1). I do not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
2). I do support the right of two consenting adults to enter into what arrangements suit them, explicitly including the ones traditionally associated with marriage (including the name).
3). I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with my stance on #2 is either a homophobe or an anti-gay bigot. For that matter, I further do not believe that everybody who disagrees with my stance on #1 also disagrees with me on #2.
4). I have not changed my intended vote for George W Bush for President. See #3.
5). Comments are turned off on this post because there’s a perfectly adequate one of von’s already up for discussion; my objective here was to provide an easy reference guide for my opinions.
We now resume your regularly scheduled blogging experience.
Moe
UPDATE: After consultation with the (wise) girlfriend, I need to add:
3a). Most (if not all) homophobic, anti-gay bigots disagree with me on both #1 and #2.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Feels weird to blog anything without comments. I mean, people obviously do it all the time, still…
I got your back
This comment is to make Moe feel justified in adding comments.
Hey I don’t mind Marshall, DenBeste, etc. I do keep sending e-mail to the Volokhs that doesn’t get answered, but maybe they don’t need penis enlargement.
Muchas gracias, compadres. I am seriously off my blogging kung fu this evening; every little bit of centering helps. 🙂
Moe, you’re lucky you’ve inherited a mostly sterling set of commenters, along with the excellent new ones you’ve attracted. (That’s a plural “you” – stupid uninflected language.) I can’t think of another generalist blog (well, maybe Crooked Timber) that doesn’t regularly make me resolve never to read its comments again (ok, I do have to skip over one commenter here.) Perhaps the variety of blogger viewpoints keeps the boosters and trolls away…
Moe is #1 solely derived from #2? Just asking.
Now I support #1 because it precludes the states (that would be the people and not the courts) from ever deciding #2. Second and related, as marriage is not a constitutional right, it doesn’t need a constitutional amendment (far better not to talk about marriage at all but constrain the courts through an amendment by declaring that marriage is not a constitutional right at all).
But I don’t want #2 to be decided by the courts (state, federal or otherwise). I prefer #2 to be decided by the people.
I don’t care about #3 but I am with you on #4.
I’m not sure why there is a #5 at all.
I’m not going to try to convince people who oppose the FMA, but have made up their minds to support Bush to change their mind. For one thing, it wouldn’t work, so it would be a waste of both our time.
But please, please, please: if you oppose it, actively oppose it. Call (or email, but staffers say they listen more to calls) your Congressman and your Senators and ask them to vote against this, noting that you’re a straight, conservative (or moderate) Republican.
Liberals & independents also should call their Congressmen, of course. But you guys are probably less likely to be nagged by friends, relatives, and email lists, so I figured I’d fill in.
Katherine, have you seen a draft of the FMA?
Proposed 3b): The percentage of people who disagree with #2 who are not homophobic, anti-gay bigots is vanishingly small.
I have not changed my intended vote for George W Bush for President.
Still wondering if you’re ever going to justify the mindboggingly hypocritical reason you gave for doing so…
If you’re okay with voting for a President who thinks that messing with the US Constitution in order to get votes from bigots is an acceptable election campaign tactic, I wonder what exactly could Bush do that would ever get you to admit you shouldn’t vote for him? You’re okay with his plans to loot Iraq, though you claimed that “robbing the Iraqis” (voting against thar $87B appropriation bill) was why you won’t vote for Kerry: you’re okay with his plans to amend the US Constitution to make bigots happy: is there anything he could do that would sufficiently outrage you not to vote for him?
This is not going away, Moe: either ban me, answer the question, or I’ll keep repeating it. Till November, after which I trust Bush can pass into the limbo of ex-Presidents and bad memories.
If you’re okay with voting for a President who thinks that messing with the US Constitution in order to get votes from bigots is an acceptable election campaign tactic
Okay, so I’m in England and a little removed, but I suspect GWB actually believes this is an important one – because of his own personal beliefs. I’m not saying he’s above pandering to people for votes, I’m just not convinced this is, at least, his primary motivation here.
I suspect GWB actually believes this is an important one – because of his own personal beliefs.
Well, that would make him tampering with the Constitution in order to override one of the basic principles of the Constitution – that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. If Bush is doing this to get votes, that’s just scummy. If Bush is doing this in order to impose his own religious views on the nation, that’s unconstitutional.
I think you’re wrong because I don’t think Bush has any particularly strong religious convictions. But if he does, then what he is doing is even more wrong.
“This is not going away, Moe: either ban me, answer the question, or I’ll keep repeating it.”
Jesurgislac, you seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that I actually care about your opinion of me, my beliefs or my justifying them to you. Repeat all the questions you like; as long as you follow the Posting Rules, I’m indifferent.
Moe
I actually care about your opinion of me, my beliefs or my justifying them to you.
Ah. Okay. I’m just damned curious why you’re being this hypocritical about supporting Bush, and wish you would explain it. But you’re right: you need not satisfy my curiosity. I will remain curious, however, and will continue to inquire, since you’ve no objection to being asked even if you don’t want to answer.
Jesurgislac: I’ve just read on Atrios a transcript of an interview in 2000 where Bush says he wouldn’t intervene if States took a stand. So I guess I’m wrong and it does look political. I wonder how much support there is within the Republican Party as a whole for his stance.
Moe – Don’t ban Jesurlistac! Ever since he and Tac parted ways I don’t get enough of his take on things. Though I do realize that his relentlessness can be put-offish he ask a good question. One you are not obliged to answer, of course. But you have alot of opinions that seem to be antithetic to Bush. There is no part of American governance that has done better under Bush than any President since Hoover. Hoover, at least, was considered competant. The only thing that seems to attract you to the Republican Party is your disallusion with the Democratic one. Do you think that Bush deserves his current term, let alone another one. Based on what?
Fabius, Moe did say he wasn’t planning to ban me! 😉
Moe, I guess the point is that I do not consider you to be a hypocritical kind of person: yet the reason for supporting Bush over Kerry was very specifically hypocritical. (If A has done X and B has done X, claiming that you must support B because A has done X and you cannot support anyone who does X, which is apparently your position, is basically that of a hypocrite.) You may have an explanation for this which makes sense – but so long as you decline to explain it, I’m left wondering, and wondering why you don’t want to explain it. (Though of course this may simply be “don’t want to explain it just because you’re asking” in which case I shall just have to hope that someone else, to whom you do feel like explaining, takes up the question and asks.)
Moe Land wrote:
If the proponents of redefining marriage has stuck to the legislative process and if the courts had followed the original intent rather than the sort of judicial activism we saw from the bench, this would not even be on my radar screen. But the judicial activism of the SCOMA and the flagrant law-breaking in San Francisco – cheered on by many in this forum – has opened my eyes that they are not willing to deal in good faith and follow the rules like the rest of us. Instead they want the right to disobey any law they disagree with (San Francisco) and then when they find a judge to rule in their favor (stari decisis be damned) regardless of how questionable, they will use our support for the rule of law against us.
As I said before, the reason it ever has gotten to this point is solely on the heads of the supporters of the SCOMA decision and the San Francisco law-breakers. Unless the former is overturned and the latter is shut down by the legal apparatus, there really is no choice for those who value the rule of law but to support a constitutional amendment. They forced the issue, not us.
So long as no government is required to sanction it, I would tend to agree with you. However, I have no reason to believe that those who want the legal privileges of marriage without having to convince the majority of the populace that their “arrangements” have comparable societal benefits can or are willing to do so. The running to the courts under a phony “equal protection” claim and the legal assaults on freedom of association to me reveal that this is something that ultimately the proponents wish to shove down people’s throats by act of government.
I do not believe that not everyone who favors changing the definition of marriage has little regard for the rule of law and our constitution and is willing to endorse judicial activism or outright lawbreaking so long as it results in the outcome they favor.
Glad to see you got your Haliburton check too 😉
I was just teasing, Moe. In fact, I’ve been a bit surprised that the conservatarian backlash was so strong. Even though they’re not happy about it, I would have figured that much of their support for him already had this stance priced into the market, at least for the past few months. There is a change of degree, and the action itself is certainly startling, but it’s not like the right-wing base is nice and calm over the idea or shy about wanting to throw crap into the Constitution (our AG supported 10 amendments in his time as Senator).
It seems that Rove et al. wanted to use this as a show of character. And it seems many bloggers have been shown.
Thorley, I don’t believe you’ve yet explained why same-sex couples marrying is “redefining marriage”…
As long as we’re being nice and open-minded about this, why is everyone restricting the conversation to couples?
How’s about it, anyone care to demand “equal rights” for polygamists as well? 😉
Yeah, and what about equal rights for those wanting to marry their siblings? End discimination against Rednecks!
Yeah, and what about equal rights for those wanting to marry their siblings?
There’s an entire class of people who want to marry their siblings?
That’s a straight line for you budding comedians out there (pun irrelevant)…
There’s an entire class of people who like to have sex with members of the same gender?
You can create a “class” out of any group you wish no matter how frivolous.
My dog is making googly-eyes at the fire hydrant. Perhaps a civil ceremony is in order.
This is why I think the government should be out of the whole business completely. Once you take the traditional restrictions away, all restrictions are then fair game.
Someone has asked why a constitutional amendment, I suspect a number of people just don’t trust the judiciary on the issue of rights. They would prefer the Civils Act as compared to Roe v Wade in determining the same sex issue, as would I with the determination to be made by state legislatures or state referendums.
Thus, I oppose FMA. But I would have no problem with a constitutional amendment constraining the federal courts from making any determination on same sex marriage.
Ja dah! Exactly my view.
It’s my impression that the Constitution was created as a document to define government, and detail what issues they should keep from dabbling in. This, IMO, is one of them.
Timmy-
You keep saying that marriage is not a constitutional right, and that it should be left to the states.
By your logic, you should have no problem with any of the following:
After all, if marriage is not a constitutional right, then there would be no reason why a state coudn’t pass any of the laws listed above.
JKC, see Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 14th Amendment Article 5 and you have all of the answers to your questions.
So, Timmy, you’re saying gays are undeserving of civil rights protections?
I think what he’s saying is that those rights are already protected by law. De facto protection isn’t up to the law, it’s up to law enforcement.
Thorley – “there really is no choice for those who value the rule of law but to support a constitutional amendment.”
You’ve clearly elided some steps in your reasoning because the conclusion simply doesn’t follow.
You claim two events which ‘force’ us to enshrine recognition of your favored definition of marriage as the only one allowed by federal law.
The first is the issuance of marriage licenses by the mayor of SF. If indeed these licenses are illegitimate, they are voided. That question will be answered in due time. In the meantime, the participants are either getting married, or pretending to get married, according to whatever the people of California of decide through their elected leaders, and that’s their right as citizens of that state. This is not a place for the US Constitution.
The second is the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts of their constitution. I’m not sure how or why you’re more of an expert on Massachusetts constitutional law than their supreme court, but you’re welcome to your opinion. Regardless, if the people of Massachusetts are uncomfortable with their constitution, they can change it.
Look at that. . remedy all around for everyone to decide what is best for their state.
So explain to me why you believe that Washington DC dictating to Oregon what they can and can’t recognize as civil marriage is a more suitable remedy. (And don’t bother with defending yourself from full faith and credit. DoMA laws make it clear that out-of-state marriages that do not meet the local definition are not recognized).
Timmy, you’re saying gays are undeserving of civil rights protections?
Nope, just saying marriage isn’t a constitutional right.
I wrote:
To which Joshua replied:
Actually it’s more that Joshua edited out the first half of my sentence which read “[u]nless the former is overturned and the latter is shut down by the legal apparatus.” Of course this coincidentally happens to be the part, which undercuts the rest of his argument:
Only if the SCOMA decision is not overturned and if the lawbreaking by the mayor of San Francisco is not shut down by the legal apparatus which is what I wrote. Clearly I recognize that there are still remedies available at the State level. My comment about the necessity of the FMA is prefaced with these remedies.
It is one thing to be so dishonest as to selectively edit out that part of someone’s argument in order to distort what they wrote. It is another to be so stupid as to think that the author would not know what they wrote and catch you in the act.
Thorley, is there any particular reason you choose to continually insult me? If you are incapable of civil debate with me, let me know now.
“Only if the SCOMA decision is not overturned and if the lawbreaking by the mayor of San Francisco is not shut down by the legal apparatus which is what I wrote.”
First, I by no means ignored what you wrote. What you wrote is that if the peoples of Massachusetts and California do not resolve these issues in the manner that you prefer, you approve of dictating to them your preferred interpretation via the US Constitution. Is that a mischaracterization?
My argument is with the second part of your conditional. If California determines that they do not want to recognize these marriages, and Massachusetts changes their Constitution to disallow the judges their interpretation, then we have no argument and there’s nothing to address.
Ah, I think I broke typepad somehow and my post seems to have disappeared. If not, this is redundant and I apologize. I’ll just summarize:
Thorley, I don’t appreciate your personal attacks (as I’m sure you hoped) and whether you like me or not, they aren’t warranted.
I didn’t ignore the rest of your statement. It was a conditional. If it goes one way (the peoples of California and Massachusetts repudiate gay marriage via their constitutions), we don’t have an argument, so there’s no point in addressing it. Therefore the substance of my post addresses the other possibility. . that the peoples of California and Massachusetts do not repudiate it. If that is the case, you support dictating your (and many others’) version of the correct answer to them via the US Constitution, which I believe to be unwarranted and antithetical to federal principles.
Timmy woofs: Nope, just saying marriage isn’t a constitutional right.
True. If any state in the US wished to abolish marriage altogether, I believe (not sure) that they would be entitled to do that – certainly, I would think they would be entitled to do that as regards state benefits. But there are a thousand-plus federal benefits that marriage entitles a couple to get access to. Therefore, Amendment 14 comes into play: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Timmy said: Nope, just saying marriage isn’t a constitutional right.
And the Supreme Court said, in Loving v. Virginia,
Seems pretty clear to me that there is, indeed, a constitutional right to marriage to the person that you choose to marry.