Now, Really, As Bigoted As You Think

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Here's my prediction: no rational believer in American civic and constitutional tradition will be able to point to a single material fact that will change as a result of this addition to the Kansas Constitition."

The whole argument of the proponents, reflected in the claims of "protection" and "assault", is defensive in nature, to hold onto the present. It wasn't meant to change anything, but to keep anything from changing.

"Kansans just voted to encode discrimination into their Constitution"

It's already in the constitution. You can try Article 15, section 9, which talks about "husband and wife" (how dare they make such a presumption!) or Article 15, section 6, which presumes a woman would be married to "the husband", or Article 8, which makes men (and only men) members of the state militia, and even discriminates by age, as does Article 5. Article 5 even allows the the legislature to discriminate against those who are mentally ill. Oh, the Humanity!

"After all, what's the sense of passing a law that will have no effect?"

Good question, which is why I didn't vote for it. But I really think all the chest-pounding and robe-tearing we're seeing over this is just as big a waste of time and energy.

Posted by quinn (Patrick Quinn) on April 6, 2005 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freedom on the march!

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 6, 2005 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

'The whole argument of the proponents, reflected in the claims of "protection" and "assault", is defensive in nature, to hold onto the present. It wasn't meant to change anything, but to keep anything from changing.'

Ah: so, the state of heterosexual marriage is fine, as it is -- we need to hold onto that? With at least a 50% divorce rate? With spousal abuse? With sexual abuse of children within heterosexual marriage?

You're telling me the only problem heterosexual marriage has in the world today is the existence of gay Americans?

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, I'm saying exactly what I said. The amendment was a defensive movement by people who want to maintain the traditional structure of the institution. It's not the first discrimination in the constitution, and it's not going to have any effect on anything.

How you can get from there to "the only problem...is the existence of gay americans" is beyond me.

The problems in marriage are manifold, but the biggest reason marriages are screwed up is that they are made up of people who are screwed up. There's nothing the government can do about that, nor should it try.

Posted by quinn (Patrick Quinn) on April 6, 2005 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

David, don't waste yr time. Move.

Everyone on both sides of the political chasm needs to accept what has happened in this country in the past five years. The monkeys have taken over the zoo. A collection of uneducated morons who spend their free time jacking off to Ann Coulter fotos now fancy themselves "leaders" and "statesmen"; in every jurisdiction in which they take power they will kill freedom and impose their bizarre religion of hate upon the whole population.

Nothing can be done to save Kansas. This abomination will be followed by others, even worse, and everyone knows that. Once the Christianist dunces finish w/ the state's public education system, Kansas will be the _laughingstock of Arkansas._ If you don't share their repellent hateful beliefs, leave the state.

Posted by liz (Liz Weslander) on April 6, 2005 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If we really want to protect marriage why don't we try something rational like banning the NFL?

Posted by Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) on April 6, 2005 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

1. Is it possible for Lawrence to secede from the state?

2. With the bang up job that heterosexuals are doing with marriage, shouldn't we allow gay people a chance to show how well they can do with it? They can't do much worse...

3. The "sacred" institute of marriage used to be about the distribution of wealth and cementing of familial alliances, and forcing people who barely know each other to marry based on the whims of their parents.

4. It used to be illeagal for a white person to marry a black person. Another example of "traditional family values".

Posted by notarickyfan (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You miss the point of the "protect marriage" argument. It's not an attempt to keep bad things from happening to heterosexual marriage. (that has already happend) It's an attempt to define legally what is, and what isn't a marriage. (note part B. of the amendment) The amendment wasn't a first choice option. It was a last choice option. Kansas has a law on the books but laws these days can be thrown out based on the opinion of a extreme few individual judges. What can't be thrown out is an amendment. Those have to be voted in and voted out.
Are you arguing that the will of the voting public means nothing? Should we not vote on issues of this nature? If you find yourself in the minority shouldn't you work to make your beliefs become the majority instead of automatically assuming that 70% of the voting populace are braindead right wing religous zealots? Trust me there are many fiscal liberals that voted for this amendment.

Posted by jacob (Jacob Kaplan-Moss) on April 6, 2005 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm so disgusted I can barely think about it.

If you voted for the marriage amendment, history will remember you in the same breath it remembers those who fought to keep slavery, those who fought to keep blacks out of their schools, those who fought to keep women from voting, and, yes, those who committed acts of violence when their bigotry was overturned by the rule of law.

Posted by toreador (Michael Austin) on April 6, 2005 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage should be a religous bond. Not sanctioned or defined by the state. The state should only sanction Civil Unions which are a legal bond between two... whatevers. State should stay out of religion, religion should stay out of state. Just my humble opinion.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"What can't be thrown out is an amendment. Those have to be voted in and voted out."

Never heard of Colorado Amendment 2, I'll bet. Of course a state amendment can be overturned. And a federal amendment, while it cannot be overturned, can be ignored. The problem is not the documents, but the judges. Federalist 81 states that the solution for judicial "presumption" is impeachment and removal of judges. Why conservatives insist on impeaching the constitution instead is something I'll never understand. Apparently they've never heard of Alexander Hamilton.

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on April 6, 2005 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good piece, David. I agree with you wholeheartedly, except on one point. . . .as an admittedly politically ignorant Libertarian, I have HUGE issues with a national constitutional ammendment against homosexual unions, but not so much with one passed on the state level.
And yes, Quinn, you are right on, as always. We really do need to come to terms with the fact that not only have the monkeys taken over the zoo, but that the monkeys ARE THE MAJORITY. The only thing scarier than what is taking place in government right now is the fact that yes, most Americans really, truly WANT all this to happen, God help us.

Posted by Todd (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I voted for the amendment in question. I don't think the state should be in the marrage business at all but that's not what was voted on yesterday. I slapped down a "yes" vote because I don't want courts dorking around with the law. (or at least make it more difficult)

What good will this amendment do? At the very least it will make the people who voted for it happy. It made me happy to see it pass by a landslide.

Posted by gamer (Matt Cox) on April 6, 2005 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A-pigeon-holing we will go. A-pigeon-holing we will go. Hi-ho the merry-o! A-pigeon-holing we will go.

You know, sitting in church on Sunday I thought to myself how much I detest the stereotyping of my system of belief. On one hand, you do have the right-wing nuts that get the most attention, therefore inaccurately branding entire denominations of people. On the other hand, you have intelligent media voices, who know that there is a healthy group of respectable Christians out there, but choose to generalize that faith system anyway. Oh well. Such is life, I suppose.

So. Gay marriage. My wife and I didn’t vote. What’s at stake? The word “marriage?” The acknowledgement of a civil union? Here’s our deal: Although we do believe that homosexuality is not right, we believe so within our system of faith. Those outside our system of faith can’t be judged according to our code. Why? Well, we believe Paul’s teachings in his letters, specifically to the Corinthians, that our faith is foolishness to those who don’t believe. Sounds like plain old common sense. (Ironically, Paul wasn’t a huge advocate for marriage in the first place.)

I am no one’s judge. Couples, roommates, gay or not that have been living together for a long time should be entitled to coupled benefits. Allowing the gay population to have or not have a civil union will not change anyone’s belief system. Although I would personally not approve of the lifestyle, I’d rather have a child grow up in a loving household with gay parents versus a hetero marriage riddled with alcoholism and abuse.

We’re not talking bloodlust murder or rape, here. Those are universal wrongs (mostly) that transcend religious affiliations. But little me, I can’t vote to deny someone civil rights for something that’s not against the law.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"We really do need to come to terms with the fact that not only have the monkeys taken over the zoo, but that the monkeys ARE THE MAJORITY."

They have not taken over the zoo. Rather, they have always run it. This zoo is the people's zoo.

I found an interesting Supreme Court case (Reynolds vs. US, 1878) dealing with polygamy, which issue was the cause of the current Kansas marriage statute. In this case, the question was decided whether congress had the authority to lay down a legal definition of marriage. The court wrote:

"Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. ...there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion."

Civil government has ALWAYS had the power to determine what kind of marriage shall be the law of social life (not religious life), and the government has always (except on very rare and temporary occasions) followed the common law tradition of monogamous, mixed-sex marriages. This is not a matter of the fundamentalists rising up out of nowhere, but rather a matter of "the people" deciding in what way the social order ought to operate. While in many cases whether that excercise has been unwise, there's no doubt that they have always had that ability and have often used it, especially when threats to that social order have arisen. This is not a new thing, but a very old thing.

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on April 6, 2005 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Really, really well-said, ElB (as usual). But it raises a question here, not one that I'm asking out of impertinence (for once), but out of genuine curiosity. You say: ". . . especially when threats to that social order have arisen." What, exactly, do most people see in homosexuals pairing off responsibly that poses a threat to their social order?

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi, Mitz. You can ask out of impertinence if you like (I don't mind a bit).

It's not their personal order", but "the social order". Reynolds v. US, the case I quoted, also says the following about polygamy:

"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe...and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society."

I believe this includes the pagan Saxons, Scots, and Celts.

Asians and Africans, whose lifestyles were more nomadic, practised a form of family/marriage more suited for that lifestyle.

But Robert Kaplan in "The Coming Anarchy" talks about polygamy in Africa and the social order: "designed for a pastoral way of life (but) translated to an urban environment, loose family structures are largely responsible for the world's highest birth rates and the explosion of the HIV virus on the continent. Like communalism and animism, they provide a weak shield against the corrosive social effects of life in cities".

Now, I said that to say this: family structure 'evolves' in order to meet the survival needs in a certain environment (that's why I'm not convinced that plural marriage is 'wrong', though it may be wrong in certain times and places), and family structure DOES have an impact on the social order.

If we apply that to "homosexuals pairing off responsibly", there are two similarities:

The corrosive effects of urban life need a strong family structure, and gay marriage is not that (or at least is not considered that).

Secondly, I pointed out how the Kansas constitution assumes in at least two places that women will marry men and vice versa. This is illustrative of how deep those traditions run.

So "the social order", the very assumptions that we make corporately about those around us, their relations to us and to one another, runs a lot deeper than just "X now has the legal right to visit Y in the hospital". Changing the definition of a word and relationship that represents one of the bedrocks of that social order is going to, by its very nature, make people nervous at least. They see it as a crumbling of the order that has evolved to meet the needs of society in our specific environment. In other words, they see it as a matter of corporate survival. We can agree or disagree, but there you go.

They may not spell it out like this, but it's not just a matter of the Bible or a "private" matter. After all, one can (and Joseph Smith did) make a 'biblical' argument for polygamy, but such a family structure is bound to have societal effects that will be felt by everyone.

Those kinds of changes, when people don't know what they will lead to, will scare them enough that they will see it is a threat to the social order and vote accordingly.

Posted by quinn (Patrick Quinn) on April 6, 2005 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or, to put it more succintly and more precisely, ignorant fear breeds ignorant hate. This is not a new thing, but a very old thing.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If one needs to reduce history, experience, and human nature to a slogan, then I suppose that will do as well as any.

Just one more reason to fear democracy, I guess.

Posted by citizenx (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Could anyone expect any less from this state? We are, what, the 18th state to do this...clearly we are also, as a state, far more conservative. No one imagined the amendment would not pass...once it was on the ballot, that was it.

Voters are ignorant. I hate to say it, and I don't really mean it...buut sometimes I sure think so. I really enjoy having conversations with people about why new computers are necessary in our schools, or why, even if you are against gays 'marrying', the particular provision in the Kansas amendment should be undesirable. But what is even better is running into people who didn't know there was an election, and who don't know how to register to vote. It broadens my perspective and understanding to know how right I am !!! :))

The current situation is heart crushingly, mind numbingly depressing. Which is why I drink beer.

Posted by lazz (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Simply the latest evidence that democracy is overrated.
It's not the system that counts; its the hearts of the citizens that matter.

but, just to note this -- this was not passed by 70 percent of Kansans, as alleged above. Perhaps the winning margin was 70 percent, but 400,000 morons do not add up to 70 percent of Kansas -- unless your math is as rusted as your heart.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 6, 2005 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Are you arguing that the will of the voting public means nothing?"

No. However, the will of the voting public is -- or was supposed to be -- checked in America by the Constitution and by the judicial branch of our government.

Are you arguing that the majority can vote to do whatever it pleases?

If that's the case, why do we have a 2d amendment that prevents the majority, in congress, from illegalizing personal ownership of guns?

The tyranny of the majority is just as destructive of liberty as the tyranny of a despot. The constitution exists to set limits to what the voting public can do. And like it or not, in America that line is drawn by the judiciary -- ever since Marbury v. Madison.

In your world, would a simple majority vote allow Kansans to deny Jews, say, the right to vote? If not, why not?

Are you arguing that the "majority view" is the only determinant as to what can become law?

If so, you should re-read the Federalist Papers to see why our Constitution is the way it is.

Presuming, of course, that, as a loyal, Constitution defending American, you've already read it.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Re: Federalist Papers

I knew I liked you for some reason...Most people have never even heard of Publius...

http://elborak.blog-city.com/read/117939...

Posted by citizenx (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Which reminds me, at Liberal Drinkers last night I enjoyed a porter and a stout and rested assured that all liberals aren't total morons whose complaining overshadows the fact that they can't fill out a registration card. And actually some liberals are self-realized, fascinating, brilliant people. Fancy that. KU Dems also met last night at Free State Brewery, and there were FOUR of them, out of how many KU students? Ugh. As a KU student, I'm angry...but as an alcoholic I choose the liberal drinkers. Promoting democracy one pint at a time, YEAH!!!

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 6, 2005 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suggest, particularly:

James Madison, Federalist Paper #51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

And

Federalist Paper #63: "...an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.... ...there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens [i.e, the Judiciary, the judges people apparently hate], in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?"

I'll reiterate, to those who childishly believe government is a simple matter of "majority rules":

In your world, would a simple majority vote allow Kansans to deny Jews, say, the right to vote?

If not, why not? It's the majority, after all, no?

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The ironic thing is that Federalist 63 concerns the senate, which was (under the original constitution) not a popularly elected body. Those words, which you apply to the courts, were not so applied by Publius.

But Amendment 17 ruined what was at one time a pretty decent check on democracy...

Posted by notarickyfan (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What you consider "temporary errors and delusions" is quite the contrary. It transcends the writings of Hamilton and Madison. Western society has long placed homosexual marriage in the same category as polygamy and the marriage of close relatives. A homosexual has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. They have equal rights. What they don't have is exceptional rights. I have the right to bear arms but I don't have the right to purchase a fully armed M1 Abrams tank. The founding fathers had an strong utilitarianist view that society as a whole was more important than the whims of the individual. The federalist view was that a strong federal government provided the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. It was tested early and often (Shay's Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, etc.) The tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the tyranny of the majority.

Posted by citizenx (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you think something else can be done other than being really pissed off, moving, writing to Congress, or thinking about pubilus(and/or plotinus, and plutarch), please say so.

At this point the organization of American buerocracy, the Christian right, particularly on the side of the Christian right w/ elected officials, is far better than what the left has. The left in our government isn't really left! So could the majority vote for pretty much anything and would it then become law? ...IF whatever the thing is could get on the ballot. What is the process for getting a referendum out--does anyone know? Don't you all think direct democracy would be a good idea? I know I would, if the majority agreed with principles like freedom, justice, liberty and the like, and if they voted. Hmm.

It's possible that eventually the state amendments concerning this issue will be addressed in court and found unconstitutional--but I'm not sure on what basis. the 5th amendment holds that Deprivation of Life, Liberty isn't justified without Due Process of Law...since people voted, is that called due process of law? Where's the basis to change what happened yesterday? Could a lawyer use the 9th, or maybe use the 14th, just wondering if anyone knows.
By the way, it's already in almost every state constitution that certain sex acts are illegal--it's just not really enforced. Won't it be fun to post on blogs when, empowered by the backing of the puritanical majority, zealots in our courts, senate, etc. start pushing for enforcement of our sodomy laws? When people start getting arrested again for being 'gender criminals' in America, will anyone be indignant then?

Obviously, it couldn't have gone any other way, because democrats really aren't heard. I need a beer.

Posted by Todd (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some folks here are blowing this amendment out of porportion. As for why the right is kicking the sh&t out of the left in this country... think about it. What is the right selling? salvation, hope, promise, etc... What is the left selling?

And what's with all the name calling? It's really a sign that your position is weak. (in any arguement)

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on April 6, 2005 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, the name-calling here really hasn't reached the proportions it normally does in a discussion of this nature on the blogs. Maybe because Snoop hasn't put in an appearance. . . .I promise not to tell him if you do, too. . . . . I'm actually quite impressed with the debate here.
And direct democracy scares the ever-loving hell out of me. I know my neighbors, and I'm GLAD they're too dumb to figure out how to vote. . . .

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"So could the majority vote for pretty much anything and would it then become law? ...IF whatever the thing is could get on the ballot. What is the process for getting a referendum out--does anyone know? Don't you all think direct democracy would be a good idea? I know I would, if the majority agreed with principles like freedom, justice, liberty and the like, and if they voted. Hmm."

The Constitution throws roadblocks in the way of democracy, but in the end, the people can pretty much get anything they want. If it's not in the Constitution, it can be put in there via amendment, which takes 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. With that much of a majority, anything can be changed; anything can be accomplished.

There is no process for a national referrendum.

No, direct democracy is not a good idea. All those who are howling about this election are evidence that just because people vote, it does not mean that they are going to do the right thing, or at least not that it will be a happy outcome for many.

Publius (which was a nom de plume shared by the Fourth President, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the first Secretary of the Treasury) explained in the Federalist Papers how the Constitution was supposed to work. In included many means that, as DR quoted, protect the people from making bad decisions in the heat of the moment. There's no doubt that DR and I would disagree on what those bad decisions are, but we agree that it's necessary that someone have at least a little veto power over the will of the majority.

The Constitution was written for the express purpose of frustrating direct democracy (only half of one branch of government was originally directly elected), because the people don't want things like "freedom, justice and liberty", they want security and the power to avoid the consequences of their own decisions. They also want to blame and punish those who are different.

If I had my way, senators and the President would not be elected at all, but would be chosen by state legislatures, and direct democracy would be extremely limited, because direct democracy enshrines in law whatever madness grips a people at any particular time. History is full of such measures.

That's a bad thing for minorities of any sort. And all of us are minorities in one thing or another.

Posted by Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) on April 6, 2005 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The right, however, is not selling salvation and hope. It is exploiting ignorance, fear, and bigotry for political gain. What is hopeful about telling someone they cannot get married to who they choose?

Posted by Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) on April 6, 2005 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not that the left is doing any better.

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on April 6, 2005 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and Gamer---freakin' awesome. As I say to the Hoyts quite regularly, if more Christians were like you, the rest of us wouldn't be so damned scared of 'em.

Posted by Snoop (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mitzi are you trying to say that I’m the chief name caller. How dare you!

"Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience."
Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.
Like it or not, with gay couples society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.
Why would gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?
The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is OFFICIAL social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.
If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.
Sorry people no stamp of approval, throwing out the bigot chants AGAIN isn’t helping.

Oh Greydude, “Why weren't women or black people allowed to vote? Why was a marriage between a black person and a white person illegal?”
That is easy the white people who pushed that sort of ignorance did not want their children to realize that those people are just like us. Keeping the white race separate was paramount. Dehumanizing blacks kept white people at a distance. Restrict where they eat, live, go to school. Kinda like keeping your dog or cat off the furniture. Shows those mangy creatures whos the boss.

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on April 6, 2005 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, my God, Snoop. You actually made a little sense in there. Are you feeling okay?

Posted by manofleisure (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Snoop, I beg to differ.

The issue is individual rights. Marriage - from the perspective of the state - is a civil union - it's a contract between two people that has a variety of rights - property, inheritance, visitation, pulling the plug (see Schivo) - that come along with it. While I am at heart a romantic, in beauraucratic sense, marriage is nothing more than a private contract between two individuals. In my mind, denying citizens from entering into said contract - which does have monetary benefits - is the ultimate in discrimination.

When I hear ministers on the radio hailing the vote as a new day for Jesus, I am saddened beyond belief. I guess the New Testament and message of peace, love and acceptance simply doesn't count anymore. I can't begin to imagine that Jesus would be down with this.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Romantic or not, marriage is more than just a contract between individuals, otherwise, how could there possibly be monetary benefits? From where do they arise?

To the extent that there ARE monetary benefits, to that extent the people who are paying those benefits have a vested interest in those marriages. It can't be both ways.

The options are really pretty simple. Either remove the benefits, making marriage truly private, or put up with the majority's restrictions on marriage without bitching.

Snoop is right: you can't pretend it's private while at the same time demanding something (approval or benefits) from the public.

Posted by edie_ (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't finished reading all the comments yet but here I go with my head up my ass.
I fear the stupidity of people almost as much as the stupidity of people fears my kind. However, I don't think for any minute that the U.S. bears any semblance to a democracy, not even a representative democracy. It's more like a consensual totalitarianism. If there was any true independent widespread dissemination of true info we could almost PRETEND we lived in a democracy, but until then we're all basically doing what the church and FOX News wants us to do. If you've read any declassified FBI documents about COINTELPRO or MKULTRA (or even if you know about Watergate) you're aware what measures the govt. has historically taken to preserve an environment of consent and what they will do to deter true information campaigns.

As far as polygamy goes, I don't know why it's brought up here unless it's an acknowledgement of the straight manufactured stereotype about gays. I don't know why anyone thinks gays are any more non-monogamous than straight people...maybe because they aren't legally allowed to marry, but I've seen many examples of straight married couples in various states of infidelity, abuse, rape, divorce, exploitation, etc. so I have no reason to believe that marriage fosters any kind of solid family structure. For that matter, in Africa it's highly likely that the incidence of HIV and high birth rates has to do with the fact that education and availability of condoms and birth control and is horribly low in Africa.

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on April 6, 2005 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not to mention the fact that in Africa, any semblance of order or government has totally gone to shit since the colonialists left, and all that's left is tribal warfare and superstition. What good are condoms going to do when the majority of the population believes that raping a 5-year-old will cure them of AIDS?

Posted by aegrisomnia (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"and all that's left is tribal warfare and superstition."

Are you serious?

Posted by Snoop (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are homosexuals the only Americans permitted to change the definition of marriage, or do people with other sex orientations have that right as well?
What about a woman and a horse applying for a marriage license, or it might be a man and a sheep. What argument might the state have for not issuing them a marriage license?
After all, the woman or man might say, "Our definition of marriage includes animals, plus my horse or my sheep, OR CAT will be eligible for my employee health care benefits and my inheritance at my death." It would appear that a denial of a marriage license would be sufficient grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. After all, animals have rights as well as humans.
C’mon liberal you have been shouting that from the mountain tops for years.

But what about other possibilities. Some people might feel that the definition of marriage should be expanded so as to include group marriage. What argument would the state have against the issuance of a marriage license to three, four or 10 men or the like number of women who wanted to marry?
Are gay activists are only talking about same-sex marriage between one man and another?
I have not heard it.
What we have is the slippery slope, strategy, whereby one's complete agenda is not revealed at first or he or she not get any of it at all.
I’ll use one I was in favor of, anti smoking legislation. They started out demanding non-smoking sections on airplanes -- then no smoking altogether, then no smoking in airports, then no smoking in restaurants and so forth, until what we have today.
Had the anti-smoking zealots (I love being a zealot) revealed their full agenda upfront, they might not have even been successful in getting no smoking sections on airplanes.
But screw smokers, they is stupid anyway.
It's my personal preference that people be able to conduct their lives in any manner they please. Tolerance doesn't require approval, only non-interference. Tolerance also doesn't require recognition of what one might call himself. A man and a man might call themselves married, but I'm not obliged to recognize it as such anymore than my calling myself the King of Da Blogs should you feel the need to recognize me as such.

Please feel free to write in my name on the ballot. Thank you for your support.

Posted by Snoop (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and Mitzi go flash a homeless guy and make his day. And the closest you have been to Africa is KCK, what is you talking about!?

Posted by citizenx (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

one thing--there's still smoking in a lot of airports--particularly the ones in tobacco growing states :))

of course no one can deny the logic of disallowing smoking on airplanes-- you're right, that's how it started. once upon a time we could all walk into a grocery store with a stogie hanging out the corner of our mouths. no more.

the argument against gay marriage is the same--snoop is right about that, but the basis for it is absolutely absurd as far as i'm concerned. comparing the civil union of two people to anything else misses the entire point,...it is a binding contract conferring a vast series of rights to those two people, rights handed down from the state and the nation, nothing more. this is not meant for three or 10 people, not for people and animals. gay rights people merely want rights--the same rights as hetero couples. not special rights.

leo barbee, the victory bible church preacher (think overbearing religious humor on 15th and mass) tried to expouse this viewpoint (the 'if this, then what next' view) when he visited one of my classes, and it's just wrong. clearly this point of view has enough logic to convince 70% of the voters in kansas, but that's not saying much. i didn't expect the amendment to be voted down or anything, but i did expect that our numbers would be a little better.

Posted by MyName (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>Are homosexuals the only Americans permitted to change the definition of marriage, or do people with other sex orientations have that right as well?
What about a woman and a horse applying for a marriage license, or it might be a man and a sheep. What argument might the state have for not issuing them a marriage license?

How about the fact that a sheep can't sign a marriage license, or pass a blood test? Also, last I heard, you had to be at least 18 to get married on your own, and no, I don't think that's in "sheep years", so that sheep would be pretty well dead. But I suppose if Mr. Ed really wanted to get married to Wilbur and they were both 18 and loved each other very much &co... No, actually, most people would still think this is kind of silly.

>should be expanded so as to include group marriage. What argument would the state have against the issuance of a marriage license to three, four or 10 men or the like number of women who wanted to marry?
Are gay activists are only talking about same-sex marriage between one man and another? I have not heard it.

Well *I've* not heard about any gay polygamy movements in Kansas. Or any straight polygamy movements for that matter. Maybe you've got it confused with Utah or something. In any case, that still doesn't explain why we need a constitutional amendment to make illegal something that is already illegal.

>What we have is the slippery slope, strategy, whereby one's complete agenda is not revealed at first or he or she not get any of it at all.

Oh c'mon, you might as well call the civil rights movement a slippery slope strategy:

"what you say? You want to be able to eat at the same lunch counters as white people? And you want to drink out of the same drinking fountains? Next thing you know you'll want to be able to vote like a white person, or maybe even marry a white person! Geez, it's a slippery slope here"

>Please feel free to write in My Name on the ballot. Thank you for your support.

Yes, I too thank you for your support.

Posted by punkrockmom (anonymous) on April 6, 2005 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"todd" said-

"What good will this amendment do? At the very least it will make the people who voted for it happy. It made me happy to see it pass by a landslide."

So, you voted for something just so you can win? Good call. Way to use your vote.

You know, this amendment will affect hetero umarried people too. It did in Michigan, and will likely here as well. I know one lady that is currently using her soon to be husband's insurance for their soon to be born baby. You know, in Michigan (and likely Kansas VERY soon), she'd not be able to do this. She'd have NO rights as a common law wife. Legislating morality sucks.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 6, 2005 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"it is a binding contract conferring a vast series of rights to those two people, rights handed down from the state and the nation, nothing more. this is not meant for three or 10 people, not for people and animals."

If the state cannot draw the line (so to speak) here, where can it be drawn? What possible argument can be made for any two people that cannot be made for any three? Any 10? I've not heard any that cannot also be applied to limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Thirty years ago the idea of gay marriage was as more unheard of than the idea of group marriage/polygamous marriage, and would have been considered (in your words) "a little silly". At least the latter has a long history among mankind. Yet here we are, arguing as if a limitation to heterosexual marriage is some new thing, the monkeys taking over the zoo, the rise of the Evile(tm) Fundymentalists.

"As far as polygamy goes, I don't know why it's brought up here unless it's an acknowledgement of the straight manufactured stereotype about gays"

It was brought up for the purpose of discussing the origin of the current marriage laws. I did not use it to stereotype gays, but to provide a little background on the issue and to show that it was not some new thing.

Posted by SarahSota (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with PQ at the very beginning of the comments: it's time to get the hell out of here. My husband and i are leaving in january. I love lawrence- but, its not worth the embarrassment.

Posted by Snoop (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“There exists a dichotomy in our society, a division which exists in our culture. There are those like myself, who believe that right and wrong do not change over time, while others are trying to redefine values and morals in a way that justifies their lifestyles.”

“This is simply, and sadly, the story of a majority unrestrained by any constitutional principle acting to restrict a minority.
It's an old, old, old, old story.
Lawrence, and Douglas County, take heart at least in the revelation that we alone are the true Free Staters here.
Every other county in Kansas forfeited last night the right to that sobriquet.
The rest of Kansas is indeed as bigoted as you think.”

“John Kerry with his support for federally financed abortions, embryonic stem cell research, and his implicit support of gay marriage stood against many of the tenants of the Judeo-Christian worldview. By doing so, he disenfranchised a vast majority of the country by essentially telling them that they were wrong and ignorant for holding true to the traditional values of this great nation.”
WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THINKING HUH?

“You don't have to be an eletist democrat from back east to know that theres an epidemic of ignorance and downright stupidity in this country.”
“Theres propaganda spewing from all sides of every issue because promoters of any ideology count on swaying all the dumbasses who can't think for themselves. The best bullshit wins the race. On your knees to Carl Rove.”
“I will say that anyone that voted for Bush on "values" or moral grounds is - in fact - down right stupid.”
“I agree with Davids basic point that homophobia finds it's roots primarily in fear and ignorance. Jimmy Swaggart and his dumbass audience are prime examples.”

“A collection of uneducated morons who spend their free time jacking off to Ann Coulter fotos now fancy themselves "leaders" and "statesmen"; in every jurisdiction in which they take power they will kill freedom and impose their bizarre religion of hate upon the whole population.”
Once the Christianist dunces finish w/ the state's public education system, Kansas will be the laughingstock of Arkansas._ If you don't share their repellent hateful beliefs, leave the state.

“Is it possible for Lawrence to secede from the state?”
OH CRAP CAN WE DO THAT?

“If you voted for the marriage amendment, history will remember you in the same breath it remembers those who fought to keep slavery, those who fought to keep blacks out of their schools, those who fought to keep women from voting, and, yes, those who committed acts of violence when their bigotry was overturned by the rule of law.”
NEGROS CAN BE FREE BUT I DON'T WANT THEM LIVING NEAR ME OR TAKING MY JOB WITH THAT THERE AFFIRMATIVE AKSHIN.

I’m so proud of our free racists, bigoted, homophobic, religious zealot, intellectual elitist, gloom and doom, Nazi, drunken, perverted, confused, profoundly superior country.

Posted by Todd (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

punkrockmom - um... companies can give whatever $$$ they want to their employees. All that you are talking about is that after the amendment trickles down companies won't be forced to give $$$ to people in shack up situations. People can just walk down to the courthouse and sign on the dotted line and get married. Heck, I've seen that a lot of company health plans are charging for family size instead of just a family rate. The last place I worked has a single, married/hooked-up, family-3, family-4, & super-sized-family rates. Since you actually paid more for the spouse it was never a problem there. (FL)

I'm so sick and tired of people on the losing side of an election calling the winners dumb. Like the loosing side didn't get tons of votes from idiots. I heard people leaving the polls in Lawerence saying they voted yes because they want gay people to have the right to get married. Yeah, they got confused but I wouldn't get blog happy and call them dumb. Also, some people voted no because they don't think the state constitution should be littered with amendments. (but they don't support gay/homo anything) Then there's the people who are non-conformists, anti-conservative, vote randomly, realy really old folks, etc...

See, when you make your opponent monolithic and yourself high and mighty... well, you've stepped back from reality to say the least.

Posted by Snoop (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is it with you liberals throwing pies?
I thought you guys we into feeding the homeless.
http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/23503...

Man you guys have issues.......

Posted by cwrist (Chris Wristen) on April 7, 2005 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the reason the amendment has caused the greatest uproar is because of the way it was promoted. "Protect Marriage!" Protect it from what? That simple two-word slogan is what has driven the greatest amount of dissent on this topic because it is far too vague. The only thing marriage needs to be "protected" from is bad people who abuse their spouse and children or who cheat on their spouse. Marriage needs to be "protected" from people who marry before they're really ready to marry, and then have a quick divorce because of it. If people really were voting to "protect" marriage then they would've been voting to put a legal requirement on the minimum time people must date before getting married (say, two or three years) so they have plenty of time to really get to know each other, or else people would've been voting to require mandatory jail time (say, two or three years) for anybody caught cheating on their spouse. THAT would help "protect marriage!"
But the slogan was misleading, so discussions such as the one I just posed have come up left and right. A gay couple's marriage doesn't hurt your marriage or mine in any way. If they're a loving couple, their marriage probably is better than many peoples' marriages are these days.
Either way, I disagree with the amendment wholeheartedly. But I think the greatest arguments have arisen because of this misleading slogan: "Protect Marriage!"

Posted by maclothier (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to address the, "First gays, then animals" argument...this argument essentially lumps homosexuals in with animals. The same argument could have been made by men in the early part of the 20th century: "Women want to vote. Ha! We'll have horses voting next!" Well, look around. No horses voting yet. Though I'm sure they have been plenty of horses that spent more time thinking about the issues! Check out Gregory Maguire's "Wicked" for an interesting look at the removal and denial of rights to part of a citizenry.

Posted by notarickyfan (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The "protect marriage" slogan was an accurate one. You are just looking at it from a different aspect. It wasn't a "protect my marriage" or "protect your marriage" slogan. It was a protect societies definition of what marriage is. The problem with the "protect it from what" argument is that it is that you are looking at marriage from an individualist viewpoint. I'm not saying that all 70 % of the people voting in favor of this amendment looked at it in the same way. Marriage in western society is in dire straits. Most of that is due to the fact that people are only concerned with making sure they get what they want out of it. That is bound to fail. Most people I know who voted for the amendment are in contact with homosexuals everyday. They don't hate them, the work with them, they joke with them and most likely are related so some of them. They also feel that this is a moral issue. Morals shape the way the approach life in general. Morals are not merely a catch phrase or sloagan to get them pumped up. To us morals are absolute and don't change as the culture of political winds blow. It all comes down to whether or not you believe in moral absolutes and what those absolutes are based on.

Posted by Snoop (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation”

Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing. DESPITE BEING RUN BY MONKEYS!

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the government's business. But now gay and liberal activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval.
CAN MONKEY’S GIVE APPROVAL?

And what we always come back to liberals and the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with judges and the other municipalities challenging laws that they consider unjust today?
Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change the laws.
As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power.
The correct analog would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the University of Alabama under a court order.
After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his rights to argue for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders argued against it. But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy the law was a violation of his oath.
BUT WE HAVE MONKEY’S RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT HERE, NEVER MIND….
Gay and liberal activists argue that activist judges have overturned unjust laws in the past and that society is better off for it. The argument that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the past is hardly a basis for accepting unlawful acts in general.

If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts that you agree with, then of course others will have other unlawful acts that they agree with. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets of values, that road leads to anarchy.
HENCE, YOU HAVE MONKEY’S RUNNING THE ASYLUM.

Posted by Carmenilla (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sky is falling, the sky is falling......

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 7, 2005 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Gay and liberal activists argue that activist judges have overturned unjust laws in the past and that society is better off for it. The argument that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the past is hardly a basis for accepting unlawful acts in general."

Judges who did this also generally moved within the spirit of society at large. Most states were on a trend of liberalizing abortion laws when Roe came down, but the court took what had been a political argument and made it a court one. Same with the various privacy and birth control decisions that led up to it. Had the court not acted, I suspect that we would have just as many abortions today, yet we would not have the rancor we do.

Sodomy was the same way. There were only 4 states left (Kansas was one of them) that had homosexual sodomy laws that were invalidated under Lawrence v. Texas, and those laws were seldom enforced anyway. So the courts were essentially and wrongly deciding those political issues after the fight was over. (I say "wrongly" not that they should have decided otherwise, but that they should have, in most of those cases, not decided at all).

Segregation and Jim Crow laws were the same way. The plight of blacks in America in the 1960s was far better than their plight in the 1920s or 1890s, and the battles were being won by King and Parks as Snoop has said: by changing the hearts, not the consitutions. Those politicians who fought against it were not in the majority nationally, but only in ever-smaller and smaller segments of it.

But in the case of gay marriage, we have something completely different. Various courts are ordering legislatures to make specific changes to law that are not part of a trend of liberalization and not in line with historical understandings of law. Of the 50 states, only a handful would conceivably recognize gay marriages, while 2 dozen and the congress have now made entrenching movements the other way. The ironic thing is that the rise of the monkeys is in direct response to the courts, which having gotten used to giving the last word, have decided now that they want the first word. The activist courts are as responsible for the rise of the monkeys as anything.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again, I guess.

Posted by Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) on April 7, 2005 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The reason the bible established the man/woman standard of marriage was the same reason it says be fruitful and multiply. You had to pair off and procreate or your civilization would perish, you had to have a lot of kids cause half of them would die before they matured. This was not some absolute moral decree handed down by God, this was what the authors of the Bible thought would help their cultures to flourish.

Should we call the long term pairing off of gay people marriage? Probably not, because of all the religious connotations of the word. But should we as people who claim to stand for "freedom and liberty" give them the right to the same tax breaks, benefits, and even the right to visit someone about to die in a hospital as we afford the married? hmmmm...........

or, to simplify it into a slogan:
Who would Jesus discriminate against?

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 7, 2005 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The reason the bible established the man/woman standard of marriage was the same reason it says be fruitful and multiply. You had to pair off and procreate or your civilization would perish, you had to have a lot of kids cause half of them would die before they matured. This was not some absolute moral decree handed down by God..."

While I agree that "be fruitful" is not a command (it's a blessing), I think it's pretty silly to say that the Bible says God needs to order people to procreate. They do that just fine, thanks.

The marital structure of the Hebrews was no different than that of the surrounding nations (polygamy for the rich, monogamy for everyone else). Men could take multiple wives (including sisters early on) and all divorce took was a note. If the woman was a servant, you didn't even need a note.

In other words, the command in Genesis had no effect on the marital structure of the very people to whom, we are supposed to believe, it was written to make them flourish.

Why did they bother keeping it around, I wonder?

Posted by cwrist (Chris Wristen) on April 7, 2005 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

notarickyfan,
You raise some excellent points in your response. I do want to clarify my post however (because I did ramble on quite a bit in it) that I was not trying to look at it from a "protect marriage from what" standpoint. I was simply saying that I think most people view it that way because of the "Protect Marriage" slogan. Perhaps a more accurate slogan would have been "Define Marriage" or "Defend the definition of marriage" or something along those lines. I believe that using the word "protect" triggered many peoples' reactions because they immediately felt like they were being targeted or that their friends/relatives were being targeted. I think you're right that most of the people had a variety of different understandings of exactly what the marriage amendment was all about, and it's tough to have an honest discusion on the issue because it seems like people are either on one extreme or the other with this issue.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 7, 2005 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

El Borak --

We should keep in mind that judicial rulings don't come from on high, judges taking the place of god and their rulings commandments written on stone.

Judicial rulings come about as a result of the arguments in a specific case with a specific set of facts controlled by specific, delineated laws (I'm sure I don't need to tell you that; I'm just recapitulating).

Have you read the opinions in the cases in Washington state, or Massachussetts, where judges found -- according to the normal procedures of lawsuits -- existing law to be discriminatorily anti-Constitutional and thus null and void?

Instead of rabblerousing demagoguery on the part of ideologically motivated politicians about "activist judges" and judges out of control, why not use Occam's Razor as a guide and consider that the decisions arose out of questions and arguments that had not yet been posed and advanced?

If a law on the books is never challenged in a lawsuit, that law can still be unconstitutional, theoretically, no?

And say a case comes along, the first to challenge a particular law.

And say the judge finds plaintiff's arguments and case law citations to be far more persuasive and sound than the defendant state's.

Then say the judge, in that particular case, with those particular facts, and particularly controlling law, decides for plaintiff and invalidates our hypothetical law as being unconstitutional.

Would you say that judge has thwarted the will of the majority? made up new law?

That's the issue, as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- the judges in both cases did that hasn't been done since dim history.

To decide a lawsuit based on the merits of the arguments and the cited case law is not to invent anything, even though you might not like who prevailed in arguments and law.

It is, rather, to do what judges do.

If a defendant state cannot argue persuasively -- using rational, legal precedents and such -- that a) a problem exists that the law at issue is intended to remedy, or b) that there are compelling state reasons to restrict a particular class of citizens' rights, a judge has no room but to find against them. That's what happened in both Mass. and Washington.

I do wish we Americans would understand our legal procedures better. But with demagogues stalking the land, whipping up emotions and crowding out dispassionate consideration, I don't think that'll ever be.

And instead of the rule of law, we have raw power and the law of the jungle -- precisely what civilization is intended to rise above.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 7, 2005 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the Washington state lawsuit:

The Court must first examine the nature of the state interest said to be served by the challenged statutes. In doing so, an important line must be drawn. Outside of legal circles, there are a number of justifications advanced for excluding same-sex partners from marriage. Each of these may have some superficial appeal but, as all counsel recognize, none is a factor in the constitutional analysis. Still, the present discussion would be incomplete if it did not address them. These arguments can be characterized as follows:

• “Morality requires it.” In our pluralistic society, in which church and state are kept scrupulously separate, the moral views of the majority can never provide the sole basis for legislation. As Justice O’Connor observed in her Lawrence concurrence: “Indeed, we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.” 123 S. Ct. at 2486. As evidenced by those plaintiffs in this case who have consecrated their bonds in religious ceremonies, as well as by the Amicus filing of “Multifaith Works and other religious groups and clergy”, it is clear that Americans have differing views as to what morality requires in the definition of marriage. It is not for our secular government to choose between religions and take moral or religious sides in such a debate.

• “Tradition compels it.” It is true that marriage has long been defined as the union of one man and one woman. It is equally true that the shape of marriage has drastically changed over the years. It took a very long time for the courts (with legislative bodies sometimes understandably following just a little behind) to break down the traditional stereotypes that relegated women to second class status in society and in the marital relationship.

It may be of more than passing interest to note here that the above-cited case of Maynard v. Hill, supra, involved Seattle pioneer Doc Maynard who had left his wife Lydia and two children behind in Ohio to come west. Although he had promised to send them money and then to send for them, he did neither. Instead, what he did was to convince the 1852 territorial legislature to pass a bill declaring him divorced. He then remarried. Lydia had been given no notice of all this and, as the Supreme Court noted, it was a time when the old tradition of parliamentary or legislative divorce was in the process of giving way to having such matters dealt with by the courts with more rights accorded the marital parties. Nonetheless, despite Maynard’s “loose morals and shameless conduct”, the divorce was upheld and Lydia and the children received nothing. Today, with new traditions having replaced the old, we can all be assured they would have fared better.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 7, 2005 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As the Massachusetts Supreme Court has noted “it is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it historically has been.” Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 332 n. 23, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003). While not to be ignored, the backward view toward tradition must neither be treated as binding nor allowed to be blinding. Serving tradition, for the sake of tradition alone, is not a compelling state interest.

• “The institution of marriage is threatened.” Some declaim that the institutions of marriage and family are weak these days and, in fact, stand threatened. Any trial court judge who regularly hears divorce, child abuse and domestic violence cases deeply shares this concern. It is not difficult, however, to identify both the causes of the present situation and the primary future threat. They come from inside the institution, not outside of it. Not to be too harsh, but they are a shortage of commitment and an excess of selfishness. Before the Court stand eight couples who credibly represent that they are ready and willing to make the right kind of commitment to partner and family for the right kinds of reasons. All they ask is for the state to make them able.

Is there a good and sufficient reason for the state’s current negative response? That is the issue before the court. In 1998, when the Legislature enacted its Defense of Marriage Act, it offered this statement as to the requisite compelling state interest: “It is a compelling interest of the state of Washington to reaffirm its historical commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife and to protect that institution.” Laws of 1998, ch. 1, §1. As noted above, the reference to history is unavailing and that to protection too non-specific to be helpful.

The defendants and intervenors have done a somewhat better job of articulating interests the same-sex marriage prohibition is said to serve. Chief among these are encouraging procreation and the raising of children in a healthy, nurturing environment.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 7, 2005 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The link between civil marriage and procreation is not what it was when the laws prohibited both adultery and ready access to contraception. Then, it could well be said that love, marriage and baby carriage would come in predictable sequence. The laws of today recognize the reality that a substantial amount of procreation occurs outside of the marital relationship. See, R.C.W. 26.26, the Uniform Parentage Act. Of course the laws never have placed a requirement on marriage that the parties procreate nor do they prohibit from marriage those who are unable or disinclined to procreate. Many families today are created through adoption, the foster parent system and assisted reproduction technologies. This last point, by the way, is well illustrated by some of the plaintiffs who, thanks to government recognition of the fact that their sexual orientation is no bar to good parenting, are presently able to enjoy family lives with children.

The legal question is not whether heterosexual marriage is good for the replenishment of the species through procreation. It is. The precise question is whether barring committed same-sex couples from the benefits of the civil marriage laws somehow serves the interest of encouraging procreation. There is no logical way in which it does so.

Today the law and society fully recognize (as well they should) the value of children who join the human family by means of in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, egg donation or surrogacy or who join a new family by way of adoption. It rationally serves no state interest to harm certain of those children by devaluing the immediate families that they have joined.

State action to maintain and strengthen the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples is decidedly a means that is rationally related to promoting stable families and is something that is good for children. Again, the precise question before the Court, however, is whether not having the same statesupported relationship available as an option for homosexual couples furthers this same interest. In other words, would adding this benefit for the second group (and their children) injure that legitimate state interest in the support of families and the nurturance of children? Again, there is no logical way in which it would be so.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 7, 2005 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is good for children to be raised in stable families with a father and a mother. There is not the slightest question about this. It is a situation to be encouraged by the state. But, can it be said that fewer children will have this stability because couples consisting of two men or two women are allowed to have a relationship that is state-sanctioned? There is no reasonable explanation for why this would be so. There is no reasonable expectation that, should such a legal result come to pass, married fathers and mothers will abdicate their parental responsibilities or young would-be parents will defect from the ranks of heterosexuals.

On the other hand, when one peers into the future, one circumstance is far more certain to occur. Many, many children are going to be raised in the homes of gay and lesbian partners. Present social trends will undoubtedly continue. Gay and lesbian couples will feel the human instinct to wish to raise children, they will have available either the supportive adoption laws or the technological means to begin raising a family and they will enjoy the increasing public acceptance of such families. All this is certain.

One, then, must try to envision two categories of future children. The first category consists of those whose heterosexual parents will either neglect them or never conceive them because same-sex marriage has been legalized. The second category is those children who will be raised in a home with same-sex adult partners and who would enjoy enhanced family stability and social adjustment if these adults were granted the benefits of civil marriage. The only reasonable conclusion is that the very real second category greatly outnumbers the first theoretical one. Therefore, the goal of nurturing and providing for the emotional wellbeing of children would be rationally served by allowing same-sex couples to marry; that same goal is impaired by prohibiting such marriages.

The above conclusion is inescapable when one looks objectively and dispassionately at the properly framed question. It is the same conclusion reached by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999. “If anything, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the State argues the marriage laws are designed to secure against.” Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 219, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999) (emphasis in original). It is the same conclusion reached by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003. “Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of ‘a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.’” Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 335, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003).

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 7, 2005 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It has also been suggested that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage serves the interest of protecting children from the harms that may be caused by being raised in a non-traditional family. Although many may hold strong opinions on the subject, the fact is that there are no scientifically valid studies tending to establish a negative impact on the adjustment of children raised by an intact same-sex couple as compared with those raised by an intact opposite-sex couple. The offered studies, anecdotal experiences and opinions regarding children from broken homes or children raised by a single parent have no logical relevance. Unlike the documented impact of children’s exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse in the homes of lawfully married heterosexual couples, as to children raised by intact same-sex couples there is no science, only questionable assumptions based on stereotypes.

The Court concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.

It is true that some (though not all) of the benefits of civil marriage can be procured by plaintiffs through legal representation and the devices of contracts, wills, powers of attorney, adoptions, etc. That they should have to pay for these privileges while others do not, is not supported by the “real and substantial differences bearing a natural, reasonable, and just relation to the subject matter of the act in respect to which the classification is made” as required by Washington’s privileges and immunities clause. State ex rel. Bacich v. Huse, 187 Wash. 75, 83-4, 59 P. 2d 1101 (1936), overruled on other grounds, Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos, 92 Wn. 2d 939, 603 P. 2d 819 (1979).

The privilege of civil marriage and the various privileges legally conferred by that status are not being made equally available to all citizens. The plaintiffs are entitled to have judgment entered declaring that R.C.W. 26.04.010 and 26.04.020(1)(c) are violative of Article 1, §12 of the Washington Constitution.

The denial to the plaintiffs of the right to marry constitutes a denial of substantive due process. The plaintiffs are entitled to have judgment entered declaring that R.C.W. 26.04.010 and 26.04.020(1)(c) are violative of Article 1, §3 of the Washington Constitution.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 7, 2005 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reading the above, the actual decision, where is the departure from American civil law procedure? Where is the "activism"?

Or is it that what's not liked is the result, and that result is called "activist"?

Posted by seymourblues (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there a place in the marrige lisence application that asks if some is gay or not? What is to stop two men or two women of getting married just to receive benifits? What about us men who have no desire to ever get married again, but will not recieve any benifits? Just something to ponder.

Posted by notarickyfan (anonymous) on April 7, 2005 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Or is it that what's not liked is the result, and that result is called "activist"?"

Apply that to the campgain to ban gay marriage. It was done in a legitimate legal process and brought before the people for a vote" It just so happens that you don't like the result.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 8, 2005 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Is there a good and sufficient reason for the state’s current negative response? That is the issue before the court."

But all the legal verbiage above ("demogoguery" notwithstanding) is null and void if it is not the court's job to decide if there is a "compelling state interest". That is the job of the legislature, and that's why they are elected by the people as their representatives.

Rather than get into the Mass case, there's a better case: Lawrence v Texas. For those interested, I managed to reach the same result in just 5 sentences and I think with better reasoning than the court made: http://elborak.blog-city.com/read/134465...

But Lawrence v. Texas was really a copycat case of a Georgia case in whch the court previously upheld the sodomy ban. Yet in the Texas case, they overthrew it. Now frankly, I don't care how they decided. What people do in their own homes is not my concern. But what I would like to ask is two questions:

First, since the GA decision, what changed? Not the constitution, because neither before nor since has there been a constitutional amendment on sodomy. Only 2 things changed: the courts changed and the public opinion toward sodomy changed, resulting in the effective repeal of such laws in 49 states.

So how did the court find, using the same constitution on the same laws, that something is now unconstitutional? By importing their own opinions on whether the state interest was compelling, by their own definition.

I submit to you that such is the wrong test. The only test the court should apply is whether GA or TX, under the constitution, had the *authority* to pass such laws, not whether such laws were a good idea. Since there is no *historical* understanding of a limitation on that power (meaning that such laws had always stood and the court had heretofore upheld them) and since such is not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore falls under the 10th Amendment, the state has the authority. It does not matter whether the court finds such laws a good idea, nor finds them compelling, nor finds them repulsive. They should have upheld the law and GA and TX should have repealed them.

(cont)

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 8, 2005 at 1:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Therein lies the difference between a politicized court and a good one. The latter looks at the constitution and decides authority, the former decides desirability.

Apply that to the Griswold (birth control) case. It is not a matter of constitutional interest whether or in what ways society has changed. That is why we hold elections. What is of constitutional interest is whether the text of the constitution has changed. It had not, therefore Connecticut should have won. What the court said, in too many words, is that birth control is a good thing and therefore such laws are unconstitutional.

Bad laws are not necessarily unconstitutional, they are simply bad laws. And bad laws, unless they explicitly violate the constitution as written, ought to be first upheld, then mocked profusely, then repealed by the legislatures whose job it is to represent the people.

Same sex marriages are again, the same. It is not the court's job to decide if they are desirable, nor if the arguments for them are good. It is only the court's job to find whether under the constitution states have the authority to pass such laws. Since they always have, it takes, in my opinion, a pretty clear constitutional reason (called an amendment) to decide that all of a sudden such authority is missing.

As the court said in the Reynolds case: "there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine...the law of social life under its dominion."

Barring a constitutional amendment that says otherwise, the opinion of the court about the reasons for such laws is irrelevant.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 8, 2005 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All of the argumentation from the Mass case above illustrates that point. What the court is doing, by looking at arguments for and against, is deciding what the legislators ought to do, and they even went so far as to order them to do it. They have, by doing that, usurped the deliberative functions of the legislature.

For a state interest to be "compelling", the people who need to be compelled are the legislators who pass the laws, not the judges. If judges find, in the clear text of the constitution, that the state has no power to enforce such laws, fine. If they simply don't find the reasons to their liking, then they are acting as an unelected super-legislature.

That is judicial activism, in a nutshell.

On a personal note, I want to thank you. You know what for. I do appreciate it.

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 8, 2005 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But within the context of a lawsuit, it is absolutely the responsibility of any party to provide arguments as to why they should win.

If they cannot, they lose.

That's not activism, that's how the law works.

Would it be activism for a judge to declare a ban on handguns unconstitutional, and null and void, based on the 2d amendmentment?

No. Constitutions delimit what legislatures can do.

Same thing here: based on the concepts of due process and equal rights, judges declare anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional.

I'm afraid that what people don't like is judicial review, a cornerstone of American government since Marbury v. Madison.

I'd still ask: would it be legal for Kansas to pass a law saying Jews can't own property or vote? Or African Americans?

According to the arguments being used by pro-Amendment people, there's nothing stopping those kinds of laws from being passed and becoming law, if that's what the majority wants.

The role of the judiciary is indeed to make null and void laws that violate the consitution.

Unless, of course, you move the goal posts, change the rules, so that what is protected by the constitution -- equal civil rights and due process -- is in fact now undermined by the consitution.

That's just like being a baseball team and rigging it so the umpires can't call you out.

Of course you're going to win.

But don't kid yourself that you're still playing baseball.

Similarly, don't kid yourself that this amendment is Constitutional, or that what's been done is right.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 8, 2005 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"But within the context of a lawsuit, it is absolutely the responsibility of any party to provide arguments as to why they should win."

Of course it is. But what they should not provide is arguments about why what they did is a good idea, because it is not the court's prerogative to decide whether laws are good ideas. Under Marbury the court has assumed the right to decide whether the government in question has the authority. It's not a difficult distinction to grasp.

"Would it be activism for a judge to declare a ban on handguns unconstitutional, and null and void, based on the 2d amendmentment?"

It depends. And I think herein lies our difference. You seem to be most concerned with result, and so long as the court gives a result you want, then they've done the right thing. I'm concerned with process, that the court respect the rights of the legislature to create laws even if they don't like them and that the court respect the plain words of the constitution more than their own preferences.

So if a judge said - "The second amendment states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Banning handguns in personal possession infringes that right. Overturned." - that's legit. In fact, I believe most handgun laws are unconstitutional. You have the right to own and carry weapons. That's what the words mean.

But if the judge reviews crime statistics, European laws, and cultural trends, if the state has to come a defend why they passed such a law, and if the judge does not find such arguments "compelling" and tosses the law because he doesn't like it, that's activism.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 8, 2005 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(cont.)

That's what the court in Lawrence v Texas did, where they said:

"And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent."

Thomas, in his dissent, hit it perfectly:

"I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” ...If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’"

Four justices dissented that even though the law was stupid, the fact that there was no constitutional limitation on Texas in this regard meant that it was constitutional. Five decided that since the law was stupid, they would make up a new doctrine, which O'Connor called, "a more searching form of rational basis review".

One of the sides is activist. Can you guess which?

Posted by davidryan (David Ryan) on April 8, 2005 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What you call activist I call American, going back to Marbury v. Madison.

Supporters of the recently-passed amendment should at least have the intellectual integrity to declare that what they seek is different from how our country has operated for over 200 years.

If that's what you want, it's fine for you to want it. It's not my place to argue with your desires.

But, as in the baseball metaphor, don't kid yourselves that your still playing baseball.

Posted by El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) on April 8, 2005 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You keep asking and no one is answering:

"I'd still ask: would it be legal for Kansas to pass a law saying Jews can't own property or vote? Or African Americans?"

So I'll answer it: it would be unconstitutional.

Here's how we get there.

a) Ownership of property is a privelege and immunity of the citizens of the the United States, recognized by a long tradition in common law.

b) Under the 14th Amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

c) therefore, such a law is unconstitutional.

To do the above, we didn't have to talk about whether such a law was nice, or whether it was fair, or whether its proponents were bigots or stupid or monkeys. All we needed was two things: the facts about how property ownership has been historically viewed and the plain words of the Constitution which say "no state shall" do something specific.

I would even assert that if Congress passed a law making gay marriage a "privilege" of citizens, there would not be a damned thing any state could do about it. No state would be able to abridge that.

Fair enough?

Posted by OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) on April 10, 2005 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

[PART ONE, IT WAS TOO LONG...]
It's time for someone to stick their neck out and admit that they were one of the approximately 30% of Douglas County that voted FOR the amendment.

First of all, let me say that "protecting marriage" is not why I voted for the amendment. I simply voted my conscience. I'm not one who says "I think that lifestyle is gross... but if you want to do it, that's OK by me" like so many say. I believe that homosexuality is 1) a disorder and 2) morally wrong. I do not hate gays. I don't mind knowing that I'm breathing the same air as gays. I am not as psychologically or emotionally healthy as I'd like to be, so I'm not going to "bash" someone for their problems. I'm also not as moral as I'd like to be, so I'm not going to "bash" someone who is immoral. But, just because I'm not perfect, and just because the world is full of sin and other problems, doesn't mean I should just ignore the fact that homosexuality is not good for society as a whole. I'm not saying that I think that gays are the root of all that is wrong today. I'm saying that when I as a voter have a chance to actually vote my conscience, I should do so. The first entry of this thread of comments made reference to heterosexual social problems. In case you a wondering: yes, I would also vote for an amendment that sought to strengthen society by addressing some of the issues mentioned in the initial post of this series.

This is the issue that I take very, very seriously: that my God has made it plain in scripture that homosexuality is wrong. I have read much analysis here about history, about other societies, and about philosophies along the lines of "people should be allowe to make their own choices". But many, many of us live our lives under voluntary submission to God's will as He as expressed it in scripture. God has made plain that homosexuality is an "abomination". He even told Moses to instruct His people to stone men who "lie together" [READER UNDERSTAND: I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE AGAINST GAYS]. If God feels THAT strongly about it, and if I go around saying "He is Lord!", then how can I claim that "people should be allowed to make their own choices" on this subject? God told the Israelites to stone homosexuals because He feared that unchecked sin within their culture would destroy them all (the history of the Israelite nation in scriptures bears this out to be a valid concern). History tells us that there are many examples of ancient societies that fell because of institutionalized immorality (i.e.: some of the Mezo-American cultures and the Roman empire are prime examples).

Posted by OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) on April 10, 2005 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

[PART TWO]
I'm sure many of you will have a good time calling me a bigot once this is posted. Go ahead, but I'm not bigoted. I'm living my life for God. As such, I don't dismiss His will as He as expressed in the Bible, as some who call themselves Christians so flippantly do. If I'm going to BE a Christian and call Him lord, I'll be living a cowardly, unfaithful lie if I voted against what God said in scripture. I shouldn't be made to feel as if I owe someone an apology just because I believe that God knows more about this than we do. I shouldn't have to endure being called a bigot, a man whose mother risked her life in lunch counter sit-ins in Wichita in the 1950s, just because I think that there IS a right and a wrong, and I think that I should vote according to what is right and wrong. Some of you call this "ignorant". It's not ignorance that brings me to make such decisions, but rather it's faith, which has done far more for me than what some of you call "knowledge" has ever done for me.

Mr. A: Your statement about heterosexuality not being "some absolute moral decree handed down by God", that it "was what the authors of the Bible thought would help their cultures to flourish." is not a statement of faith. Did you really mean that? First of all, the sexual drive of the straight men in society is more than enough motivation to ensure that enough man/woman sex is going on to keep society going (please!). Also, why do people even CARE about the Bible if they are going to reduce it do being just another book written by some dudes? Do you realize what you are doing when you reduce scripture to that level? You are saying that it's just a lot of "good ideas". If that is so, then we Christians are "most to be pitied" as the apostle Paul put it, because if we cannot trust scripture, then I cannot be sure that it's telling me the truth when it says that God loves me or when it says that there is life after death.

I voted per my faith. I'm not pounding my chest. I'm not claiming to be better than the rest of you. I'm not even claiming to be more moral than the gay men around me who are commit these abominations before God. I'm just trying to do what's best, one decision at a time, and following my God is what I think it best.

Posted by Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) on April 13, 2005 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Old guy-
"READER UNDERSTAND: I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE AGAINST GAYS" &
"God told the Israelites to stone homosexuals "

Why is it that you are not advocation violence against gays? Probably because it would be morally wrong. But if God once said that gays were to be stoned, then shouldn't they always be stoned? I mean, God does not make mistakes, does he? By saying you do not advocate violence are you not going against the will of God? How can you not advocate violence when God has prescibed it?

Probably because you have determined on your own that throwing big rocks at people because of their sexual orientation is effing stupid. Probably another reason is that Jesus talked about crazy stuff like Love, turning the other cheek, and judging not.

2nd:
Also, some churches in the middle ages did not let heteros marry in the church because straight marriage was about the exchange of property. However, gays were allowed to marry in the church because it was about love.

3rd:
Quote me any passage in the Bible where Jesus says that gay people should not be allowed to marry.
I'll save you the trouble of looking. There isn't one.

Posted by Mr_A (Bryan Anderson) on April 13, 2005 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

advocating
(not advocation or whatever i wrote)

Posted by