictions for doing so. Well, duuuuh! What? Are you do blind that couldn’t see that coming? Um… if you don’t want to comply with these restrictions than don’t take the money or enter into a contract with the State, which you shouldn’t be doing in the first place anyways!
I maintain that by making the crux of the core legal argument defining gays as a protected class the legal basis of using the fourteenth to force recognition of gay marriage (which, again, I say is a dodge), and because of deeply held doctrinal beliefs by religious communities that are already constititutionaly protected, that a constitutional crisis was – and is – inevitable.
And the pieces are already in place.
With the creation of “hate crimes” wherein we make thoughts and beliefs criminal, and presume them based on the identity of victim, the ground work has already been laid. And the build up is already under way. Opposition to “gay marriage” is all too often breathlessly and angrily denounced as “homophobia” and “hate”. And more frequently, the rumblings that a religion that would dictate against this result is somehow unworthy of a place in our society because it “embraces hate”…at the same time when we cannot even profile obvious members of another religion who want to kill us and believe they are completely justified in killing homosexuals simply because they are homosexual. And now its trendy to denounce this hate. Empty-headed actors and actresses smile while denouncing this “hate” on talk shows and in interviews., for the applause for equally shallow audiences. Pundits and their guests congratulate themselves on their spirit of inclusion and tolerance as they vociferously denounce anyone who doesn’t support or advocate for gay marriage. And some denominations have already bowed to this pressure, compromising their basis to embrace the mirage of “tolerance” and “inclusion”…fulfilling one of the principal aims of the first Humanist Manifesto. The conflict of ideals is coming. Its only a matter of time.
Respectfully, DPU, this is just plainly lacking as argument. We’re already there. (Even discarding how well as a tactic that’s worked out in Roe v. Wade. Wait? I think not.)
The religious right leadership completely dropped the ball on Roe V. Wade, especially the Catholic Church, which should have been excommunicating politicos and other pro-choice people like it was……..fuck it, the Spanish Inquisition (honestly, I just wanted to say Spanish Inquisition so I could think of the Monty Python sketch), and Protestant Churches that are officially pro-life should have followed suit. Every fucking election season, a few bishops threaten to deny the Sacrament to pro-choice politicos, and every fucking year they cave or the priests ignore the bishop and the bishop doesn’t pimpslap a motherfucker as needed. But religious institutions have abdicated their role to the government for close to a century. I’ve washed my hands as far as churches go.
What about the Catholic Charities example in Massachusetts?
The Commies win sometimes, and that decision should have been fought against much more aggressively, but the church really doesn’t have the balls to put in the fight.
This issue pits the 14th against the 1st. Surely you can see that.
There’s some overlap, and it’ll be a shitstorm, but that’s why we’re better off with the state not being involved with marriage in the first place.
Canada isn’t America, it’s America’s Hat, and Europe sure as fuck ain’t America.
Is a pastor or priest going to continue to be able to perform religious marriages that are also legally recognized by the secular authorities …and refuse to perform “gay” marriages with the very real threat of jail or civil punishment facing him?
Every law passed for gay marriage in America thus far has a provision that states churches do not have to perform gay marriages. As for acknowledging the priest’s marriage, I’d rather have the state and church separate, the pastor can act as a substitute for the JotP, and some bureaucrat rubber stamps it and collects the $25-40 processing fee, or whatever the fuck it is.
As for worrying about religious persecution, why bother? The fact that we’re fucking bankrupt is going to catch up with us and destroy us looooooong before American Christians are openly and viciously persecuted. If they are it’ll be the invading Chinese that’ll be doing it most likely.
As for worrying about religious persecution, why bother? The fact that we’re fucking bankrupt is going to catch up with us and destroy us looooooong before American Christians are openly and viciously persecuted.
Well, I grant you that we aren’t at viciously, but openly has been going on for a while. For a catelog of examples, I recommend David Limbaugh’s Persecution.
How is this a First Amendment issue? I’m not a Law-Talkin’-Guy, but haven’t seen anything (so far) that says any of these laws state that churches opposed to gay marriage MUST perform the ceremonies if they don’t want to.
This is probably an inapt analogy, but I don’t think I could force a Synagogue to perform my Christian, Muslim, or Hindu wedding ceremony if they had any objections to the rites being performed therein.
Sean,
It isn’t always about what the churches are forced to do. Sometimes its about what their members are forced to do as well. Case in point?
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf
This!
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
???
You think that it is harmless that you should be forced to actively participate in something that you have religious objections to?
This is different from Michael Newdow’s kid sitting silently for a moment when a validictorian dares utter “God” or a have a moment of prayer. This is being made not only to participate, but to actively use your skills in an event that goes against your religious belief.
???
I think gay people should be allowed to suffer like the rest of us.
You know, the great thing about when gay marriage is finally legalized everywhere is that we can finally retire that joke.
(I’m sorry, Doc S. My horrible wife made me say that. If I didn’t, she threatened to bash my head in with a rolling pin.)
Sean.. There’s always a next step… Just wait. It won’t be long a law suit will appear charging a church of denying the rights of a christian gay wedding. Any bets on this? I’m willing to give it less than a year before we see it in the news… Any takers?
There are some great points being made on this thread. Thanks for the insight!
Excellent points by everyone.
My question is, now that gays are getting the right to marry, will they be able to live with the consequences of it?
I don’t meant such as the joke Dr. Spank wrote
. I am speaking of the fight they had to establish the right to have benefits such as insurance policies and medical and dental for their partners because they couldn’t marry. That will have to go away, because heterosexual partners who do not join in matrimony cannot partake of the benefits that homosexual partners could. My language is clumsy, I suppose. What I’m asking is, are they willing to give the perks up in exchange for being able to marry?
I’d say that they would be then faced with the same dilemma as heterosexual partners.
Couples living together do not automatically receive benefits for their significant others, unless they can prove a common-law marriage status, and their employer is willing to provide benefits for that status. That particular coverage would be removed, since they now have the option to enter into a legally binding commitment (i.e. marriage).
Although personally, I think that individuals should have the right to purchase coverage for who ever they please. That is another discussion for another day.
Yeah, I’m late to the party, but….
I have just one question – at what point are states required to handle divorces from marriages they don’t recognize?
A) I believe the government has NO role in marriage, period. Gay, straight, non-sexual, doesn’t matter. Marriage is a religious institution. Now, if the government wants a role in a civil union, fine. That’s not a problem. But I’d go further, if two little old ladies who are BFF’s and in no way gay want to have a civil union so they get visitation rights and whatnot, I don’t see a reason to stop them just because they don’t want to diddle each other.
B) That New Mexico case is very troubling. That’s the camel’s nose in the tent that will allow a same sex couple to sue the Catholic Church for discrimination based upon sexual preference when it refuses to marry them. Their only hope is that the court finds that the RCC is a private accommodation, and not a public one. But that’s a scant hope by the standard given. Yes, currently written laws exempt them. That can (and probably will) change.
C) I personally don’t care if homosexuals are able to get married in New York. I don’t live there, I’m not gay, and I’m already married (well… the Catholic Church doesn’t think so, but I left them years ago… I even married a non-Catholic divorcee). So end of what I give a damn about. I don’t want anyone to be forced to violate their religious beliefs under penalty of law, but we’ll need to burn that bridge when we get to it.
D) I think (personal, non-scientific opinion) that homosexuality is normally a genetic trait, and probably one that is meant to prevent overpopulation. Homosexuality in non-human animals is not infrequent, so I see no reason to believe it is strictly a choice. Plus, I cannot tell you when I ever made the decision that I would only find women hot. Because I don’t think I ever made that choice. You’re free to think I’m full of shit. Do so if you like.
E) Does ANYONE here not find lesbians hot? I mean really? I’ll admit, I’m not turned on by dudes kissing, but I’m pretty damned sure most hetero guys still get a little wood from hot lesbians. Gay dudes are cool with me, cause that means less competition (and they have bought me drinks before), but lesbians are a national treasure.