I’m sure Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife know Bay Buchanan, Gary Bauer, and the other conservative voices who “encouraged” President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment chiseling discrimination into our nation’s most important document. My guess is they’re not as fond of the Cheneys as they are of Bush (the Cheneys doesn’t wear their relationship with God on their sleeves the way some like their political families to), but they know them, I’m sure.
The break Cheney made from the President and GOP platform on the FMA issue yesterday is being denounced by some as a last minute effort to straddle the fence and appeal to moderates who don’t agree the FMA is necessary, but looking at Cheney’s position on this since 2000 (when he said “freedom means freedom for everybody”), I’m willing to give him the benefit of doubt. It looks to me as if his position stems more from the fact that he also knows what this amendment would mean to his daughter:
In unusually personal remarks on the issue, delivered at a campaign forum in Davenport, Iowa, the vice president referred to his daughter, Mary, who is a lesbian, saying that he and his wife “have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with.” He added, according to a transcript of his remarks, provided by the White House, “We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them.”
This will be an interesting issue during the RNC:
A leading group of social conservatives, the Family Research Council, indicated it was disappointed at the “mixed messages” from the administgation.
Politically, Cheney seems to believe he can hide behind his loyalty to the President to manage the discrepancy:
Mr. Cheney said the issue was what kind of government recognition to give those relationships, and indicated that he preferred to let the states define what constitutes a marriage. In contrast, President Bush has argued that a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is essential. Mr. Cheney noted that Mr. Bush sets policy for the administration.
[snark]That last bit makes me chuckle each time I read it.[/snark]
But I give him high marks for doing the right thing here. For standing up for the dignity of his daughter and letting real family values guide him on this issue.
So here’s my idea for anyone who supports the FMA. Make an effort to meet and get to know some nice gay couple. They can be as conservative or liberal as you can find them (a whole spectrum exists), but invite them over for dinner or visit them in their home. After a glass of wine or when everyone’s relaxed, ask them to explain what the FMA means to them. Specifically, ask about their feelings, not their politics. Do so with an open mind…just listen…don’t respond and don’t counter their statements. You can request that they listen to your feelings on the subject under the same conditions the next time you have dinner. But this time, let them speak, and then take that away with you and give it some thought.
If you have a gay couple in your immediate family, all the better, ask them.
I have no illusions that this will convince many people to change their stand on the issue, but at least it would help ensure the debate takes place, in part, where it belongs: on a personal level.
Edward, I think you missed his tortured explanation, though.
He says that the decision ought to be left to the states, and then blames the avtivist judges for taking the decision out of the hands of the states. Hence FMA.
So he’s actually inline w/ Bush administration policy here; he’s just trying to straddle the issue for his daughter’s sake.
For his daughter’s or his wife’s sake.
I agree with praktike on this.
So, Edward, it’s your contention that the Federal Government ought to have authority in matters of matrimony? I’d think you’d want to go the state’s-rights route.
I have no illusions that this will convince many people to change their stand on the issue, but at least it would help ensure the debate takes place, in part, where it belongs: on a personal level.
My conservative Christian friends really don’t care either way how this turns out, and would be perfectly fine with gay marriage everywhere. In describing their less tolerant counterparts, they believe that those who oppose gay marriage are mostly doing so as a political, strategic maneover – keeping the fight secular (regarding secular marriages) so they don’t have to worry about it in their church. They are horrified that should homosexuals have a victory in secular marriage, they then proceed to sue churches that won’t marry them, or even have hate speech laws passed that preclude preaching that homosexuality is a sin.
Paranoid? Absolutely. But until the dialogue you encourage starts to take place – and it becomes clear that gay marriage is (mostly) where the “gay agenda” begins and ends – I don’t see them calming down.
So, Edward, it’s your contention that the Federal Government ought to have authority in matters of matrimony. I’d think you’d want to go the state’s-rights route.
I won’t lie to you for the sake of process or decorum. I feel gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. If state-by-state legislation is the best route to that, then I’m all for it (this would be my first choice). If activist judges are the best route to that, well, bring ’em on. If this can happen in my lifetime, all the better. I’ll go to my grave with a bit more faith in the human race and I won’t lose any sleep over how much this gets Bay Buchanan’s knickers in a bunch.
In general I agree with Jonathan Rauch that this is an experiment that ought to be allowed to proceed carefully…that “shoving our lifestyle in people’s faces” (I hope the idiot who tortured the English language into that nonsense is suffering appropriately in Hell now) is not my objective. I want the ability to protect my family and I want to be treated as an equal citizen, with equal opportunities and equal responsibilities. I promise my “lifestyle” will not be forced into the face of anyone not forcing theirs into my face.
Edward, more coverage here.
Fun fact: Cheney was looking at the floor.
Edward: When you say ‘human race’ you actually mean ‘American voter’ I assume 😉
Fun fact: Cheney was looking at the floor.
You know, I can see that this sort of thing might be uncomfortable for the VP. What I can’t see is that it’s automatically assumed that this is just gaming, on his part. If this is uncomfortable for him, it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing Edward would want to have happen: people having to go through the discomfort of revising how they look at the world.
“If activist judges are the best route”
It depends on what you mean by ‘best’. It is probably the easiest route in terms of time and total number of people that need to be convinced (the number is probably less than 200). In my opinion it is also the most foolish route. If you want to rouse the Christian Right to its 1980s levels, pull another Roe v. Wade on them instead of going through the legislatures.
Edward: When you say ‘human race’ you actually mean ‘American voter’ I assume 😉
Good point dutchmarbel. The US is behind a bit compared to some other nations.
It depends on what you mean by ‘best’.
Yeah, I thought a bit about that wording. I do mean “best” in what’s best for the country that also gets it accomplished. At a certain point, I don’t think it would be good for the country if gay marriage was legal in 49 states but one held out against reason. At that point the courts would be the best option.
Unfortunately, Edward, ideology can blind one to human feelings. Yet we both know that personal experience will turn one’s head and I think your little social experiment would pay dividends. Though I’m not for the FMA I have, deviously, sided with Dems who avoid denouncing it (it’s all about taking back the congress). I do believe I incurred David E.’s wrath on at least one occasion for taking that stand. I therefore intend to keep my eyes peeled for a couple such as you describe, invite myself over for supper, and have the recommended conversation. Actually, you have already given me the right take on it. I’m really just after a free meal.
I’m really just after a free meal.
See…a win-win situation!
About the conversation…it’s best to warn the couple about your intentions, so they won’t feel like they’re being ambushed. Perhaps something like:
Of course is you know the couple better, this is probably unecessary, but if you don’t know the couple well and tell them you support the FMA, without some clarification about how you’d like to listen, they may go into debate mode and you won’t learn much except how they debate.
If you do have such a conversation, I’d really love to hear how it went.
Thanks Fabius!
Mabye, that nice gay couple should have me over… cooke dinner for me… give me a glass of wine… and ask me why I am opposed to courts legalizing gay marriage instead of forcing it on society.
It’s always the beginning point that get’s messed up around this site…
Yeah, mabye. Then mabye you can ask them whether or not gay people are also part of “society.” It would appear from your formulation that they are not, which is patently silly.
This is, I think, the least supervillianly thing I’ve ever seen out of Dick Cheney. I think, answering this question, that he was finally, reluctantly, speaking up as a dad who’d want a chance to dance at his daughter’s wedding. He doesn’t get a lot of credit for being a living breathing human being, but he definitely was in this situation.
Side note: my dad, a center-to-right sort of guy, a Reagan-voting finance-industry type from exurban Pennsylvania and no Kerry fan, is voting for him this year strictly over this issue, for the same reason Dick Cheney seemed so uncomfortable asking this question: it isn’t fun when your party wants to amend the Constitution to make a member of your family persona non grata.
Phil,
That’s quite unfair. We both know that gay people are a small part of the overall society. And that a small group of people are using the courts to change society regardless of the majority opinion… whatever that opinion might be.
Just for the record, I support the states deciding what should be done in their state. If one doesn’t like it they can move to another state.
If someone wants to convince me that laws should be changed in such a way that they would like… why is it my responsibility to invite them over so that they can convince me?
I can see it now… Sir, I want to sell you something. Please invite me over to your home and wine and dine me so that I can convince you of the value of my product.
Edwards request while legitimate in the since that it can’t hurt to get to know you neighbor has value, but in the real world it starts in the wrong direction.
We both know that gay people are a small part of the overall society.
So rights are dependent on a group’s proportional representation within the overall population. Check. Does this statement, by the way, actually negate what I said? Because I don’t think it does.
I support the states deciding what should be done in their state. If one doesn’t like it they can move to another state.
I think a state should decide that gay people can’t own houses.
Blue,
Feel free to not accept this challenge. My point is much simpler than you’re trying to make it.
In a nutshell, I believe people who understand what marriage means to gay couples, especially if those gay couples are somehow important to them personally, have a better overall picture of the issue. I know it makes people look at the floor (i.e., makes them uncomfortable), but it’s an extremely personal issue, and deserves to be debated as such.
Whether you want to consider the more personal aspects of it, of course, is up to you. I’ll insist you’re not totally informed on what it all means though.
Moving to another state, by the way, is not always as simple as you’re trying to make it either. But thanks for offering to sacrifice my ability to live where I want to for your personal discomfort. That’s fair.
“And that a small group of people are using the courts to change society regardless of the majority opinion… whatever that opinion might be.”
It’s dreadful. I’m entirely opposed to the courts interfering in our ability to have separate, but equal, facilities. It is only outside agitators, refusing to accept states’ rights, who are causing these problems. Eventually, in our own way, we will make what changes are necessary without the agitation and interference of those from other states, or from activist courts. Negroes remain a small portion of our population, and while I sympathise with them, they must not rush society into making premature changes that could, indeed, backfire upon them. Patience!
And why, pray tell, do a mere three quarters of the states get to force women voters on the rest of us? As a woman voter myself, I have been convinced of the error of my ways. I give up the ballot, the right to own property, and the right to refuse corporal discipline and unwanted conjugal relations.
Gary and Hilzoy,
It certainly seems were hearing the same overall objections to me, but thanks for making the point so charmingly and accurately.
I have always found it rather cute that liberals have such disrespect for opinions contrary to their own.
In this case, proponents of gay marriage wish to change a fundamental institution of society. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, change is good. (Rarely.)
To say, however, that “getting to know” some gay folks would change the minds of those opposed to gay marriage is a tacit acknowledgement of one’s disrespect for arguments against gay marriage. It says that such arguments are founded on ignorance of other’s feelings, and that emotion is even a major consideration in this affair.
Just for the record, I’m going to say that equating the gay marriage issue to black slavery suggests a cavalier attitude towards the actuality of that sick practice.
We are asking for a change in the meaning of marriage. If you want such a major change, we shouldn’t pretend that it has always been there in the Constitution waiting to be uncovered. We didn’t even do that with slavery. We formally changed the Constitution. If you want constitutionally protected gay marriage may I suggest a constitutional amendment? If you want state protected gay marriage may I suggest legislatures? Convince people. That is what our democratic republic is supposed to be about.
We are asking for a change in the meaning of marriage.
No, you’re really not. Or rather, the change has already happened. When the dictionaries agree that marriage now includes same-sex couples, can the legislature really be far behind?
I have always found it rather cute that liberals have such disrespect for opinions contrary to their own.
“Cute”? Because in your view only conservatives are entitled to disrespect opinions contrary to their own?
In this case, proponents of gay marriage wish to change a fundamental institution of society. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, change is good. (Rarely.)
Fine, Nathan. If changing fundamental institutions of society is bad (especially, I gather, when liberals do it) I take it you have objections to the GI Bill, the ending of child labor, the right to 40-hour work weeks, the right of employees to collectively bargain, the right to overtime pay, the right to safety in the workplace (life was so much better, I’m sure you feel, when incidents like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire could happen), to food safety laws, to all environmental laws, to the Marshall Plan, to the space program (it was a liberal who challenged Americans to make it into space), to women voters, to universal public education, to the National Weather Service, to accurate product labelling, to truth-in-advertizing laws, to state universities, to the National Institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control, to federal insurance for bank deposits, to the Consumer Product Safety Commission… and so on. All of these liberal accomplishments caused fundamental changes to the US as it was in the 19th century, creating the US as it is in the 21st century – and if you’re really claiming that only rarely is change good, I can only suggest that you really aren’t much of a student of history.
It says that such arguments are founded on ignorance of other’s feelings, and that emotion is even a major consideration in this affair.
I have never found any argument against same-sex marriage that was not founded squarely in the conviction that the feelings of those who want to get married and are forbidden by law to do so doesn’t matter.
We are asking for a change in the meaning of marriage. If you want such a major change, we shouldn’t pretend that it has always been there in the Constitution waiting to be uncovered.
What’s the current Constitutional meaning of marriage that we’d be changing?
It says that such arguments are founded on ignorance of other’s feelings,
Founded? Not necessarily.
Eventually uninformed because of it? Absolutely. You won’t understand why even the staunchest gay conservatives are breaking rank with Bush over this unless you understand how this makes them feel. You may not care, that’s your perogative. But you’ll not be totally informed unless you understand it.
It’s not a coincidence that fathers who have gay children, regardless of how conservative they are on other issues, don’t see this as cut-and-dry as those who don’t (think Cheney and Goldwater for starters and work your way to my own father). I know it’d be convenient for those in favor of the FMA if opponents didn’t drag all these messy emotions into the debate, but it’s impossible not to take it personally from my point of view, so why should you get a free ride?
Gary, Hil, Edward… you guys have made a good attempt at putting words into my mouth.
Can someone show me where I said that minority rights for any group should just be ignored?
I said:
“And that a small group of people are using the courts to change society regardless of the majority opinion… whatever that opinion might be.”
I didn’t even claim what the opinion of the majority is.
I even went further to say:
“Just for the record, I support the states deciding what should be done in their state. If one doesn’t like it they can move to another state.”
I don’t see how that implies that a minority rights should be ignored. It gives each state a chance to live in the type of community they desire.
If you take the time to read my posts I was speaking to the idea that according to Edward people like me need to invite gay people over to our house. I think that is an absurd statement. If one wants to help gay people so much, then I am pretty sure the best path is for them to invite me over to their house and get to know me and try to convince me of their position.
I was only pointing out how in the real world Edwards suggestion doesn’t make sense.
Every child understands what a marriage means to them. I find it interesting that so many adults don’t get it.
And just for the record… so you can’t put words into my mouth at your own convenience. I don’t have a problem with gay couples adopting. I wish every child could grow up in the most loving environment possible. But, you just can’t argue with the fundamentals of biology.
Edward,
“Moving to another state, by the way, is not always as simple as you’re trying to make it either. But thanks for offering to sacrifice my ability to live where I want to for your personal discomfort. That’s fair”
You do a disservice to all the millions of people who work so hard to come to this country and sacrifice everything. Just in the last 24 hours a woman came here from Cuba got here by shipping herself.
It seems that you are okay with my personal discomfort. That’s fair as long as double standards are okay.
Every child understands what a marriage means to them.
Really? Does this understanding just come to them from, you know, the ether? Or is it taught to them?
There was a time when every child understood that women shouldn’t have jobs or own property. Turns out that wasn’t true.
It seems that you are okay with my personal discomfort.
Shorter: Gays are icky.
Blue,
I’ll skip over your moving Cubans bit, as it’s too far off topic and not particularly well thought out IMHO (I’ll be happy to address it if you can boil it down and better relate it to the main topic), but this part deserves comment:
If you take the time to read my posts I was speaking to the idea that according to Edward people like me need to invite gay people over to our house. I think that is an absurd statement.
Where in anything I’ve written here do you find me suggesting you “need” to do this? I’ve recommended it for folks who wish to be better informed on the issue. You can continue to have your opinions about FMA without being fully informed, and vote accordingly, but should you wish to be better informed, this is one way you could become so.
Also, as Fabius picked up on, you don’t need to invite anyone over to your house, you could accept an invitation to theirs and get a free meal.
You’re not even addressing the central idea here, though: why Cheney disagrees with Bush on this issue. I’m suggesting it’s because he understands better what the FMA will mean to his daughter than Bush does. That if Bush took the time to invite Mary Cheney over for dinner and ask her what the FMA means to her, he’d have a better overall picture of the issue.
Now I’m not at all sure he hasn’t done that, and I’ve acknowledged that even if he did, it might not, in and of itself, change his mind, but underlying your objection to this post is the suggestion that you, Blue, have not done something like this, but still support the FMA anyway.
I’m suggesting that leaves you somewhat uninformed on the issue.
I see your point about your’s being a recommendation and I’ll accept that.
But, to clarify my point, I think their cause would be better served by reaching out to those on the opposite side… and to me it seems their cause would have been better served by you if you implored them to get better informed about my position… if mine is the majority position.
“I’m suggesting that leaves you somewhat uninformed on the issue.”
I know you don’t mean to sound so condecending, but you really do… and that is always my pet peeve with so many of your posts.
For example, pretend I represent a certain opinion on a subject and you the opposite… How would you feel if I suggested to you that since you haven’t taken the time to really get to know me and my perspective that you are the one really uninformed on the issue.
Don’t you see it?
For example, pretend I represent a certain opinion on a subject and you the opposite… How would you feel if I suggested to you that since you haven’t taken the time to really get to know me and my perspective that you are the one really uninformed on the issue.
Blue, I cut my teeth, so to speak, in the blogsphere on right-wing sites precisely under those conditions…getting to know the right-wing perspective and under the acknowledgement that I was the uninformed one.
I still try to take that position on most issues, but on this particular one, I’ll guarantee I’ve spent an overwhemingly greater amount of time listening and thinking about it than you have (when I lived in DC, I worked on a “task force” for gay marriage)—unless there’s something you’d like to share… 😉
My “condescending attitude” is duly noted. I hear that a lot. I’ll work on it.
In this instance, however, my point is not that you haven’t given the FMA thought, but if you haven’t taken the time to listen, in conditions where they feel secure enough to open up and be honest with you, and not just in the shouting arena we call the blog world, to how this make gay couples feel, you’re missing a big part of the picture. It IS personal.
Blue: And just for the record… so you can’t put words into my mouth at your own convenience. I don’t have a problem with gay couples adopting. I wish every child could grow up in the most loving environment possible. But, you just can’t argue with the fundamentals of biology.
Actually, you can. Many of the very same moralists who argue against gay marriage argue against the fundamentals of biology all the time. Marriage itself (and sexual morality generally) acts as a check against the fundamentals of biology.
But, to clarify my point, I think their cause would be better served by reaching out to those on the opposite side… and to me it seems their cause would have been better served by you if you implored them to get better informed about my position… if mine is the majority position.
Two things here, taking the latter part of your statement first: The fact that a position is the majority opinion does not make that position reasonable, intelligent or correct; and if it is not any of those things, then “getting better informed” about it is only necessary to the extent that one needs to tell people why it is unreasonable, unintelligent or incorrect. And when the majority position is one that insists on restricting the behaviors or rights of otherwise law-abiding American citizens who are not hurting anybody, I can’t think of many good reasons to spent too much time contemplating it.
As to the former part of your statement, think about who the belweathers are on the FMA and preventing gay marriage: Focus on the Family, Brent Bozell, and dozens of other such groups. These are groups who have spent years — decades — accusing homosexuals of being child molestors, of trying to recruit children, of all manner of horrible, despicable things. They’ve been maligning gays and lesbians publicly every time they can muster the energy to open their mouths. Randall Terry publicly threw a verbal grenade on his own son and called him a drug-abusing juvenile delinquent when he came out.
And you think that it’s the responsibility of gays to reach out to them? I don’t want to speak for gays and lesbians here, but as a straight man, eff a whole bunch of that. That’s crap. And you can’t ignore them away, say that you’re talking about people like you and not these groups — they’re the ones driving the agenda, keeping it in the spotlight and prolonging the “culture wars.” If they weren’t, this issue probably would be settled and over with.
Phil,
“And you think that it’s the responsibility of gays to reach out to them? I don’t want to speak for gays and lesbians here, but as a straight man, eff a whole bunch of that. That’s crap.”
And since, I didn’t say that… I suppose your response would be a bunch of crap.
To quote you quoting me…
“…and to me it seems their cause would have been better served by you if you implored them to get better informed about MY position… if MINE is the majority position.”
No where do I mention it being correct.
I implore you to read carefully what I write and not what you might be expecting me to say or think.
“It seems that you are okay with my personal discomfort.”
Since when does personal discomfort trump principle when we define policy?
The more I think about it, the more I realize the Princess and the Pea is a fine allegory for the gay marriage debate.
I love this quote from an article about this issue:
“Of course, if having personal ties to an issue is what it takes to get the Vice President in touch with his softer side, we should probably all be rooting for Cheney to discover that, in addition to having a gay daughter, he also has a couple of black grandkids, an illegal immigrant cousin, an aunt with a drug habit, a transsexual brother, a sister who just got laid off from a textile mill in North Carolina, and a long-lost son who’s been getting his butt shot at in Najaf.”
Sidereal,
“Since when does personal discomfort trump principle when we define policy?”
I don’t know… why don’t you read back upthread and try and figure out why EDWARD brought it up.
I don’t know… why don’t you read back upthread and try and figure out why EDWARD brought it up.
That’s a cop out. Answer the question. ;p
Maybe when the personal discomfort is that policy is being made to institutionalize the country’s right to expressly not give you equal rights.
I think Edward would fall into that category.
It isn’t trumping principal though. It is principal.
I should have put quotation marks around the word “right” in my above post.
Blue: you write: “But, you just can’t argue with the fundamentals of biology.”
What claims (relevant to this debate) do you take the fundamentals of biology to establish? I don’t want to put words in your mouth by assuming that it has something to do with homosexuality not occurring in nature, since that is of course false; in any case, that something is natural doesn’t show that it is right. (Lots of animals practice infanticide, but obviously that doesn’t imply anything about whether we should.) So which fundamentals of biology did you have in mind, and what do they show? Thanks.
Edward,
You said:
“But thanks for offering to sacrifice my ability to live where I want to for your personal discomfort.”
But I don’t feel any personal discomfort by gay marriages. I just think that at a state level we should choose. I think that about abortion also.
So I really don’t have a response to my supposed discomfort.
Read a bit further however, Blue, and you’ll remember where you wrote:
It seems that you are okay with my personal discomfort. That’s fair as long as double standards are okay.
I believe the question is about THAT discomfort.
Unless you’d like to retract that statement now.
Edward,
Well you sort of put words into my mouth by talking about MY personal discomfort where I hadn’t really expressed that idea.
All I did was follow your logic… to make a point.
My point with that comeback was that if I did have discomfort it wasn’t as significant as your discomfort, but since “you” are the one trying to convince “me” of your position that seems like a bad strategy to discount any discomfort that I “might” feel about the issue.
I hope you can see that I can’t retract a statement that I never really made. I can see how someone might take it out of context, but I was only following your comment about it… not expressing my own feelings.
Edward,
Well you sort of put words into my mouth
You’re mixing this thread with the “accountability” thread…although you might want to give Rummy a call and let him in on this clever little device of yours for not owning up to what YOU wrote… next thing you know I’ll be blamed for writing the GOP platform. ;P
Blue: But I don’t feel any personal discomfort by gay marriages. I just think that at a state level we should choose. I think that about abortion also.
On what criteria do you decide when equal protection should be applied at the discretion of the states, as opposed to federally?
I have no problem with states writing their own marriage laws, but they must be applied equally within the boundaries of the state. Just as that means not prohibiting a white person from marrying a black person or a Methodist from marrying a Catholic, that also means not prohibiting a woman from marrying a woman without proving a compelling state interest in doing so. This seems like a no-brainer. I can understand why full faith and credit might be more controversial, but equal protection?
Edward,
I didn’t get your joke at first, but just to be clear…
Didn’t you originally write this in this thread:
“Moving to another state, by the way, is not always as simple as you’re trying to make it either. But thanks for offering to sacrifice my ability to live where I want to for your personal discomfort. That’s fair.”
Before that point I had never mentioned having any personal discomfort.
I am harping on this clarification because I do believe lack of accountability is a fundamental problem within our society and I am quite sensitive to that issue.
It would truly bother me if you felt like:
“yours for not owning up to what YOU wrote.”
I hope you clearly understand where that comment originated and what my intention with my reply was.
I can’t tell exactly…
Gromit,
“On what criteria do you decide when equal protection should be applied at the discretion of the states, as opposed to federally?”
My own life experiences and my own beliefs about what is the best type of world for me and others to live in.
Is that not what we are all doing? Are we not all trying to create a world in which we would like to live… one that meets our own personal standards. Whether it’s Christian’s, Moslems, Hindus, Gay, Black and on and on…
How are laws ever really made, but by our own judgement that one believes they know what’s best for a society.
Beware, going on tangent…
I would also like to see taxes collected only at the state level… not at the Federal level.
Everyone pays Uncle Sam.
Uncle Sam distibutes it back to states.
States distibute it back Counties.
Counties distibute it back to the people.
It would save money to cut out a few of those steps.
Let the middle man collect it at the State level. It’s already going through him anyway.
He sends most of it back down and the rest up for the Feds to either redistribute to poorer states or use for it’s own needs.
I was pulling your leg Blue…I understood what you meant.
Thanks for the watertight clarification though.
e
Gromit: On what criteria do you decide when equal protection should be applied at the discretion of the states, as opposed to federally?”
Blue: My own life experiences and my own beliefs about what is the best type of world for me and others to live in.
So states can ignore the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly addresses the role of the states in providing equal protection, at their whim?
Gromit,
You got me… down with the Constitution… anarchy for all.
Arghhh!!!!! That’s my best Howard Dean scream.
Where do you draw the line? Polygamy… 15 year olds. What? Where does equal protection stop?
Where do you draw the line? Polygamy… 15 year olds.
Just when I started to think you were rational.
You mean having sex with and marrying 15 year olds isn’t legal yet? D’oh!
Blue: Where do you draw the line? Polygamy… 15 year olds. What? Where does equal protection stop?
I stop at box turtles. That’s just nasty.
I’m not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, but based on my reading of Amendment XIV, polygamy as proscribed by the early LDS church (and as still practiced extralegally by many fundamentalists) would actually violate equal protection if instituted as law, because it allows men to take multiple partners but denies women that option. The EPC would require that either women be allowed to take multiple partners or that no one be allowed to do so. Polygamy, as long as it is applied equally to all, shouldn’t violate equal protection, but I don’t see how the clause could be read to require the legalization of polygamy. Katherine, Von, anyone, feel free to correct my simplistic interpretations at any point.
And even if age of consent didn’t meet the “compelling state interest” test in spades, I doubt Amendment XIV could be read to require equal protection regardless of age, since, barring childhood mortality, everyone enjoys those protections in their own time. I’m sure legal theory on this topic is far more sophisticated, of course.
Typo: “proscribed” should read “prescribed”. Sorry for any confusion.
Umm, way to go off. But I’m not arguing that fundamental changes should never be brought about in society. I’m against the courts doing the changing. And if you review your list, you might just find that the courts didn’t do those things. Which might be part of why those changes are seen as legitmate.
Gromit,
Based on that logic is seems that gay women do have EP. They can marry any man that want.
Gay men can marry any woman they want… assuming they aren’t married… that’s equal for everyone
Blue: Based on that logic is seems that gay women do have EP. They can marry any man that want.
Gay men can marry any woman they want… assuming they aren’t married… that’s equal for everyone
That’s essentially the argument that was put forth in favor of anti-miscegenation laws, and it was rightly rejected. If a man can marry a woman, but a woman, by virtue of her sex, cannot, how do you conclude that they are being treated equally under the law?
I am not trying to say at all that I support this, but what if they passed a law that said all women can chose to be married to one man at a time… and all men can be married to one woman at a time for it to be a legal marriage.
Would that not be equal protection under the law?
Man… people really put words into other peoples mouths at this site….
Please show me in my posts where I concluded:
“If a man can marry a woman, but a woman, by virtue of her sex, cannot, how do you conclude that they are being treated equally under the law?”
This type of behaviour happens so often at this site.
Gromit, I am sincerely asking you to explain to me how you arrived at the conclusion that I concluded that they are being treated equally under the law. It would really help me to understand yourself and some of the other posters at this site.
Blue: Gromit, I am sincerely asking you to explain to me how you arrived at the conclusion that I concluded that they are being treated equally under the law. It would really help me to understand yourself and some of the other posters at this site.
At the moment I am at a bit of a loss as to your objection, which could be:
a) That you were playing devil’s advocate, but don’t personally agree with the conclusion as you and I both stated it.
b) You agree with the conclusion as you stated it, but you feel I somehow mischaracterized it in rephrasing.
c) You were playing devil’s advocate AND you feel I mischaracterized the conclusion.
d) Whatever’s inside the mystery box.
However, I drew my conclusions from the words you wrote, and which you only qualified with “by that logic” without specifying whether you accepted that logic, even if only for the sake of argument. And, even if you are only engaging in a rhetorical exercise on this issue, at some point we need to address the actual question at hand, which is whether the states are bound by Amendment 14 when it comes to marriage law, and what that really means.
Gromit,
My objection is that you are claiming that somewhere I concluded…
“If a man can marry a woman, but a woman, by virtue of her sex, cannot, how do you conclude that they are being treated equally under the law?”
But, I never even came close anywhere to saying that. Hence, I can only guess why you might want to try and conclude that I did.
You said:
“The EPC would require that either women be allowed to take multiple partners or that no one be allowed to do so. Polygamy, as long as it is applied equally to all, shouldn’t violate equal protection”
Then I said:
if they passed a law that said all women can chose to be married to one man at a time… and all men can be married to one woman at a time for it to be a legal marriage.
Would that not be equal protection under the law?
And then you said I said:
“If a man can marry a woman, but a woman, by virtue of her sex, cannot, how do you conclude that they are being treated equally under the law?”
Which I never did conclude anywhere, hence I found your claim to one which I objected to. And then, in response you cited nothing that has me saying
I never said that a man can marry a woman cannot marry mulltiple men. You are trying to get me to say that somehow.
Or maybe you thought I was refering to this part of you post:
And even if age of consent didn’t meet the “compelling state interest” test in spades, I doubt Amendment XIV could be read to require equal protection regardless of age, since, barring childhood mortality, everyone enjoys those protections in their own time. I’m sure legal theory on this topic is far more sophisticated, of course.”
And still if “by your logic” I meant any part of your post it makes no sense for you to conclude what you did about my statement.
Blue: I never said that a man can marry a woman cannot marry mulltiple men. You are trying to get me to say that somehow.
I’m not being snide here, but sincere: I can’t make sense out of the above. I’m not trying to get you to say anything about polygamy. If that is your objection, then I think you have our roles reversed here.
if they passed a law that said all women can chose to be married to one man at a time… and all men can be married to one woman at a time for it to be a legal marriage. Would that not be equal protection under the law?
Now, as to that argument (whether you agree with it or not, which is extremely murky to me), the above law would violate equal protection by my reasoning. Imagine, if you will, that a man wishes to marry a woman. He goes with her to the courthouse, and if he and his fiancé meet the legal criteria (unmarried, of legal age, not close relatives, etc.) they are issued a license as provided for by law.
Now suppose in the above scenario, instead of a man, a woman goes to the courthouse in order to marry the same woman. They meet all the same non-sex-based criteria, but she and her fiancé are denied a license. Why? Because one of the criteria, according to the law you described, is that she be of the proper sex to marry a woman. If she were a man, all other things being equal, she would get the license.
That is most definitely not equal protection. Equal protection would mean consenting, otherwise eligible adults would be allowed to marry regardless of sex. The burden rests on the state to prove a compelling government interest in maintaining that unequal status.
Gromit
I thought Blue was being intentionally literalist or intentially dense. I may be wrong.
You went above the call of duty to explain an obvious point. I hope it is appreciated.
Let me make this clear…
“If a man can marry a woman, but a woman, by virtue of her sex, cannot, how do you conclude that they are being treated equally under the law?”
I never made that conclusion or did I ever imply that was a conclusion that one could reach.
Gromit attributed that conclusion to me.
Gromit,
“Now suppose in the above scenario, instead of a man, a woman goes to the courthouse in order to marry the same woman.”
I see your point, but I think the arguement to be made is that the woman still has the exact same rights as any other woman. She can marry and single man she chooses.
“That is most definitely not equal protection. Equal protection would mean consenting, otherwise eligible adults would be allowed to marry regardless of sex.”
There are many examples in our society where man and women aren’t treated equally under the law because of the fundamentals of biology. Abortion, woman’s bathrooms, child custody, rape laws, sex with minors, divorce, life insurance policies, car insurance policies…
Carsick,
How ironic you of all people would accuse anyone of being dense?
And I never got that apology from you for accusing me of not citing sources… when I have.
“the woman still has the exact same rights as any other woman…”
Blue likes the old “separate but equal” laws I see.
Blue
“And I never got that apology from you for accusing me of not citing sources… when I have.”
You posted links AFTER I pointed out your unattributed aspersions then when I asked you to point out the relevence of those links you blithely ignored the request. No apology necessary.
If a man can marry a woman, but a woman, by virtue of her sex, cannot, how do you conclude that they are being treated equally under the law?
The law doesn’t treat everyone equally. Deliberately, sometimes.
Blue: I see your point, but I think the arguement to be made is that the woman still has the exact same rights as any other woman. She can marry and single man she chooses.
Apply that standard to any other government license. Suppose a state imposes different restrictions on women for getting a driver’s license than they impose on men. Is that equal protection because the women are all treated the same, even though their treatment is predicated on their sex? Suppose a state limits women to getting business licenses in certain industries (say, child care, nursing, housekeeping, etc.), and limits men to getting business licenses in other industries (engineering, mechanical work, finance, etc.). Is that equal protection?
No, that’s a mockery of equal protection, and the solution to the problem would not be “If one doesn’t like it they can move to another state.” Such laws would be subject to judicial review, as should marriage laws that are based on sex.
But marriage isn’t the same type of institution as though you mentioned…
The state (ie government) got into the marriage business because of property rights issues. Otherwise marriage was the domain of churches and related.
If marriage isn’t a similar type institution to you it’s probably because you’re looking at it through the church’s eyes and not the property contract perspective.
A vast amount of law concerns property rights.
Slartibartfast: The law doesn’t treat everyone equally. Deliberately, sometimes.
That is true, but intermediate scrutiny typically applies to cases of sex discrimination. It is up to the state to prove that prohibiting same-sex marriage is substantially related to an important government interest (I was mistaken above when I said “compelling”).
Blue: But marriage isn’t the same type of institution as though you mentioned…
Care to elaborate?
Actually, I wasn’t thinking of sex discrimination when I said that. Nor anything else related to marriage, in present times.
“Abortion, woman’s bathrooms, child custody, rape laws, sex with minors, divorce, life insurance policies, car insurance policies…”
What a weird smorgasbord.
Insurance policies, while obviously heavily regulated, aren’t laws. They’re priced by the insurance company according to their actuary tables.
I’m unaware of any differences regarding sex with minors. Certainly the incidence of women having sex with minor men is much less, but it’s prosecuted the same.
What are the differences in the rape laws? Men can be and are raped (almost exclusively by other men), and it’s prosecuted as appropriate. The fact that women almost(?) never engage in non-statutory rape (yes, for biological reasons) doesn’t mean the laws are different. They don’t have to be.
What are the differences in non-child-custody divorce proceedings? I’d be very surprised if any allocation determinations were made according to sex, and if there were I’m guessing there’d be pretty good grounds for letting your lawyers loose.
Child custody is almost entirely about means of support these days.
If a man could have an abortion, you could be quite sure that the same laws would govern.
Women’s bathrooms? What? Do we even have laws that recognize their existence?
The common thread through all of these, of course, is that while biology of coure recognizes the differences of biology, the law doesn’t. Because it doesn’t have to (Except that pesky affirmative action and meta-laws regarding equal protection).
(IANAL. . yet)
Certainly the incidence of women having sex with minor men is much less
Hah! Obviously, you’re ignoring the testimonials in Penthouse Forum.
Mary Letourneau: every sixth grader’s reason for holding out hope for the crush they have on their attractive teacher.
She was prosecuted though.
Side,
The real point is we often treat women and men differently and it is acceptable and not necessarily unlawful. I wasn’t trying to make a legal comment, but one about our society and how our core valu0es shape that law and it is okay.
(I’m very busy at work today…)
“Blue: But marriage isn’t the same type of institution as though you mentioned…
Care to elaborate?”
Disclaimer to meandering thoughts below…
Somethings we just treat differently based on core values. Sex with dead people is illegal in many states. Who is it really hurting?
It’s bad for you or I to kill someone who kills someone we love, but it is okay for the state.
At one point in my life, I was a single white male who didn’t own a home. The state discriminated against me every April. I watched my brothers deduct their homes and their kids while I could not. And then atlast I got married. And then again… I bent over for Uncle Sam… the marriage penalty. Finally, I have a child and a home and for the first time ever I will have the same advantages come April as they have had for 15 years.
Why has this ever been fair?
Why do people who rent not get a deduction and how is that fair to them?
The vagaries of the tax code don’t really count here unless you’re trying to say, “Hey, life is unfair. Get over it homosexual people.”
In America we have a constitution and a democratic republic. If a politician is attempting to amend the constitution to expressly guarantee one segment of society has less rights than the rest of society then I think they should probably speak up.
I know it’s been said before but if you want to protect your marriage then it may be more productive to outlaw divorce – considering its effect on the institution and our society.
Not to mention divorce’s effect on whatever moral congregation you may belong to.
Carsick,
“The vagaries of the tax code don’t really count here unless you’re trying to say, “Hey, life is unfair. Get over it homosexual people.””
Nope, not trying to say that.
I said:
“Disclaimer to meandering thoughts below…
Somethings we just treat differently based on core values.”
If I was going to take you statement all I would be saying is, “Hey, life is unfair in lots of ways.”
FYI, if our gov’t is going to be involved in marriage at all, then I do think that a divorce should be more difficult to get and that pre-marriage counseling should be more intensive.