From a property-rights standpoint; tax standpoint; kids’ rights standpoint, blah, blah, blah.

The real question is, who gets to decide who can get married: the state or the federal government?

I’m all for Equal Protection and don’t care that much about same-sex marriage, so long as it’s not propagandized in the public schools.

Marriage has been and is today entered into mainly for the purpose of responsibly bringing children into the world. This is a great matter of state (local) interest. It has nothing to do with same-sex couples.

Let same-sex couples have Fairriage, or Darriage, or whatever. Give ‘em the rights of married couples…I don’t care. Just don’t call it marriage.

There’s more at stake here than gay and lesbian rights. The Left is trying to distort reality by distorting the meaning of one of the most important words in the English language. It’s a classic Leftist ploy. There’s a lot more at stake here than meets the eye.

Perhaps it is instructive to mention that the 1856 platform of the Republican Party featured the following: “It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.”

By the 1857 Dred Scott ruling, which the author mentions, judges were deciding that slavery would prevail through the whole land, regardless of state law.

However, in the 1858 Illinois U.S. Senate race, Sen. Douglas argued for “popular sovereignty” — allowing each territory to decide its slave status upon entrance into the union as a state. Mr. Lincoln took the more difficult course, arguing that, under Natural Law, no man should be a slave to another.

In this context, one can understand that, if the voters of a state decided through an initiative to institute slavery, we would know it to be wrong — in this case, Douglas would argue for the people, Lincoln would argue for the principle.

Many of the same arguments exist in the debate over same-sex marriage as well. Can it ever be called right? Does a vote of the people make it right? Does a judge’s ruling make it right?

And what about polygamy? Officially legal in at least four nations and a basic tenant of Islam, is there not a First Amendment religious freedom case that might be made for it — a case that is stronger constitutionally and from a Natural Law standpoint than the case for same-sex marriage?

I’ve always thought that resting our argument on votes of the general public in this matter was an inadequate defense on an issue that rests on a basic understanding of the nature of Man.

Sadly, as with the Dred Scott decision, of which Lincoln said in his House Divided speech, “It will become all one thing, or all the other…” same-sex marriage will de facto spread to all 50 states due to the fact that contracts written in one state are recognized in another. This may happen whether we “like it or not” in the words of former San Francisco Mayor and current California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on appeal.

Just like Bill Clinton defined “is”, that “liberal” and “progressive” are defined by the current holders of the title, and that “gay” was redefined. These justices fit under the Middle Age definition of “silly” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/silly)

…have to give thought to what this really means for us as a nation. Not really this specific ruling, but the general acceptance of a vile lifestyle, and the promotion of it by a party that represents half the country.

God help us.

The Ninth Circuit decision basically stands for the proposition that once gay marriage has been accepted, no political authority can remove that right without violating the U.S. Constitution. To do so would lack a rational basis and constitute invidious discrimination. So basically, if any state court or legislature or referendum ever passes, the issue is settled for all time.

That’s an extremely strange result, and the Court reaches that result because they’re straining to extend the Roemer precedent to the Prop 8 cases. In a desperate plea to Justice Kennedy, the Ninth Circuit equates Prop 8 to the laws at issue in Roemer, which actually removed all legal protections from gays and lesbians. The Court there, unsurprisingly found such laws to lack a rational basis, because they were invidiously discriminatory (ie it was very clear denying all legal protections to gays was done just out of animus without any legitimate state interest).

It’ll be interesting to see if Kennedy takes the bait here. He’s also the driving force behind Lawrence v Texas, and the 4 liberals on the Court would very much like his vote on this. Hence the bizarre decision to try to extend Kennedy’s Roemer decision beyond the bounds of reason.

I’m a contrarian around here, so I’ll tread lightly.

I have two questions:

1) Does the birth rate go down, or the quality of heterosexual family life suffer, when gay marriage is allowed?

2) In your opinion, is there a process leading to a nationwide recognition of gay marriage that you would accept as legitimate?

Thanks.

Since there are no consequences for an anti-constitutional decision, judges can decide whatever they like. The only reason they need to even pay lip service to the law, is so they don’t get overruled by the next judges up the line.

Until Congress is willing to impeach judges for violating the Constitution they swore to uphold, or until federal/state executives are willing to play hardball, I don’t see much solution for this.

I don’t wish to offend, but here is my frank view regarding the position (and passion) some have on this issue. (And I hope expressing my view is not a reason or excuse for someone to ban me. If a moderator feels I’ve said something very inappropriate for RS, I’d appreciate being told so rather than banning, and I’ll know such an opinion can’t be expressed here).

I think all the talk about the societal interest in procreation is really just a front argument.

I’ve tried in the past to engage opponents of marriage equality in a rational discussion only to find that it’s easy to reveal one front argument after another to be just that, and the only result is hostility from them and persistent non-response responses to questions and arguments to which they have no actual answers that would support their position.

Once all the front arguments are stripped away, we are left with the true reason why they oppose marriage equality — and do so passionately and consider it a major issue among their political priorities: They want (in most cases for religious reasons) for the state to implicitly state, on behalf of our society through the law, that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships and are offensive to our “values”, and “values” (along with “tradition”) is essentially a euphemism for religious doctrine.

There is not a finite number of marriage licenses such that allowing same-sex couples to marry would deprive any opposite-sex couples from marrying. And letting gay couples marry won’t cause some significant drop in heterosexual marriage and related procreation (As Jon Steward put it well, “I used to be opposed to gay marriage, until I found out it wasn’t mandatory.”). And no one has a problem with allowing people who cannot bear children to marry, nor would they have any problem with it if it were easy and non-intrusive to verify fertility. The procreation argument (or even the child-rearing argument) is simply not the real basis for the objection to marriage equality for same-sex couples. It’s just a front argument. One could go on with numerous ways to reveal it as such (I’ve offered just a bit), but I’ve found it not worthwhile because those serving up those arguments have, in my experience anyway, proven unwilling to engage in good faith, so it’s just a waste of time.

I wish opponents of marriage equality would just be honest (in some cases with themselves first) and say that their objection is based on their belief, based on their religious doctrine, that homosexuality is a sin and should be discouraged and not elevated by laws that some may see as recognition of moral acceptability of homosexual relationships. Then the debate could focus on that actual objection rather than wandering around in an inescapably fruitless journey dealing with front arguments.

The Constitution most certainly does not rule that the Courts make the big decisions and the People and our Legislatures may make the inconsequential decisions.

Look back in history and you’ll find a time that government had no interest in marriage. It was regarded as a religious ceremony only, not as a “contract” nor did it have bearing on inheritance or other laws.

At some point, the government started getting involved in marriage in part due to the clarity it offered around inheritance, especially inheritance of feudal position. Born the first legitimate son of a baron, you’re a baron. Born on the wrong side of the blanket, you may be an acknowledged bastard, but you still cannot inherit the title.

Fast forward, and we now have two competing definitions of “marriage” – the church sacrament, and the government contract.

If it’s the word that matters, then – given the history – the legitimate ownership of the word belongs to the church, and only the church ought have the right to say “This is a marriage”.

If it’s the contract that matters, then California appears to have already settled this .. last time I checked, they allow civil unions with all the rights and trimmings.

So.

There’s a rather obvious compromise here, for the church to “repo” the word marriage. Require government to remove the word from all documents, substituting “civil union”, for all legal purposes, i.e. turn marriage back into a sacrament of the church.

This threatens no Christian marriage – if you’re legally and church-wed today, you’re still married. (the check-box on the 1040 changes from “married filing jointly” to “civil union filing jointly”)

This also changes the venue of the fight from the narrow way of D.C., where nine men in robes and 500 some odd yahoos in Congress get to dictate policy to society in general, where church marriage can prove itself better, stronger, more faithful .. if it can. (current divorce rates argue there’s some work needed…)

Finally, this muffles the screaming from the Libs. If only the church has the right to say “This is a marriage”, then it’s a matter of personal, religious liberty.

Unless the Libs are prepared to try to legislate religion – and the backlash against the Obama contraception trial-balloon indicates they *can’t* win it even if they try – then there’s nothing the Left can *legally* do. You think they wouldn’t get laughed out of court for asking a private, religious organization to perform a religious ceremony with no legal ramifications?

Flame on.

Mew

Problem is, Gay marriage will likely be supported by the majority of voters in CA very soon if this the case already.

Is the solution a yearly referendum? That would produce a truly ugly, conflicted and contradictory situation in the near-term.

And then, what should happen when the majority consistently approves of Gay marriage year after year, what then? Consider that “40% of white evangelical Millennials favor allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, compared to only 12% of evangelical seniors and 19% of evangelicals overall.”

- http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/
- http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/section-8-domestic-and-foreign-policy-views/

I don’t believe the courts need to be involved in this. The 28 constitutional bans were a reaction to the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in 2004. It is what it is.

However, we’ve hit a tipping point. I honestly believe it’s all downhill from here. The big indicator are the national polls that say for the first time ever a majority of Americans now approve of gay marriage.

Add to the the momentum in the states and … it’s hard not to disagree. Hawaii and Delware enacted civil unions on Jan 1st. Washington is now the 7th state if it survives a referendum (Polling -> It will). Colorado is now considering civil unions. Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois are all considering gay marriage bills right now. It’s very possible that we could have 10 states by the end of this year.

So, yeah, I don’t believe we need the courts. Sure the courts will eventually probably rule in the affirmative, but long after it becomes a non-issue for a large majority of Americans.

Constitution. If it were, then anyone could marry anyone. This would include siblings marrying one another, parent-child, minors marrying adults, etc. Yet that does not occur because are society deems them wrong or immoral, if you will.

Morality plays a role in our laws, based on natural law and moral codes of conduct. This may not be acceptable to some, but this does not make it untrue.

Now the Left, who has demeaned the very concept of morality, seeks to impose their social views on others via the Supreme Court. This to me is unacceptable. The people of the state of CA have the right to determine how their community defines marriage, without Big Brother slapping them down.

It is very interesting to read how many ways there are for people to rationalize away sin. Eve did it in the Garden when she was faced with the challenge to do right and not eat the fruit from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And alas, today we still suffer the effects of her and Adam’s foolish decision.

There is one truth that nobody can change, no matter what you believe or think. That truth is God made us and has the rule over us period. I can show you many a place in His Word that tells us homosexuality and sodomy are wrong. His Word also says that unfaithfulness to a husband or wife in marriage is also wrong. It is quite clear in the Holy Scriptures that sex before marriage is wrong. The New Testament makes it quite clear that polygamy is wrong. Marriage in the Bible is a picture of God’s relationship to Israel and Christ’s relationship in the New Testament to His bride the Church. God is not a polygamist. Nor is Christ.

The problem we face now in this nation and it is far more damaging than the symptoms (like homosexuality or premarrital living together) is that our nation, that was started as one nation after the ordinances of God and His Word is now removed from that fact. It has taken 200 years to accomplish that goal by the followers of Satan, the God of this world. And with that dismal rejection of God and all that He has to offer us has a consequence. The wages of sin is death. James was inspired to tell it like this, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lusts, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” We are now at that point. We have been carried away with our lusts as a nation. People lust after property, money, sex, drugs, power, popularity all of which are good in their place, but when we transgress the purpose of reason for each to the point where we cannot contain our thirst or lust for them then we become corrupted, vile, and miserably wicked and wanton.

We stand in the balance today. God told Israel that he had put before them life and death. He compels them to chose life. America has that same challenge today. I fear we are on the verge of losing everything good and decent that our great God has offered to us because of our raging lusts and inability to she the difference between good and evil.

Many of you in what you write prove my point. And many claim to be “right-wingers” who are moral and upright. Yet you cannot see the difference between Holy Matrimony and Homosexuality.

The conclusion to the matter? America is gone. But bless God, He has a better land awaiting those of us who truly believe His Word and have accepted His great Gift, His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ! Chose you this day – Life or Death. Only you can decide that for you!

Marriage is a religious ceremony protected by the Constitution. Everyone has the freedom top practice their religion. If you want rights and you want to be free, you have to let others be free and have rights. You aren’t the only one that gets rights and yo0u can’t impose your religion on anyone.

First of all, I am a conservative and I do not support gay marriage as policy nor believe the Constitution requires “marriage equality.”

But I’m still not convinced on this narrow legal issue.

The key for me is what you observe:

“… admittedly, California law’s expansive domestic partnership and palimony laws have long failed to give much in the way of privileged legal status to traditional marriage.”

Essentially, the Perry panel came to the conclusion that the domestic partnership gave gay unions all the rights of marriage and already legitimized them – even for the purpose of child raising. It is on that background, that only the word “marriage” was reserved. So on that background, what was the rational reason to not call them marriage? Discomfort? Feelings are not inherently irrational, but hardly qualify as “reason.”

You continue:

“But again, the Perry panel majority fails to consider the common-sense point that maintaining some of the social and cultural respect unique to marriage (the very thing the panel majority just got done trumpeting in significance) is the very least thing the state can do to preserve the status of an institution that is so vital to raising the next generation.”

I agree with the importance of child-rearing for separating gay and straight unions, but wasn’t it the legislature that had already done away with that differentiation?

“The state has a compelling – to the point of being existential – interest in encouraging the birth of children. This is especially true in a world of declining birth rates and an entitlement state whose demographic premises are rapidly eroding (and no American state is in as dire fiscal straits as California).”

Again, I agree. But this doesn’t seem relevant when the elected government has already done away with the differentiation.

The only reason for the panel to stay its hand would be the principle of judicial restraint – even if the reservation of the word “marriage” appears to serve no real reason. I have a hard time finding substantive error with the court’s reasoning.

This definitely gives us supporters of civil unions something to consider. I believe in letting people live their lives as they see fit and allowing them to share privileges and responsibilities. It’s a matter of practicality and freedom.

The easiest way around this is to provide a broad definition of domestic partnership to cover any two adults who are not married – not requiring an “intimate” same-sex relationship, as CA has. For example, it would allow two elderly friends to form a domestic partnership (same or different sex) for certain legal benefits – not because they want an intimate relationship. This would preserve marriage for the romantic unions. California did not do so in any substantive way.