Home > IRTIC's, Marriage Redefinition > Intelligent Replies to Idiotic Comments, Part 3: A Dumb thing attributed to Gov. Rick Perry

Intelligent Replies to Idiotic Comments, Part 3: A Dumb thing attributed to Gov. Rick Perry

August 15th, 2011

Governor Rick Perry made news with his comments about the definition of marriage at an event in Aspen:

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me….That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

Now, I have been involved in the marriage debate long enough to know that people often take words out of context, distort their meaning, and flat out lie. Whatever Gov Perry may have said or intended to say, the sentiments attributed to him are actually pretty common.  So, without passing judgment on Gov Perry, let’s take this opportunity to analyze this statement. As it happens, these very common sentiments fit nicely into my continuing series: “Intelligent Replies to Idiotic Comments.”

There are at least two idiotic ideas embedded in this statement attributed to Gov Perry.  First, the idea that the marriage issue is or ought to be a “state’s rights” simply doesn’t  work. It may have been a good idea 5 years ago. But that idea has been left in the dust of events. Second, it is pure foolishness to assert that because “our friends” in NY redefined marriage, no one else has any right to say anything against it. It is highly dubious that those responsible for redefining marriage are “friends” to anyone else in the country, or in the Republican Party, or to the people of New York.

As to the first point: it is no longer possible to believe that the definition of marriage can be a states’ rights issue. There are numerous avenues by which gay activists are trying to use the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution to leverage the genderless marriage law from one state on states where the people have spoken clearly in favor of man/woman marriage.  This possibility has been apparent for some time.

But more recent events are even more devastating to the “leave it to the states” position on the marriage issue. Massachusetts is attempting to use its genderless marriage law to overturn the laws of all the states, through its suit against DOMA.  Likewise, the attempt by Ted Olson and David Boies to overturn Proposition 8 in federal court, if successful, will end even the possibility of the states doing what they want.  If the Supreme Court “discovers” a federal right to genderless marriage, that will be the complete end of any state’s rights on the subject.  All the states that have amended their constitutions to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, will be completely overridden by that single ruling.

So, anyone who is serious about the rights of the states to create and maintain their own marriage laws, must immediately add:

“That is why I support the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Without the federal DOMA, the states simply will be unable to have their own marriage policies. As president I will be absolutely committed to defending DOMA in the courts, precisely because DOMA is the tool which allows the 10th Amendment to do its job in this arena.”

And

“I absolutely support the voters of California, who made themselves perfectly clear through a perfectly legal election process. They made the strongest  statement available to them about the definition of marriage. I abhor the gay activists’ attempts to place the voters of California on trial. Olson and Boies should be ashamed of themselves.”

This is the sort of thing someone like Governor Perry ought to say if they really believe the states should decide the marriage question for themselves. It just makes no sense to say “leave it to the states,” without adding one or both of these statements.

As to the second bad idea attributed to Governor Perry, I will take it up in another post.

 

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. August 15th, 2011 at 15:27 | #1

    “So, anyone who is serious about the rights of the states to create and maintain their own marriage laws…”

    But that doesn’t include NOM, which supports a federal marriage amendment that would abolish “the rights of the states to create and maintain their own marriage laws.” Which also means that NOM (despite its rhetoric) doesn’t support the right of the people to vote directly on their marriage laws, as the Constitution does not permit direct votes by the people on such an amendment.

  2. John Noe
    August 15th, 2011 at 16:42 | #2

    It has become obvious by now that a Federal Defense Amendment is needed because homosexuals are proving over and over again that they do not respect states rights and the will of the people. The only states rights about it was the fact that the state was the one that gave the marriage licenses.
    However the above blog shows that if one state gets SSM then the homosexual activist crybaby their way into the court house and try to get the federal court to impose its phony view on marriage regardless of the vote of the people. The Prop8 court case is just that. Looking for a I do not give a damn judge like Walker who just so happended to be a homosexual activist and instead of recusing himself imposed his NO on 8 vote on the voters of CA. Not only that he tried to nullify the voters in the 31 other states. So we have a problem, we and NOM win the vote fair and sqaure at the ballot box at all of the states levels and the homosexuals and the ACLU simply give the finger to the voters and get these activist judges to impose this counterfelt marriage on the rest of the country.
    DOMA was needed and enacted because the federal government bestowed over a 1000 federal benefits( tax breaks) on the institution of marriage based on it being one man and one woman. DOMA was also supposed to protect ” states rights”. But once again the homosexuals hoped on their high horse and are trying to find a judge to overturn DOMA against the will of the people and our duly elected membors of Congress. The homos continue to have this snobbish, conceited, self centered, and superior attitude that only their views count. The 2-3% of the population claims a right to tell the over 95% of the population what the laws will be. The hell with democracy.
    Sad to say, but only a federal defense of marriage act written into the Constitution is our best defense against the ACLU and homsoxual activists determined to get this phony marriage imposed on all of us through endless litigation.

  3. Leo
    August 15th, 2011 at 19:21 | #3

    The Roberts court is one of the more conservative courts, but the current lawfare environment does create an opportunity to pass a DOMA amendment. The more radical the legal claims that are being advanced, the better the chance that the SCOTUS will uphold the current DOMA law. The more radical a court decision, the better the chance that the people will rise up against it.

    There are two types of DOMA amendments.

    One would define marriage at the federal level and prohibit one state from imposing its definition on another state. Each state would be free to not recognize a definition of marriage that differed from the union of one man and one woman. This would mirror the current federal DOMA law. It would recognize the traditional role of states in defining family law. It would allow for local democracy. It could also leave a patchwork of laws, but that is federalism. If you travel on an interstate highway, the speed limits change from state to state. States traditionally license marriage as well as firearms, and states have different gun licensing laws. I would be satisfied with this type of amendment.

    Another type of DOMA would define marriage at the federal level and prohibit states from redefining marriage or creating civil unions that were the equivalent of marriage. This would be harder to pass, but it would eliminate the patchwork. It could be passed democratically and constitutionally by having the states ratify by convention where the convention is determined by popular vote. That would preserve democracy and might have a chance of passing.

    There is also an international dimension. Will we have to recognize same sex unions from Canada as marriages? Will we have to recognize plural marriages from Saudi Arabia? An amendment should also explicitly address that.

  4. Rob Tisinai
    August 15th, 2011 at 20:18 | #4

    In that case, John. NOM should be honest and stop telling people they stand for the righr of the people to vote on the matter.

  5. August 16th, 2011 at 08:27 | #5

    @Leo There needs to a federal law that prohibits labs from making babies any way other than joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes. And another federal law that sets a uniform effect of marriage, as the FF&C clause calls for so that states can recognize each others acts. The uniform effect of marriage should be established as protecting the right to procreate natural offspring. so no state can neuter marriage by declaring a couple married that is prohibited from procreating offspring together, or prevent any married couple (married in any state) from procreating offspring together.

  6. August 16th, 2011 at 08:31 | #6

    Canada should also enact the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, and all countries.

  7. August 16th, 2011 at 12:35 | #7

    Rob Tisinai :
    “So, anyone who is serious about the rights of the states to create and maintain their own marriage laws…”
    But that doesn’t include NOM, which supports a federal marriage amendment that would abolish “the rights of the states to create and maintain their own marriage laws.” Which also means that NOM (despite its rhetoric) doesn’t support the right of the people to vote directly on their marriage laws, as the Constitution does not permit direct votes by the people on such an amendment.

    Yeah, they only mean the rights of the states they agree with. States like my New York apparently don’t deserve those rights.

  8. bman
    August 16th, 2011 at 14:21 | #8

    @Rob Tisinai

    …NOM (despite its rhetoric) doesn’t support the right of the people to vote directly on their marriage laws, as the Constitution does not permit direct votes by the people on such an amendment.

    So what do you say is the correct position to hold on the right of people to vote regarding marriage laws?

  9. Sean
    August 16th, 2011 at 16:30 | #9

    “So what do you say is the correct position to hold on the right of people to vote regarding marriage laws?”

    Because marriage has been deemed a fundamental right by the US Supreme Court, it is now beyond the reach of popular will. Only the courts have genuine jurisdiction, so to speak.

  10. August 16th, 2011 at 17:37 | #10

    bman: “So what do you say is the correct position to hold on the right of people to vote regarding marriage laws?”

    That’s an excellent question. I’m not sure of the answer. But I do know this: One’s answer to this question should not be the exact opposite of the policy one tries to enact, as is the case with NOM.

  11. Leo
    August 16th, 2011 at 17:53 | #11

    @Sean

    The SCOTUS has deemed marriage to be a fundamental right, AND the SCOTUS has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Murphy v. Ramsey).

  12. bman
    August 16th, 2011 at 19:47 | #12

    Rob Tisinai :
    bman: “So what do you say is the correct position to hold on the right of people to vote regarding marriage laws?”

    RT: That’s an excellent question. I’m not sure of the answer. But I do know this: One’s answer to this question should not be the exact opposite of the policy one tries to enact, as is the case with NOM.

    Let’s ask you that same question but apply it to racial segregation.

    If a state legislature voted for racial segregation and you believed the people were against it, would you be for “let the people vote” or “let the legislature decide?”

    What if it was the other way around where the legislature was against segregation but the people of a state were for it? Would you be for “let the people vote” or for “let the legislature decide?”

    Most would have a different answer for each scenario.

    In the first scenario most would let the people vote, but in the second, most would let the legislature decide.

    Thus, where there is a strong moral issue at stake, its rational to suppose one would consistently side with that rather than a certain method of voting.

    It seems your attack on NOM poses a false dilemma, therefore, since the answer can and should change depending on the scenario.

  13. August 16th, 2011 at 22:04 | #13

    Thanks, bman, you’ve just established my point: NOM does not care about the people’s right to vote — they only care about getting the result they want. So when NOM champions the PRINCIPLE of letting the people vote (and it certainly claims to), they’re being hypocritical.

    QED

  14. Heidi
    August 17th, 2011 at 07:48 | #14

    Sean is right. The issues at stake in this debate do not belong to the people for a popular vote. We are ultimately talking about whether the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution require marriage equality for LGBT people. We are also talking tangentially about the 10th Amendment and the full faith and credit clause (at least with respect to the constitutionality of DOMA). The constitutional analysis of the issues raised by the fight for marriage equality is a job exclusively belonging to the federal courts, and more specifically, to the SCOTUS. Now, several state supreme courts have ruled that their respective state constitutions require marriage equality, and those decisions cannot be overruled by the SCOTUS, unless they were unconstitutional in and of themselves (violated the federal Constitution), which they are not. Even if the SCOTUS were to rule that marriage equality in the states is not required under the federal Constitution, that decision would not negate the decisions of all of the states that have marriage equality now. A state is always perfectly free to give its citizens more rights than are required under the federal Constitution. In any event, the final word on federal marriage equality will be given by the SCOTUS.

    Leo, just because there is SCOTUS precedent regarding same-sex marriage does not mean that such precedent is always the final word on the issue. Plessy v. Ferguson was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education and Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas. It is not unheard of for the SCOTUS to reverse itself when examining the contours of the fundamental rights of citizens under the federal Constitution.

  15. bman
    August 17th, 2011 at 11:30 | #15

    Rob Tisinai :
    Thanks, bman, you’ve just established my point: NOM does not care about the people’s right to vote — they only care about getting the result they want. So when NOM champions the PRINCIPLE of letting the people vote (and it certainly claims to), they’re being hypocritical.

    What it establishes is that your “point” is moot.

    You could also say, “whoever opposes racism only cares about getting the result they want,” but that wording hides the fact “what they want” is for a genuine moral principle to be upheld.

    You might have been able to see this, as well, if you simply answered the question that was asked of you.

    In the two scenarios, “…would you be for “let the people vote” or “let the legislature decide?”

  16. bman
    August 17th, 2011 at 11:47 | #16

    Heidi: The issues at stake in this debate do not belong to the people for a popular vote. We are ultimately talking about whether the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution require marriage equality for LGBT people.

    Of course this was already addressed by the California Supreme Court in Strauss when it accepted that the people had the right to change the Constitution on marriage. It certainly had the opportunity to rule then that due process and equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution prevented it, but it did not.

    Likewise, the US Supreme Court already addressed the issue when it ruled against SSM in Baker v. Nelson, when it dismissed the case on the merits as lacking a federal question.

    Ultimately, the question come down to what the Constitution means to the people. If the court gets it wrong, the people have the right to overrule the court by amending the Constitution.

  17. August 17th, 2011 at 12:41 | #17

    The people should not vote on marriage. CONGRESS should protect marriage and establish the effect of marriage as approving of the couple having procreative sex and conceiving offspring from their own genes. That’s what the Constitution says Congress is supposed to do in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. There is no need for an FMA, all it will do is waste time and money (or make you money, if you are a professional marriage debater.)

  18. August 17th, 2011 at 13:48 | #18

    bman, with every post, you reiterate my point: NOM is being dishonest when they claim (as they do) to champion the PRINCIPLE that people should be able to vote on same sex marriage. As you point out, NOM only wants the vote when it believes the vote will go their way.

    To sum up:
    My problem is NOT that NOM says it believes the people the have right to vote directly on same sex marriage.
    My problem is NOT that NOM pushes a federal marriage amendment that would take this right away from the people.
    No, my problem is that the’re doing both these things AT THE SAME TIME.

    That makes them hypocrites. As you keep pointing out, NOM clearly does not believe that the people have the right to vote directly on this. Even though they say they do.

  19. August 17th, 2011 at 13:54 | #19

    bman, let me address your question directly:

    “If a state legislature voted for racial segregation and you believed the people were against it, would you be for “let the people vote” or “let the legislature decide?””

    Suppose I answered, “I want whichever method that will get rid of racial discrimination.”

    That would be fine UNLESS I PROMOTED MYSELF AS A CHAMPION OF “LET THE PEOPLE VOTE.” In which I would be a hypocrite in promoting myself that way. Just as NOM is a hypocrite for promoting themselves this way.

  20. Leo
    August 17th, 2011 at 18:14 | #20

    @Heidi

    The Supreme Court can reverse itself. But until it does, the previous precedent applies, which the courts should defer to until it is reversed, and I am free to disregard all your legal claims. That is the theory of positive law: the law is just what the Supreme Court says it is.

    This also goes for state laws. The state’s highest court gets to interpret the state’s law (as long as it does not violate the U.S. Constitution), but a court in one state cannot impose its laws on another state or on the federal government.

    The theory of natural law says that some laws should be restrained by natural rights, like the right of the people to be governed only with their consent, hence the revolutionary phrase “no taxation without representation.” The founders held in the Declaration of Independence that a government that did not enjoy the consent of the governed was not just. In Chinese terms, it did not enjoy the mandate of heaven. One proper remedy in this case would be a constitutional amendment that enjoyed the support of the people.

    As I have pointed out to Rob, it is possible to ratify a constitutional amendment by allowing the people in each state to vote on it. It could actually pass in all fifty states. Making the current federal DOMA into an amendment would still preserve the right of each state to have its own laws. They would just not be able to impose those laws on other states or on the federal government. This would let the people vote, preserve federalism, and preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

  21. bman
    August 17th, 2011 at 19:27 | #21

    @Rob Tisinai

    Robert Tisinai: > That would be fine UNLESS I PROMOTED MYSELF AS A CHAMPION OF “LET THE PEOPLE VOTE.” In which I would be a hypocrite in promoting myself that way. Just as NOM is a hypocrite for promoting themselves this way.

    I suspect you are misapplying something NOM said.

    Do you have links and quotations to support your claim?

  22. August 17th, 2011 at 22:03 | #22

    Sure bamn. Go to NOM’s newly-launched web site, letthepeoplevote dot com (sometimes messages with links get filtered out here, so just put that url into a browswer). Anyway, you’ll find this:

    “A new era in the debate about same-sex marriage has begun. It’s not about what politicians think is best, it’s about demanding that the People be given their right to be heard.”

    There’s also the graphic from NOM’s homepage which says, “Stand up to protest the redefinition of marriage and demand your right to vote.”

    NOM is saying people have a “right to vote.” Naturally, NOM would rather they vote the way NOM wants them to, but NOM keeps presenting themselves as champions of the People’s “right to vote.”

  23. August 17th, 2011 at 22:06 | #23

    @Leo: “As I have pointed out to Rob, it is possible to ratify a constitutional amendment by allowing the people in each state to vote on it.”

    No. That’s simply not true. Article V of the Constitution allows just two ways for a state to ratify a federal Constitutional amendment: through the legislature, or through a convention. Either way, the people do not vote directly on the amendment.

  24. Anne
    August 18th, 2011 at 05:20 | #24

    @Rob Tisinai
    “Thanks, bman, you’ve just established my point: NOM does not care about the people’s right to vote — they only care about getting the result they want.”

    Why do you limit your accusations to NOM? The homosexual community in New York rammed gay marriage through the legislature without regard for what the people wanted. They’re doing the same thing in the courts with Prop 8. There is no purity of tactic to the homosexual agenda and its efforts that you should be exclusively pointing to NOM.

    The efforts are passionately driven on both sides of this paramount concern.

    There are plenty of comments on this blog from proponents of “gay marriage” who claim it is the will of the people. It isn’t. Which means that the homosexual community is willing to impose it’s will on the people. It is not a noble position by any means.

    Alleging flaws in your opponents position doesn’t lend credibility to your own.

  25. August 18th, 2011 at 11:22 | #25

    Anne, check out my post #19. My concern is not about “purity of tactics.” If NOM wants to use any legal means available, they can go right ahead.

    No, the problem I keep pointing out over and over, is that NOM promotes itself as champions of the peoples right to vote, when in fact (with its federal marriage amendment) it’s actually trying to take away people’s right to vote.

    My issue (in this thread, anyway) is not about which particular tactic NOM or anyone else chooses. It’s that NOM is dishonestly presenting itself as champions of the principle of the people’s right to vote when in fact they’re trying to take away that right.

  26. August 18th, 2011 at 11:27 | #26

    @Anne: “Alleging flaws in your opponents position doesn’t lend credibility to your own.”

    True. But what’s your point? I’m not always trying to prove everything in the world with every single post — no one can do that. With this thread I’m trying to point out the distance between NOM’s words and its actions.

  27. bman
    August 18th, 2011 at 20:44 | #27

    Rob Tisinai :
    NOM is saying people have a “right to vote.” Naturally, NOM would rather they vote the way NOM wants them to, but NOM keeps presenting themselves as champions of the People’s “right to vote.”

    Since you did not quote a NOM comment on the federal marriage amendment, I looked for a statement and found this,

    “We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.” From: Marriage Talking Points.

    I am fairly certain that website has been available to the public before the website you mentioned. So, its not like NOM is hiding its intentions. It wants a federal marriage amendment to solve the issue once and for all.

    In the website you mentioned, NOM is campaigning for a measure to be placed on the 2015 ballot in New York where the people can vote to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

    If we presume the American people agree with NOM on the definition of marriage and that the people of NY do also, we can easily reconcile letting the people vote in the states until a federal marriage amendment finally resolves the issue.

    It appears, however, that you are “trying” to create the appearance of hypocrisy where none exists.

    Basically, your argument is flawed because you are pitting two abstract principles against each other: “let the people vote” and “let’s have a Constitutional amendment where the people don’t directly vote.” This, however, removes the surrounding context in which NOM’s statements were made, which is a classical mistake.

    Since we know NOM is ultimately for a federal marriage amendment, its reasonable to presume NOM never intended the NY campaign to be viewed as an abstract principle for every context, as you took it to be. We should instead presume NOM seriously wants to achieve that in NY by 2015 as a short term practical goal, with the long term goal being a federal marriage amendment.

    If NOM’s goal for NY is a valid short term goal given its mission statement, it would be enough to refute the abstract basis that your hypocrisy charge depends upon.

    Your hypocrisy charge also violates a gentleman’s rule. When an author seems to contradict himself you should first check if you missed the author’s connecting idea before making a derogatory statement bout the author. You don’t want to make a false accusation when a connecting idea is available to the author because that could reflect on you negatively.

    Whether you agree or disagree with the connecting idea of a short tern practical goal, as I proposed, there are other possible connecting ideas available to NOM. You need to rule them all out before you make any accusation.

    That is the most reasonable position to hold.

    It would be unrealistic to presume NOM can have no valid connecting idea when such ideas are theoretically possible. Your hypocrisy accusation does that very thing, however.

    Thus, your accusation depends upon an unrealistic presumption.

  28. Anne
    August 19th, 2011 at 07:29 | #28

    @Rob Tisinai
    “True. But what’s your point? I’m not always trying to prove everything in the world with every single post — no one can do that. With this thread I’m trying to point out the distance between NOM’s words and its actions.”

    Why?

  29. August 19th, 2011 at 10:54 | #29

    Anne: Why? Because NOM is an organization trying to deny me my right to marry my partner, and doing it in the name of morality. I’m fighting for my rights in part by pointing NOM’s dishonesty and highlighting the fact that they cannot be trusted in their rhetoric.

  30. August 19th, 2011 at 11:05 | #30

    bman, your argument requires you to ignore that NOM over and over in state after state has presented itself as a champion of the principle of the people’s right to vote on same sex marriage.

    But here’s a very specific quote from Maggie Gallagher:

    “Look at this crowd, is this amazing? So many people of every race, creed, and color, standing up for what’s right, marriage as the union of a husband and wife who can give a child the love and care of a mother and father, and for the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote.”

    Again: “the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote.” There’s no way you can read that quote as saying NOM only supports the people voting in New York as a limited and purely tactical strategy. Not when NOM says, “the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote.”

    I did not break a gentleman’s agreement. I did my research. NOM presents itself as a champion of “the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote,” while pursuing a strategy that would take away this right.

    That’s hypocrisy.

  31. Anne
    August 19th, 2011 at 14:07 | #31

    @Rob Tisinai
    “Because NOM is an organization trying to deny me my right to marry my partner, and doing it in the name of morality. I’m fighting for my rights in part by pointing NOM’s dishonesty and highlighting the fact that they cannot be trusted in their rhetoric.”

    I don’t believe you have a “right to marry your partner”. I believe “gay marriage” opposes truth. NOM disagrees with you too. In fact, the majority of Americans disagree with you. The truth is that “gay marriage” is not what the people want. Our government allows people to vote. It also allows people to petition their governmental representatives to legislate what they believe is right. There is nothing hypocritical or disingenuous about either of those tactics. Or even the combination of them. What is hypocritical and dishonest is what happened in New York, where legislators denied the voice of the people and established a law that oppresses public opinion of morality and social justice.

  32. August 19th, 2011 at 14:42 | #32

    Anne, you asked me why I was doing this. I answered.

    And, for the last time: I don’t think there’s anything hypocritical in promoting yourself as a champion of the people’s right to vote on same sex marriage. Or in pursuing a strategy that would take away the people’s right to vote on same sex marriage.

    The hypocrisy lies in doing both those things AT THE SAME TIME.

    To put it another way, there’s no hypocrisy in sometimes pursuing a tactic of letting the people vote, and sometimes putting it to the legislature. Please don’t pretend I’m accusing NOM of hypocrisy just because they’re using a combination of tactics.

    No, the hypocrisy lies in NOM presenting itself as a champion of the PRINCIPLE of the people’s right to vote while working to take away that right.

  33. August 19th, 2011 at 15:41 | #33

    Anne: “Or even the combination of them. What is hypocritical and dishonest is what happened in New York, where legislators denied the voice of the people and established a law that oppresses public opinion of morality and social justice.”

    What makes you think the marriage equality law goes against public opinion in New York State?

  34. John Noe
    August 19th, 2011 at 16:50 | #34

    Because NOM is an organization trying to deny me my right to marry my partner, and doing it in the name of morality. I’m fighting for my rights

    Here we see the lies put out by the homosexual activists. Let us examine the truth.

    Nobody but nobody including heterosexuals has a right to marry whoever they want and to demad that the state recognize it. Not true. The homosexuals use the word rights in many cases where no right is violated and confuse the population in knowing the differences between rights and priviledges of the state.

    The marriage license as granted by the state is a PRIVILEDGE and not a right. There is no Constitutional right to demand that the government must recognize your relationship. If it was a right then someone could marry their cactus plant. After all it is a right. It is impossible for any state to violate Rob’s rights as the license that it offers is a priviledge. If you want the priviledge of the government recognition then you must abide by the rules as set down by we the people. After all there is no Constitutional right for a homosexuals to demand that they make the rules.
    It should be noted that the benefits that the state grants in a marriage are also a priviledge. These benefits as granted by the state are incentives to procreate. This is the only reason why the government is in the marriage business and grants licenses with all of the benefits that come with it.

  35. bman
    August 19th, 2011 at 21:44 | #35

    @Rob Tisinai

    Robert Tisinai: bman, your argument requires you to ignore that NOM over and over in state after state has presented itself as a champion of the principle of the people’s right to vote on same sex marriage.

    No, but rather, you are dealing with appearances and not substance.

    Its perfectly reasonable to promote voting in the states “until” a federal marriage amendment finally resolves the issue.

    On the other hand, it would be quite unrealistic if NOM promoted voting in the states “instead of” a federal marriage amendment.

    That would leave any vote of the people against SSM unprotected from the court, as in Prop 8, with the vote of the people being wasted.

    There is no hypocrisy, therefore, in calling for the people to vote and also calling for a federal amendment to protect the vote of the people from being wasted by the courts.

  36. Sean
    August 20th, 2011 at 06:08 | #36

    Responding to John:

    “Nobody but nobody including heterosexuals has a right to marry whoever they want and to demad that the state recognize it.”

    That’s true: in no state can a person marry a sibling, or a child below 13 years of age, or someone already married.

    “The homosexuals use the word rights in many cases where no right is violated and confuse the population in knowing the differences between rights and priviledges of the state.”

    The US Supreme Court has called marriage a “fundamental right.” Whether it’s a right or a privilege, whatever distinction you perceive between the two, the state can’t offer marriage licenses to one group, but not another group, without a rational public purpose.

    “There is no Constitutional right to demand that the government must recognize your relationship.”

    But there is a constitutional right to be treated equally as your neighbor under the law. If the government is legalizing relationships, through marriage, and offering benefits that come with it, it has to do so on an equal basis. Imagine if the government said we’ll let white couples marry but not black couples. Or, as the states used to do, we’ll let same-race couples marry, but not different-race couples. You should be as offended by limits based on gender or sexual orientation as by race.

    “If it was a right then someone could marry their cactus plant.”

    All rights have limitations on them, even free speech. Having a right does not mean it is unfettered.

    “After all there is no Constitutional right for a homosexuals to demand that they make the rules.”

    Nor is there a constitution right for heterosexuals to demand that THEY make the rules. The constitution does not seem to care about sexual orientation.

    “It should be noted that the benefits that the state grants in a marriage are also a priviledge.”

    This is accurate. The state can alter or revoke benefits it offers to married couples, just so it does so equally.

    “These benefits as granted by the state are incentives to procreate.”

    Name one marriage benefit that encourages procreation. If the state wanted to promote procreation, it would outlaw abortion and birth control, for starters. It hasn’t.

    “This is the only reason why the government is in the marriage business and grants licenses with all of the benefits that come with it.”

    The reason the government is in the marriage business is to prevent abuse: children getting married, bigamy, siblings getting married. They used to test for STDs but I think most states don’t even do that anymore.

  37. Anne
    August 20th, 2011 at 07:08 | #37

    @Rob Tisinai
    “What makes you think the marriage equality law goes against public opinion in New York State?”

    I live in one of the turncoat senator’s district. I watched it happen.

    He keeps sending me literature touting his success regarding things like property tax caps and environmental coding. He won’t even acknowledge his vote on “same sex marriage”.

  38. August 20th, 2011 at 09:26 | #38

    bman: “Its perfectly reasonable to promote voting in the states “until” a federal marriage amendment finally resolves the issue.”

    Sure. I agree. What’s NOT reasonable — what’s hypocritical — is promoting yourself as champion of “the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote” while working to take away that right.

  39. bman
    August 20th, 2011 at 14:20 | #39

    Rob Tisinai :
    bman: “Its perfectly reasonable to promote voting in the states “until” a federal marriage amendment finally resolves the issue.”
    RT: Sure. I agree. What’s NOT reasonable — what’s hypocritical — is promoting yourself as champion of “the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote” while working to take away that right.

    They are defending it in a very practical and realistic way.

    First, they campaigning in states to get the vote onto the ballots.

    Second, they are campaigning for a federal marriage amendment that would protect the vote of the people from being wasted by the courts.

  40. August 20th, 2011 at 14:27 | #40

    Anne, polls in New York State indicate that public opinion supports same-sex marriage (which I point out only because you seem to put much stock in public opinion).

  41. August 20th, 2011 at 17:02 | #41

    bman. Stop telling me that it’s Okay to try to let people vote directly AND to promote a federal marriage amendment.

    I AGREE WITH YOU. I don’t know why you keep making this point. I AGREE WITH YOU

    Do you understand that? I have no trouble with either side merely using a mix of methods. None whatsoever.

    I said that in comment #38.

    But NOM is NOT merely using a mix of tactics. NOM is promoting itself as a champion of “the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote” while working to take away that right.

    That’s hypocrisy.

  42. Anne
    August 20th, 2011 at 20:17 | #42

    @Rob Tisinai
    “Anne, polls in New York State indicate that public opinion supports same-sex marriage (which I point out only because you seem to put much stock in public opinion).”

    If that were true, the Governor would have allowed the people to vote. He knew better. And that’s why he rammed the legislation through behind closed doors. It was the only way he could get it passed.

  43. Sean
    August 21st, 2011 at 07:55 | #43

    “If that were true, the Governor would have allowed the people to vote.”

    Not at all! The Governor understands that the civil rights of a minority are not subject to the whims of the people.

    It has been hugely damaging to our democracy that this notion is being promoted that the people get to vote on a minority group’s rights. It is not so. This has created a level of anger and hostility aimed at gays and lesbians even worse than they endured before because some groups want to undermine the nation’s constitution, and change our legal system. It has also taken a toll on straight people, for example, three fine judges in Iowa who were fired for doing what they were hired to do: interpret the constitutionality of laws, including marriage laws.

    You can’t unilaterally redefine our nation’s legal system, because you don’t like that its proper functioning may result in an outcome you don’t like. Please folks, from now on, when you hear or see these inane “let the people vote!” comments, please set the record straight. Your country and your fellow citizens deserve no less!

  44. bman
    August 21st, 2011 at 09:59 | #44

    Rob Tisinai: bman. Stop telling me that it’s Okay to try to let people vote directly AND to promote a federal marriage amendment. I AGREE WITH YOU. I don’t know why you keep making this point. I AGREE WITH YOU Do you understand that? I have no trouble with either side merely using a mix of methods. None whatsoever. I said that in comment #38. But NOM is NOT merely using a mix of tactics. NOM is promoting itself as a champion of “the most important civil right of all, the right of the people to vote” while working to take away that right. That’s hypocrisy.

    If you agreed with me you would not call it hypocrisy.

    NOM can say “the most important civil right of all is the right of the people to vote,” and also call for a marriage amendment without hypocrisy.

    You seem to think “the right of the people to vote” can only be sincerely protected if a federal marriage amendment was opposed. That idea is itself insincere, though, because it only allows the people to have a powerless vote that can be overturned by a few judges.

    Suppose someone said they championed the right to vote and also knew a few judges could easily overturn that vote and make the vote of the people pointless.

    Should they simply support the right of the people to make pointless votes, or should they also act so the vote of the people had the power to stand?

    Which path reduces to hypocrisy then?

    In my view, it would be hypocrisy if someone said they championed the right to vote, knew the vote would be made pointless if the courts over turned it, and did nothing to prevent that. Protecting the right to make pointless votes is not protecting the right to vote.

    On the other hand, there would be no hypocrisy if someone said they championed the right to vote and did something to make sure the vote could not be overturned.

    In sum, you are calling NOM hypocritical because its protecting the vote of the people from being overturned by the court, which makes your accusation unreasonable.

  45. Ken
    August 22nd, 2011 at 16:56 | #45

    “Massachusetts is attempting to use its genderless marriage law to overturn the laws of all the states, through its suit against DOMA”

    That statement is simply not true. The lawsuit against DOMA brought by the Comm. of MA  (which by the way they won) was only about Section 3 of the act and sought only to require the federal government to recognize ALL legal marriages – which includes same-sex marriages performed by Massachusetts. Since the federal government has always (and only) deferred to marital status in a couple’s state (and has never issued federal marriage licenses), this is a no-brainer. Although the Constitution already requires it, this lawsuit had nothing to do with forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It’s interesting to note that those opposed to marriage equality want it both ways: it’s not a state’s rights issue when a state legalizes same-sex marriage, it is a state’s rights issue when a state bans same-sex marriage. 

  46. Ken
    August 22nd, 2011 at 17:09 | #46

    @John Noe
    “The marriage license as granted by the state is a PRIVILEDGE and not a right. There is no Constitutional right to demand that the government must recognize your relationship.”

    Would you stand by that statement if you were denied a license to marry your female partner? Of course you wouldn’t. You’re also ignoring the fact that SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia.

  47. bman
    August 22nd, 2011 at 21:26 | #47

    @Ken :You’re also ignoring the fact that SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia.

    In Baker v. Nelson the US Supreme Court decided against same sex marriage.

    That was after the Loving case which means the Court viewed “the fundamental right to marriage” as marriage between one man and one woman.

    The majority of courts to also consider the issue have rejected a right to same-sex marriage.

  48. Anne
    August 23rd, 2011 at 05:39 | #48

    @Sean
    ““If that were true, the Governor would have allowed the people to vote.”

    Not at all! The Governor understands that the civil rights of a minority are not subject to the whims of the people.”

    “The whims of the people” IS the Government: Of the People, by the people, for the People.

  49. August 23rd, 2011 at 11:31 | #49

    Ken :
    Would you stand by that statement if you were denied a license to marry your female partner? Of course you wouldn’t. You’re also ignoring the fact that SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia.

    Loving didn’t say that states had to allow siblings to marry, or men to marry their mothers. It said preserving racial classifications by preventing interracial offspring was an “insupportable basis” to prohibit marriage and procreation. (No one suggested back then that they were separate issues.)

    Being of the same sex is also a supportable basis to prohibit offspring.

    You are right though that marriage is a right not a privilege, and the list of relationships that is off limits needs to be as small as necessary and needs to apply equally to everyone.

  50. LarryG
    August 26th, 2011 at 08:03 | #50

    @John Noe

    Actually what is clear is that there needs to be a definition of what constitutes “CIVIL” marriage versus what constitutes “RELIGIOUS” marriage. Christians are free to deny a religious service to a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or gay couple in their church if they see fit. You all can do that already. What you do NOT have the right to do is tell ANY legal adult, self-determining couple that they cannot apply for a CIVIL marriage license. Because, sir, that is where ALL state recognized licenses come from. Whether you are Catholic, Jew, Buddhist, or Atheist, you all march down to City Hall, get a “CIVIL” marriage license from the state and then, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO, have a religious ceremony AFTER! Homosexual couples seek the same right, you have no right to deny them.

  51. August 26th, 2011 at 13:14 | #51

    @LarryG
    We are only discussing civil marriage here, Larry. Do you think we can tell siblings that they cannot apply for a civil marriage license? There are “supportable basis” to prohibit certain relationship types, if creation of offspring from that type of relationship would be unethical. Same-sex couples fall into that category.

Comments are closed.