It appears that same-sex marriage is being groomed for a major issue in this election. With Jay Carney insisting that President Obama remains clear that his views are unclear, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann stepped forward this weekend to put the issue front and center in their campaigns. Gingrich this weekend announced that he will lead the fight against same-sex marriage to stop the nation from “drifting toward a terrible muddle.” He said that he would be looking for ways to “defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible.”
Critics are likely to charge that Gingrich certainly has more experience in the area with three prior marriages — making the campaign sound more like a pitch that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
The decision of New York to become the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage guarantees that it will be a hot issue in the campaign. Bachmann is calling for a constitutional amendment.
For the purposes of full disclosure, I have long argued that the states should uniformly adopt a civil union standard and leave “marriages
Source: Reuters
OS,
One thing for certain…the more than the trolls play here the better internet exposure that the cause has….Buddha, will not let and incorrect lie, lie….so if someone googles the name, topic or something that is on here…it boils down to the most recent comments..being relevant for search engine related searches…. so, even though they are annoying…they do serve a purpose in getting the message out….
I have been reading without commenting. If you look at the comment list, the trolls, one especially, dominate the list. Nothing substantial, mostly insults or fluff. Absolutely no attempt at thoughtful commentary or dialogue. The motive has become apparent to me over the past several days. The goal seems to be to make Professor Turley’s blog unreadable. This is the blog equivalent of turning over tombstones in the cemetery or burning tires in the street. Every substantial conversation quickly devolves into a back and forth of insult, ad hominem attack and bizarre statements copied and pasted from racial right-wing web sites.
Disruption, pure and simple. The trolls lack substance, presenting the intellectual equivalent of a high school sophomore trying to pass off material copied from Wikipedia as original research.
I am more convinced than ever they are probably on the payroll of one of the right wing groups, most likely the Koch crime family. They are especially active in any discussion of tea bagger candidates or issues. I am all for free speech, but I am opposed to speech that is intended to deliberately drown out all other speech and speakers. I hope that Professor Turley steps in and moderates the discussion soon, otherwise this blog will become only an echo chamber for the extreme right wing. The old adage about bad money driving out good comes to mind.
@mmespo727272
That was profound. You must be proud.
@Elaine, if there really were a lack of expertise as opposed to a lack of credentials, the lack of expertise would be readily apparent.
@ Mike A
I don’t see a right to privacy in the constitution. Admittedly, I didn’t look under any penumbras or emanations of penumbras.
Not extending the right to marry to barren couples doesn’t impinge on their freedom of association. They are still free to associate all they want.
kderosa,
How do you judge an article on “its own merits” if the author of the article has no real expertise in the subject matter?
Instead of responding to every insipid comment from kderosa, i like to point out his glaring errors of history, political theory, and logic and just let the reader decide. This paid horsefly has generated way too much buzz in my view and for all his stock answers, talking points, and outright lies adds nothing to the debate except to congratulate himself incessantly as he deposits his intellectual dishonesty. He has the right to bray and I have the right to shut the barn door.
Personally I prefer to step around the sewer but I do admire those who elect to clean it out.
@Elaine,
Fortunately, all the other sources are in accord. Google around.
That is exactly what I am saying. The article stands on its own merits.
I am interested in who wrote the article so that I can account for the author’s potential biases.
That’s called confirmation bias. I am aware of my biases and I try to avoid prejudging based on them.
kderosa,
“@Elaine M — looks like you and George got your colonial history wrong again. Too funny.”
Regarding the colonial history that I got wrong: I assume you’ve found proof that John Quincy Adams was one of our country’s Founding Fathers.
kderosa:
I cannot imagine any court upholding a legislative ban on marriage by barren couples. The rational basis test will not support the creation of classifications based upon statements of policy which substantially conflict with other constitutionally protected interests, such as privacy and freedom of association. I believe you have a rather expansive view of what constitutes a rational classification.
kderosa,
BTW, I don’t consider Wikipedia as a definitive source on a subject.
So, you’d give the same weight to a scientific article written by anybody anywhere with no educational training/background in the subject matter of the article as you would to an article written by a scientist who is an expert on the subject matter of the article? Is that what you’re saying?
What do you appeal to? Anyone who voices your opinion on a subject?
the one you gave. Wickipedia goes so far to call it a common misunderstanding. You might want to take a look.
No, I generally only care about the arguments presented. Experts do tend to make better arguments than laymen in the fields they are experts in, but not always.
The same way you evaluate an argument made by an expert — by reading it.
The biggie is appeal to authority.
kderosa,
Informal usage of “ad hominem.” Ah, I see. And what, pray tell, is the informal definition of “ad hominem?”
So…in your world–it doesn’t matter if someone is a trained scientist/an expert in the field when he/she expounds on a scientific subject. Can you explain how one should evaluate the merits of a scientifc argument put forth by someone who has no backgrround/training in a subject he/she expounds upon?
What are the “logical fallacies” that I’ve rested my comments on?
So sorry that I’ve shocked you. I’m glad, however, that you now have an understanding of my “posting behavior.”
“may not a state lawfully prohibit marriage for persons who are unable to have children”
I’m sure a state could concoct a rational basis for doing that if it wanted to.
And, if the people didn’t like that policy, they could elect new representatives and change the policy.
That’s what NY just did vis a vis homosexual marriage.
@Elaine, that wasn’t the ad hominem I was referring to. That’s informal usage. I was referring to the logical fallacy — argumentum ad hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.
So, I don’t choose to believe things based on who the person is or that person’s credentials, rather I evaluate the merits of the various arguments set forth. That is what’s known as appealing to logic and reason.
What you choose to do, in contrast, is more akin to having a religious belief and rests on a host of logical fallacies. I’m actually shocked that you admitted to it in public. But it does explain quite a bit of your posting behavior.
@Gyges
Here are a few reasons that might form the rational basis needed to pass Constitutional scrutiny.
1. “States are traditionally understood to have the authority to make laws to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their communities. This means that states can justify their actions by stating that they decline to endorse or provide encouragement to forms of behavior—in this case homosexual intimacy—which the community considers immoral. As long as rational basis scrutiny is being applied, states can justify their actions perfectly well by stating that they decline to endorse and provide encouragement to forms of behavior—in this case, homosexual intimacy—which the community considers immoral.” Moreover, just becasue the state doesn’t which to pry into the marital bedroom to determine whether there is sexual activity going on, doesn’t mean that marriage isn’t fundamentally about sex.
2. To encourage the indispensable act of procreation as a couple to occur within a lasting union. It is the unique procreative capacity of male-female couples that justifies the unique status of marriage itself. It is the one essential attribute of marriage, supplying its historic male-female definition. And while it is true that no couple has ever been required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to marry, it is not in the state’s interest to intrude into the marital bedroom to the extent needed to police this exception.
3. Even if I concede all the equal protection-related points made by you, those arguments do not actually imply a constitutional requirement to allow same-sex couples to marry; they only imply a constitutional requirement that same-sex couples and their children receive the same legal prerogatives and benefits as opposite-sex couples. That is, if the children of same-sex couples have the benefits of stability and support that result from their parents having certain legal prerogatives, then by all means let’s give those parents those prerogatives, but nothing in the Constitution requires that we call it “marriage.”
Gyges, KDE, Sex v gender. Sex is the equipment you have, gender is the role in culture/society you assume. Sex is a protected class under Title VII and non-discrimination based thereon is also covered by the 14th Amendment. Gender roles are covered more purely under the 14th Amendment but can also encumpass Title VII. That was my training.
The instant issue is a conflict based on sex.
kderosa,
“You shouldn’t trust research associated with bad men.
Lord Monckton is a bad man.
Therefore, you shouldn’t trust this research associated with Lord Monckton.
As I said, classic ad hominem stuff.”
**********
Definition of “ad hominem” taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.
I made no “ad hominem” attack. I was appealing to your logic and reason. Can you provide evidence that Monckton is an expert in the field of climate change?
**********
“I see seven separate articles. Only one authored by Monckton.”
You see seven different articles–only one authored by Monckton. So? You prefer to believe articles posted by a right-wing think tank. I prefer to believe articles written by scientists who work for NASA and NOAA.
If the regulation of marriage is merely a matter of public policy preferences, and if there is a strong policy in favor of promoting procreation, may not a state lawfully prohibit marriage for persons who are unable to have children?
“Er, no, Mike. What society would like to do is to make heterosexual men to behave themselves and settle down with a heterosexual woman and have lots of kids.”
I’m sorry I hit too close to home guessing at your sexual dysfunction and getting it right. I keep forgetting that despite the fact that you’re a troll, you are a human being, albeit in deep distress and suffering for the lack of viable companionship. Your putative smugness is affected to hide the raging insecurity that paralyses you in human relationships of value, leaving your few companions to those who are themselves stricken in a similar fashion. You little realize the kindness provided you by Prof. Turley’s
blog that allows you to dribble your nonsense and for a short time let’s you feel like you really do have value. I suppose all human life is valuable, but you certainly stretch the limits.