The fact that some people have failed at, disrespected or even outright abused the institution of man-woman marriage is beside the point -- and strikes me as an attempt at deflection.
No, just bringing up the fact that half of all "traditional marriages" fail. Those that want to "protect" traditional marriage need to concentrate on that instead of wrongly denying others the chance to get married. So, it seems that "traditional marriage" needs to be saved FROM heterosexuals, not for them.
Yes.
The validy of that point must not be lost -- the need to clean one's own house, so to speak.
For Christ's sake...MM...can you just STOP!!! Those of us who have compassion and have no problem letting gays marry don't give a RAT'S ASS whether you think the arguments are rational, valid or just plain poppy cock.
And you have made it plain that you don't care either. So, why do YOU care what the arguments are?
Geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
For somebody that doesn't care, you sure seem to like to put your two cents in.
I DO CARE...not only for my nephew, but for all the same-sex couples that love each other and want to be married just like their heterosexuals friends, colleagues and strangers.
I care...that's why I post. Why do you if you don't care??????
Peace
<'{{><
((((The Two Fish)))))))
I care too, very much
Truth is not based on who "cares" the most.
What "truth"?
Peace
<'{{><
Any truth.
Just running around saying "I care, I care" is nonsense.
The deciding vote belongs to Kennedy and he wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that invalidated sodomy laws making same-sex sexuality legal.
As a side note, I remember the case (Bowers v. Hardwick) that preceded Lawrence, when the Court upheld Georgia's sodomy laws. I particularly remember Justice Blackmun's dissent in that case which - I could feel in my bones at the time - paved the way for Kennedy's Lawrence opinion. Of course, Kennedy wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye at that time. But I knew, reading Blackmun's dissent, that it would eventually form the basis for outlawing any such sodomy laws that reached the Court in the future. Blackmun felt so strongly about the case that he read his dissent from the bench. Justice Marshall passed him a note on the bench afterwards, which read "You was great."
Back to Kennedy: TPaine, you're not the only one who agrees that he's the swing here. Both the 9th Circuit's decision overturning Prop 8 and the dissents in yesterday's order can be read as appeals to Kennedy in light of his recent opinions on sexual orientation issues - Lawrence in 2003 and a 1996 decision overturning a Colorado ballot measure that would have banned local gay-rights ordinances. Kennedy's opinion held that the Colorado law had no conceivable basis except anti-gay prejudice, a conclusion echoed by the 9th Circuit's holding on Prop 8.
According to a prof who teaches courses on law and sexuality at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the 9th Circuit's Prop 8 ruling appeared to address Justice Kennedy's "inclination to rule in favor of sexual orientation equality but do so in an incremental way."
The dissenters in yesterday's order also appeared to have a message for Justice Kennedy: Judge O'Scannlain's dissent observed that overturning Prop 8 was a "gross misapplication" of Kennedy's 1996 decision in the Colorado case.
Shouldn't have been up for a vote in the first place. Will probably end up before the SCOTUS where Scalia and Thomas will utterly ignore the law and decide whatever the hell they feel like.
I agree with your first point. As a legal matter, gay marriage should never have gone up for a popularity contest.
As to your second point -- I don't know enough about the Justices to say yes or no to your prediction.
According to a prof who teaches courses on law and sexuality at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the 9th Circuit's Prop 8 ruling appeared to address Justice Kennedy's "inclination to rule in favor of sexual orientation equality but do so in an incremental way."
Not to sound grumpy, but I think the Ninth’s decision in Perry v. Brown is one of the most poorly reasoned decisions I have ever read. The court did not articulate any argument that it is the withdrawing of a right once held by a few people of the affected group that the Constitution forbids. There is no judicial precedent suggesting any such constitutional machination.
Applying the rationale that the Ninth used in Perry to Loving v. Virginia would leave the Lovings unmarried. On the other hand, applying the rationale to a case challenging the prohibition of polygamy implies that polygamy should be recognized in Utah and certain other states. I don’t anticipate that the Supreme Court will have much use for the Ninth’s device in Perry.
In fact, the narrowest reading of the Ninth’s narrow holding implies that it should be only those same-sex couples in California in 2008 who experienced that brief period of equal marriage rights in California who should now enjoy the right to marry. Same-sex Californian couples who were not born at that time, or who were not couples at that time, did not experience the “withdrawal” of a previously enjoyed right to marry the person of their choosing.
For the Supreme Court to either deny certiorari or merely affirm Perry’s “narrow” holding in which only Californian same-sex couples may enjoy equal marriage rights will not save the Court any work. The next case, in which same-sex couples did not enjoy equal marriage rights before the right was “withdrawn,” is barreling down the pike.
I think the pretense of the “narrowness” of the Ninth’s decision was intended as some sort of strategem that I haven’t really grasped yet, perhaps arcane musing on the nature of rights. Perhaps, since they knew this case would be going to the Supreme Court regardless of what they said, they just didn’t want repeat the only valid argument on the issue that has been elucidated so many times already (and sometimes eloquently) by both state and federal courts: that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage do not even pass the rational basis test.
that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage do not even pass the rational basis test.
The rational basis test is (according to legend) the standard of judicial review that is the most deferential to the state, entailing that the state merely must be able to argue that a law that burdens some fundamental right has some rational relationship to a governmental interest. In the case of laws that deprive same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage, the state merely needs to be able to articulate an argument that there is a rational relationship between depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage and some governmental interest--i.e., what goal does the state wish to achieve by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and how does this law achieve the goal?
I assume that no one here knows of any argument that laws depriving same-sex couples and their children of the rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage achieves some governmental interest. That is, I assume that no one here knows of any argument that laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry passes the rational basis test. That is, I assume that no one knows of any argument that laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry are constitutional. If my assumption is wrong, then I am eager to hear that argument.
mytmouse57: Or, to put it another way, one cannot simply blow off the value of a tradition by pointing out poor examples of it. That's like saying automobiles are unimportant, because somebody who was texting and driving crashed on your street last week.
We license both, but we only hold the car one to some sort of accountability.
mindis1: On the other hand, applying the rationale to a case challenging the prohibition of polygamy implies that polygamy should be recognized in Utah and certain other states.
Well, maybe they have an argument, what with polygamy being more "traditional" than what's being advertised as such.
Knock and the door shall open. It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
mytmouse57: Or, to put it another way, one cannot simply blow off the value of a tradition by pointing out poor examples of it. That's like saying automobiles are unimportant, because somebody who was texting and driving crashed on your street last week.
We license both, but we only hold the car one to some sort of accountability.
mindis1: On the other hand, applying the rationale to a case challenging the prohibition of polygamy implies that polygamy should be recognized in Utah and certain other states.
Well, maybe they have an argument, what with polygamy being more "traditional" than what's being advertised as such.
Maybe there should be a marriage test for prospective couples.
Polygamy is a completely seperate issue, IMO. Comparisons to the gay marriage issues are unfair and false, IMO.
Polgamy will stand or fall on its own merits. Advocates for it have been pushing for it for quite some time, I'm sure, but have apparently failed to gain any traction.
I'm not sure about it being more "traditional." Certainly not in the West in general or the U.S. in particular. Outside of the first Mormons, very few people here practiced polygamy. And in other cultures, even most Muslims, for example, have or had only one wife. Multiple wives were usually a trapping of wealth or royalty.
Tradition in this society typically was the extended family. The fracturing of the extended family is fairly recent, and, IMO, hasn't done anybody any favors.
The idea that an isolated couple alone -- with no support from extended family -- can raise a family and keep a household together is insane, IMO. No wonder so many mariages impolde under stress and financial hardship.
Tradition in this society typically was the extended family. The fracturing of the extended family is fairly recent, and, IMO, hasn't done anybody any favors.
The idea that an isolated couple alone -- with no support from extended family -- can raise a family and keep a household together is insane, IMO. No wonder so many mariages impolde under stress and financial hardship.
This quite accurately describes not only my marriage and family (except for the 'fractured' part), but also that of most of my friends - LGBT or str8. Why anyone would think it doesn't seems odd to me.
Tradition in this society typically was the extended family. The fracturing of the extended family is fairly recent, and, IMO, hasn't done anybody any favors.
The idea that an isolated couple alone -- with no support from extended family -- can raise a family and keep a household together is insane, IMO. No wonder so many mariages impolde under stress and financial hardship.
This quite accurately describes not only my marriage and family (except for the 'fractured' part), but also that of most of my friends - LGBT or str8. Why anyone would think it doesn't seems odd to me.
A parental test might be a good idea too.
The comparisons to polygamy are part of an irrational slippery-slope narrative. The same one that suggests gay marriage will lead to people marrying donkeys too.
Again, false and unfair comparisons, and totally seperate issues. People who wish to marry donkeys are more than welcome to try making their case. But I don't see them getting past that whole willful, informed consent thing.
People have historically raised children and helped one another out as part of a tribe, village, neighborhood or clan.
We have a wierd society now. Many people don't even know their neighbors anymore.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
