Alabama’s first openly gay state legislator, State Rep. Patricia Todd has created a stir this week by declaring that she intends to publicly reveal the adulterous affairs of colleagues who oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of family values. The threat raises the prospect of potential tort liability and some interesting questions of privilege.
The confrontation occurred after a court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage last Friday. Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard and Attorney General Luther Strange reacted by denouncing the decisions and calling for a stay of the judge’s order. Hubbard called the ruling “outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians” and pledged to “continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live.” Strange filed a motion over the weekend seeking a stay of the judge’s ruling.
Todd, D-Birmingham, shot back on Facebook that she was preparing to out adulterous colleagues who argue against the lifting of the ban:
“This (is) a time where you find out who are accepting, loving people. To say I am disappointed in Speaker Hubbard comment’s and Attorney General Strange choice to appeal the decision is an understatement. I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about ‘family values’ when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have. I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet OUT.”
Todd told the media that her threat is real: “Don’t start throwing bricks at my window when yours is already cracked as well.” I am not sure of what the line will be for Todd in releasing information. It is not clear whether just defending the ban is enough or mentioning family values would be the trigger for an outing.
For his part, Hubbard was conciliatory in response and said “I consider Rep. Todd a friend, and we have always enjoyed a good and cordial relationship, so I am sorry that she is upset about my remarks. We do have a fundamental disagreement on allowing same sex marriages in Alabama, and I will continue to voice my opinion on this important social issue, just as I expect she will continue to voice hers, but we can disagree without being disagreeable.”
If Todd is serious, she had better to take care where she carried through on this threat. There is an absolute legislative privilege afforded to federal and state legislative officials in making defamatory statements while on the floor of the legislatures or in committee sessions. See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951). However, outside of that protected forum, including repeating such statements in the media, can be actionable. In those forums, she had better be right. Adultery has been traditionally treated as a per se category of defamation (with some things as imputing a “loathsome” disease). As such, the plaintiffs generally does not have to prove special damages and the statement is viewed as per se damaging. Of course, truth remains the primary defense to defamation.
A civil union is defined as the legal status which provides legal protection for couples, at only the state level. It does not provide for other federal protections, elevated ranks, power and security, like the case of marriage. So yes the fight for lgbt equality is valid, because civil unions are only at the state level, but not federal level as well
Dan Eric, if your concern is about the federal government, then lobby the federal government then to get their laws up to date for civil unions and domestic partnerships. It would not be that hard to define such same sex unions as afforded whatever specific privileges and benefits that you want. Presenting an argument why those benefits are beneficial to society in the same way that opposite sex unions are might be more difficult, but if you have an equality argument that works, then go for it.
avidm2575: “Nobody has argued …”
* “Natural law” isn’t a valid argument because marriage is only done by humans. And not all human cultures have marriage and, likely, haven’t always had it either.
* “Procreation/coitus” (or the possibility of such) isn’t a valid argument because a large number of people would not find it reasonable to deny marriage heterosexuals who were unable do to either.
* “Childrearing competency” isn’t a valid argument because being married doesn’t have any bearing on people being competent childrearers. And very few people would require married people to have children.
* “Traditional marriage” isn’t a valid argument because many people would find whatever “traditional marriage” is (even if people could agree to what it is), unacceptable.
* “You can’t change the definition of marriage” isn’t a valid argument because the definition of marriage *has* changed over time.
You are basically just defining marriage as some sort of union between individuals of opposite sex. While you are free to do that, you havent’ managed to come up with valid reasons/justitications (all of your arguments/justifications fail on a basic logical level).
davep wrote: “* “Natural law” isn’t a valid argument because marriage is only done by humans.”
That is not exactly true. Nevertheless, the natural law argument has nothing to do with examining what other organisms do in regards to pair bonding. It is simply taking the approach that marriage is a societal relationship that exists even in the absence of law. The law simply articulates the relationship in a way that it can address issues of injustice. For example, if a young man marries a woman, has several children, and then leaves the woman and children, then the law addresses the responsibilities and duties of the man in regards to the relationship that he had formed. In more recent times, the law, recognizing the great value of a strong family unit to the economy and prosperity of society as a whole, offered tax incentives to encourage marriage as opposed to young people having children out of wedlock.
The natural law argument can be distilled into the following simple point: If humans were not born as male or female, then we would never have had any kind of societal relationship known as marriage.
Once a person comes to this understanding, then it becomes clear that removing the male and female aspect of marriage destroys the entire concept. It makes marriage entirely meaningless and assigns it to the dustbin of history.
To paraphrase homosexual activist Masha Gessen, it is time for homosexuals to stop lying and be honest about what they are doing to the institution of marriage.
davidm2575: “While the primacy of opposite gender unity might mitigate the usual goal of procreation in marriage,”
Assuming that procreation is the “usual goal”, other goals in marriage are not disallowed and procreation is not required.
People are already quite allowed to marry without intending to procreate. For you to be anything like consistent, you’d have to want to make those marriages illegal!
Your argument is nothing more than requiring society at large to use your own private meaning for marriage!
davep wrote: “People are already quite allowed to marry without intending to procreate. For you to be anything like consistent, you’d have to want to make those marriages illegal!”
No. This would only be true if my argument was that procreation alone is the only reason for marriage. That has never been my argument.
Also, it seems to me that you perceive marriage to be a human relation created by law. It is not. Marriage is not a creation of law. Marriage existed before law. Law simply attempts to define aspects of the marital institution to address matters of justice that pertain to marriage, and especially, matters of injustice related to failed marriages.
davidm2575: “Nobody has argued that one is necessary for the other. I have simply pointed out that procreation, coupled with the creation of a family and raising ones children into adulthood, along with a synergistic and complementary union between two people of the opposite gender, are primary goals in the institution of marriage.”
*YOU* were making that argument with the “natural law” and “fundemental” nonsense! Again, you are moving the goal posts by now saying it is a “primary goal”, which, by the way, is saying there are OTHER goals!
davidm2575: “Now if you want to change marriage to be simply a domestic partnership, then all you have done is destroyed a meaningful definition of marriage.”
The definition of marriage hasn’t been constant at all. As in the “Loving” case you mentioned, marriage used to mean within the same race. It’s “traditional” sense included marriage within one’s own race too! It’s “traditional” sense also included the wife giving up ownership of property to her husband. Unless you want these things too, you are completely fine with changing the definition of marriage.
davidm2575: “You will cause people to have to reinvent terms or simply to continue to deny your arrogance in hijacking the word marriage. Maybe it will be similar to how the word gay cannot be used anymore in its traditional sense anymore because the homosexuals hijacked that word.”
It’s you who are being arrogant. You are decreeing that other people must use the definitions of words you approve of. Language, of course, doesn’t work that way.
Anyway, I’m haven’t personally suggested that the definition should be changed. All that I have done is point out why your arguments are logically flawed. That is, the issue is that what you are saying doesn’t make any sense.
davidm2575: “While the primacy of opposite gender unity might mitigate the usual goal of procreation in marriage,”
????
davidm2575: “it does not make that purpose of marriage of no effect.”
You haven’t shown how allowing homosexuals marry cause that “makes that ONE purpose of no effect”. Obviouslly, there is no logical reason that it would.
davidm2575: “For young people in particular, understanding marriage as an institution facilitating the creation of a stable natural family will be more beneficial to society than the homosexual vision of making marriage about two people committed to each other for purely romantic reasons.”
The definition of marriage AS IT IS USED IN THE REAL WORLD (that is, outside of your head) is not limited to the meaning you fantasize it having! It’t not even clear that it ever had that limited meaning.
You keep arguing that one can’t change the definition of marriage but that’s really what you are arguing should be done.
Bizarre.
davep wrote: “*YOU* were making that argument with the “natural law” and “fundemental” [sic] nonsense! Again, you are moving the goal posts by now saying it is a “primary goal”, which, by the way, is saying there are OTHER goals!”
I have maintained consistency in everything I have said. You are just a sloppy reader. Go back up thread and you will see that I said, “There are two primary reasons for marriage.” I did not say “two requirements,” and yes, I did use the word “primary” from the start, which indeed does imply there are other secondary reasons. I have not moved any goal posts. You just haven’t comprehended the argument.
davep wrote: “The definition of marriage hasn’t been constant at all. As in the “Loving” case you mentioned, marriage used to mean within the same race. It’s “traditional” sense included marriage within one’s own race too!”
No it did not. Traditional marriage has for the most part allowed interracial marriage, but there have always been some to object to it. In the U.S., the first such laws were actually based not on race but on slavery, focused upon not allowing people to marry slaves. Eventually this morphed into whites not marrying blacks, but it was not uniform. Some States began repealing such laws as far back as 1780. Although the Supreme Court upheld States banning interracial marriage as not being in violation of the 14th Amendment, still the States did not uniformly adopt such laws. The Loving decision which rescinded the court’s previous decision has been uniformly accepted by virtually all advocates of traditional marriage.
davep wrote: “You are decreeing that other people must use the definitions of words you approve of. Language, of course, doesn’t work that way.”
No, I am saying it is inappropriate to hijack hundreds of years of jurisprudence by expanding the definition of a word like marriage. For hundreds of years, marriage was understood in a particular context that involved male and female, procreation, creating a family, etc. To then throw into the mix a completely different type of union, same sex unions, and make all the jurisprudence apply to this new type of union which was previously unheard of, is unjust. If the law is to provide any kind of justice for same sex unions, it should do so independently from hijacking language.
davep wrote: “It’s “traditional” sense also included the wife giving up ownership of property to her husband. Unless you want these things too, you are completely fine with changing the definition of marriage.”
I am perfectly fine with these things. The wife giving up ownership of property to her husband, as well as the husband giving up ownership of property to his wife, is part of marriage.
davep wrote: “You are decreeing that other people must use the definitions of words you approve of.”
No, I am saying that the law should not ignore hundreds and even thousands of years of jurisprudence and tradition and with the stroke of a pen radically change what has been the understanding of marriage. This is the very basis of precedence and common law, to follow what has gone on before.
davep wrote: “Anyway, I’m haven’t personally suggested that the definition should be changed.”
If you personally support the concept of gay marriage, then you personally support changing the definition of marriage. The legal definition of marriage must be changed in order to allow for gay marriage. That’s what all these court battles have been about.
davep wrote: “All that I have done is point out why your arguments are logically flawed. That is, the issue is that what you are saying doesn’t make any sense.”
My arguments might not make sense to you, but it is not because they are logically flawed. It is because you don’t accept certain premises (such as natural law and the historical understanding of marriage), and therefore you do not understand the argument. You also tend to be too simple in your analysis and cannot grasp the idea of several variants being involved at once. It is as if I was trying to explain the law of gravity and then you tell me that I am crazy and illogical because you have observed birds and insects flying around all the time doing the opposite of what the law of gravity claims. All of my arguments have been perfectly logical.
davep wrote: “You haven’t shown how allowing homosexuals marry cause that “makes that ONE purpose of no effect”. Obviouslly, there is no logical reason that it would.”
I was trying to explain the two primary goals of marriage working at the same time. 1) the idea that the male and female is incomplete without the other, and that marriage is that union that completes them into a single whole, and 2) the reproduction of offspring in a civilized society takes a lot of time and energy; therefore, a union between the male and female to create new life works better than the male simply spreading his seed around and leaving women to raise the children on her own. Purpose number 1 is so important that even if number 2 were not in play, it does not rise to the level of making marriage illegal for non-reproducing couples. Therefore, we might say that number 1 function of marriage mitigates function number 2, but does not remove it as a reason for marriage for a large number of young fertile couples.
Now you bring up a different concept. How does allowing homosexuals to marry make the reproductive reason of no effect? First of all, homosexuals have always been allowed to marry, so we need to reword this question to deal with homosexuals marrying another of the same sex. The real question is, how does allowing same sex couples to marry make the reproductive reason of no effect? The answer is obvious. Same sex couples cannot reproduce. Furthermore, they do not fulfill the foremost reason for marriage, which is the coming together of male and female, gender diverse individuals, in complementary unity. Allowing same sex couples under this banner of marriage completely changes the societal understanding of marriage. It deforms it, warps it, makes marriage meaningless in regards to these very important traditional reasons for marriage. It brings our laws back to the stone age, back to the drawing board so to speak, in regards to marriage. It is as if the law never attempted to address the societal concept of marriage to begin with. Marriage becomes just two romantics committing to each other and not much more.
davep wrote: “You keep arguing that one can’t change the definition of marriage but that’s really what you are arguing should be done. Bizarre.”
You asked for legal reference for the meaning of marriage, and when I provide that, you discard it claiming that references could be found supporting slavery or anything else that is objectionable. I can’t do your homework for you. As far as I can tell, you are just throwing up a smoke screen to obfuscate the truth. Either that, or you just take what you see today with no regard for legal tradition and a historical understanding. It is not that hard to agree that there is a change going on during the last decade over what marriage is and what kinds of human relations marriage ought to include. Now you have turned this on its head, upside down, and argue that I am the one who wants to change the legal definition of marriage. That is truly bizarre.
Bailers – true. People keep focusing on the justification, and ignoring the means. But they would not enjoy it if they were on the other end.