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
@Gyges And I was giving you my analysis of why the community’s opinion isn’t worthy of such deference.
1. The state interest is “to protect the morals of their communities” The rational basis is “declining to endorse or provide encouragement to forms of behavior—in this case homosexual intimacy—which the community considers immoral.” I thought being able to parse that out was clear.
And the test is legitimate government interest not actual government interest. So “truth” doesn’t seem to factor into it. If the Court can hypothesize it, it will withstand review. In this case, the hypothesis comes from a lesson plan. What’s the problem with that?
2. That’s not proof. That’s a second anecdote. The plural of anesdote is not data. Without some data there is no proof. See above as to the distinction between a “legitimate state interest” and an ‘actual government interest.”
3. Asuming that this is the only remaining justification, then, sure make them offer civil unions. As for the separate but equal claim, has that been adjudicated outside the racial strict scutiny area?
Jimmy Kimmel presents Michele Bachmann’s Story of America:
“And now those who have been engaging in these techniques feel much frustration.”
Frustration? Try amazement, amusement and outright fun. What a laugh to watch such as you give yourself undeserved credit.
“So stop all of your games and start having a rational, reasoned discussion.”
Now this is perhaps the funniest thing you’ve said to date.
You are again projecting your own failings onto us. One can look back through thread after thread and see that all reasonable viewpoints, held by reasonable, honest people are discussed without rancor. You, however, are a dishonest poster and therefore fair game for ridicule. You’re so quick to play the deaf liberals card about those commenting here and you quote FFLEO. FFLEO is probably the most esteemed person commenting here and his conservative credentials are impeccable. Why is that if we are so intolerant of other’s viewpoint. I your case you are but a disingenuous phony, while he is a person of reason and integrity.
MIke A:
“Well, I don’t like biblical fundamentalism, but I can’t think of a “rational basis” argument that would support permitting me to vote on whether a fundamentalist church can be built in my community, or a mosque, or a temple or a reading room.”
***************************
How about the state’s interest in promoting education and rational thought over superstition and fantasy, or denying bigots the opportunity to harass their perceived opponents like our friends at Westboro Baptist do on a regular basis. It’s the right of the individual to religion, not the religion’s right to the individual. I see no reason to deny rights to the religious if they acknowledge that training a generation of zombies who detest every civil responsibility from paying taxes to respecting the rights of other citizens to live their lives as they see fit, or who pledge allegiance to a divinely ordained totalitarian hierarchy are directly at odds with the ideals of our democracy. It’s the hypocrisy and holier-than-thou-ness, I detest.
As usual, Jefferson said it best, “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
Amen, Brother Jefferson. Amen.
Mike Appleton,
To quote Homer Simpson…
“Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”
Excellent posts.
Although I’ve never come across that tenth amendment twist you mentioned. If anything the state government represents the actual primary social contract.
kderosa: “I win! I win! And I ‘ll be here everyday.”
********************
You didn’t and you won’t. I find that mercenaries do neither.
kdrosa:
Here is “ad hominem” post I entered on June 8, 2011 at 6:26 p.m.
“I believe you miss the point. An entire book could be written (and someone is undoubtedly writing one) on Palinisms. A literate, coherent person does not require legions of fans to translate his or her words and most persons would be unlikely to describe a casual inquiry as a ‘gotcha’ question.”
One of the most embarrassing incidents in my life occurred a month into my freshman year in college. My parents and siblings came to visit me on the campus. When I began to introduce my four roommates to my family, my mind went blank and I literally could not recall any of their names. So they all introduced themselves and I was subjected to a lot of ribbing for several days, all of it well deserved. It never occurred to me that the identity of my roommates could be explained as a “gotcha” question.
When then Gov. Palin had her famous interview with Katie Couric, she was asked what she regularly read. We are all familiar with the response. Instead of explaining that she had encountered a momentary brain freeze, she insisted that she had been thrown a “gotcha” question, suggesting that she was somehow being set up to be humiliated.
The Paul Revere comments were in response to an innocuous question about Ms. Palin’s impressions from the tour she had taken. On Fox News the very next day she stated that she had been the subject of a “gotcha” question. The point of my comment was that Ms. Palin prefers the “gotcha” excuse to acknowledging that she is a human being like everyone else and capable of simply messing up like everyone else. It was not an “ad hominem” statement.
But I am not returning to that thread under any circumstances. The topic was beaten to death.
Shoot, I hit paste twice and went over the 2 link limit. Repost:
KDE,
I was just giving you my opinion on the matter. Which seems to be in line with everyone else’s. When an entire community thinks you’re being a troll, it might be time to reassess your behavior.
Anyway. Back to business
First, I said “state interest,” not “rational basis.” Laws have to pass the test that they have to be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. You have to prove the legitimate state interest before you prove the law is rationally related to it. When we’re nesting “if\thens” it’s important to put them in the right order.
So, about your quote. It comes from a lesson plan listing the arguments for and against, without actually assessing them one way or the other. You’ll forgive me if I don’t consider that any sort of justification. Once again, you’re arguing “well people believe this” and not “well this is right.” I don’t care what people believe, I care what’s actually true.
So, my premise is that people who can’t and won’t have kids get married. You want proof? O.k. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400986.html
There you go. two examples of people not having kids and being married. If I didn’t buy your argument the first time, I don’t think I’m going to buy it when you tell me to read it again. You still have to show that a encouraging procreation is a state interest.
So Civil Unions address Federal policies? Huh, who knew. Also, if we accept that Civil Unions offer the same protection as Marriages (which I don’t, separate but equal hardly ever is), then that just means that states that don’t offer civil unions are required to offer gay marriages. Also, here you go: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
Bad link. Hopefully, it will work this time.
Here’s the link again.
@Buddha – Really? Exactly who threatened you with violence and when, Koch sucker? Point to somebody threatening to kick your ass. You can’t. But it will sure be funny to watch you try.
Sure I can.
@Buddha, I think FFLEO wants to have a word with you and your lack of civility.
Let it not be said that I didn’t make an attempt at being civil. And that civility has not be reciprocated.
You really can’t stop, can you?
@ Mike Appleton
Actually, Mike A., you were the first one to use an ad hominem (6/8, @ 6:26 pm) in the Paul Revere thread after my first post. Then Buddha, Elaine, and Mespo started in with the name calling. My earliest response to the ad hominems and name calling didn’t occur until 11:45 pm. the record is pretty clear as to where the lack of discoures began. but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Now with erspect to your substantive argument, it boils down to this “Virtually every opinion I have encountered opposing gay marriage can be reduced to a theological argument once the trappings of “reason” have been pushed aside.”
which confuses morals (which are properly regulated as part of a state’s police powers) with religion (which isn’t, at least not anymore).
Great job Mike A! Hurry back Buddha!
Excellent comment Mike A.
Ya’ll carry on in my absence. I’ll be back in a day or two.
That was really me by the way posting as a fan of myself (guilty as charged). I adopted the nom de internet to post an update to another thread late last night and avoid the trolls and then forgot to change it back. Mea culpa.
Even when I hide my identity, I don’t hide my identity.
And well said, Mike A.
“The bullying hasn’t turned out like you expected.”
No, your bullying hasn’t turned out like you expected. Nor has your bullshit, historical revisionism and outright lies.
“Nor has the petty triumphalism and other herd mentality techniques.”
That’s right. Your appeals to the mob mentality haven’t worked around here because this is a blog filled with critical independent thinkers. We may reach similar or the same conclusions from time to time, we do differ as well. Mob? We are the anti-mob mentality. That’s one of the reasons for your abject failures here, sport.
“Name calling hasn’t worked out so well either.”
Depends on your version of “worked out”, douche bag. Some of us call you names simply because it amuses us to mock those who sell their free speech to divisive and destructive political causes. Nobody respects a whore for money. Why? Because they have no values except those which they are paid to have.
“Not even threats of violence.”
Really? Exactly who threatened you with violence and when, Koch sucker? Point to somebody threatening to kick your ass. You can’t. But it will sure be funny to watch you try.
“In short, all the typical
leftyrighty-commenter tricks used to deflect arguing on the merits have failed to work.”Yep. Your deflections and failure to offer substantive arguments on the merits has failed you. What makes an argument irrational and unreasonable is an argument being irrational and unreasonable. Like the irrational argument that gay marriage has any impact on anyone other than homosexuals who want the same rights in regards to their partners as heterosexuals get and the discrimination against homosexuals in this way is anything other than religious based (and ergo prime facie irrational) discrimination that is contrary to both the 1st and 14th Amendments. And before you say “But Obama said he’d leave it up to the States!”, let me head you off at the pass with the Full Faith and Credit Clause found in Art. IV. Sec. I of the Constitution which states “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof” and is further supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1738 which states in full “The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.”
Given that the Constitution is paramount and the Supremacy Clause applies this means that ALL states will have to recognize gay marriage now the other states recognize gay marriage. The individual states may not have to conduct the ceremonies but they will be required to recognize unions created in other states as valid and treat them as such as a matter of law.
This is a free speech zone. Your view will be challenged and the more irrational and unreasonable they are, the more they will be challenged, Mr. Palin Was Right. If you have a problem with that? That would be your problem. If you don’t like being ridiculed? Stop being ridiculous or suck it up, buttercup.
“As Otteray Scribe has just stated “I much prefer a rational, reasoned discussion.”
So do I.”
Really. I don’t think rational and reasoned mean that you get to make shit up and have it accepted has fact. Your arguments get repeatedly attacked because they are 1) factually deficient, 2) logically deficient and 3) legally deficient.
Stop playing “our games”? Well, considering you’re that paid troll here, that just earns you a hearty laugh in your face. That Rovian “smear your opponent with your own sins” tactic doesn’t work around here any better than your attempts to utilize the Big Lie worked – which is to say, not at all.
Now, that being said, I’m busy for the next couple of days with family business that requires my attention in meatspace so my cyberspace activities will be somewhat limited. This is of no concern, however, as the other regulars have been doing a fine job defusing your propaganda and otherwise general nonsense in my absence.
Have a nice day, Lil’ Propagandist.
kderosa:
I limit my arguments to the merits of any position and have attempted to do so throughout the period of time I have been posting on this site. However, I do resent lecturing and condescension, and on the rare occasions my responses have been personal, it is usually attributable to my perception that a participant is more interested in trashing someone than in the substance of the discussion.
It is also my rule that when I am confronted with what are purely personal attacks, I decline to participate further. While that may be regarded as some sort of acquiescence by some posters, my reasoning is simple. If an individual is unwilling to attack me using his or her actual identity, I view that as an act of cowardice unworthy of acknowledgment.
I express my opinions under my proper name because I have been doing so my entire life and see no reason to change merely because the conversation is electronic. In addition, since my opinions are directly linked to me, it serves as a partial restraint against lapsing into intemperance in the heat of the moment. I hasten to add that I do not object to the fact that most persons do not wish to be identified; each person has his or her own reason to prefer anonymity, and it is not my place to question that. But personal attacks under a cloak of anonymity are a different matter entirely.
Now, with regard to the issue of gay marriage, my view of the primacy of privacy as a right protected by the Constitution is explained in my comment to Bob, Esq. above. But too many people believe that the freedom I have not surrendered to the federal government I have surrendered to the state government by virtue of the Tenth Amendment. I reject that view.
Most violations of personal freedom occur at the level of local and state government. The “rational basis” test does not factor in to legislative decision-making below the federal level in my experience. And my experience is almost exclusively limited to dealing with state and local laws. What is most to be feared is the tyranny of local politicians whose decisions are too frequently driven by the emotions of their local constituents. And I believe that what we have been witnessing in the various state legislatures this year bears that out.
Virtually every opinion I have encountered opposing gay marriage can be reduced to a theological argument once the trappings of “reason” have been pushed aside. It is argued that permitting gay marriage will “threaten” the traditional notion of marriage. How so? Or gay marriage will lead to demands to recognize relationships based upon pedophilism or bestiality. Really? Marriage is a contract and governed by the law of contracts. Or it is said that gay marriage will create legal conundrums for religious opponents. What if a gay couple wishes to rent the Knights of Columbus hall for their reception? Please. Since when have we had a public policy that equates a commercial lease with endorsement of a tenant’s lifestyle?
The role of the state and the role of religion on the issue of marriage are not identical. From the government’s standpoint, marriage is a legal relationship, not a sacrament. Its commencement and its dissolution are regulated. The law makes no distinction between male and female in the treatment of custody, support and division of property. The only real objection to homosexual marriage is that a lot of people don’t like the idea. Well, I don’t like biblical fundamentalism, but I can’t think of a “rational basis” argument that would support permitting me to vote on whether a fundamentalist church can be built in my community, or a mosque, or a temple or a reading room.
The bullying hasn’t turned out like you expected.
Nor has the petty triumphalism and other herd mentality techniques.
Name calling hasn’t worked out so well either.
Not even threats of violence.
In short, all the typical lefty-commenter tricks used to deflect arguing on the merits have failed to work.
And now those who have been engaging in these techniques feel much frustration.
I really do feel all of your pain, as a wide former President once said.
As Otteray Scribe has just stated “I much prefer a rational, reasoned discussion.”
So do I.
So stop all of your games and start having a rational, reasoned discussion. Bearing in mind that just becasue someone disagrees with your views doesn’t make their argument irrational and unreasonable.
FFLEO said pretty much the same thing last night. And yet so far today, no one, but me, has taken him up on it.
This is a free speech zone, your views will be challenged. Get used to it.