Marriage, a basic civil right?
(via HotAir.com)
Mr. Orson argues that marriage is "one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution":
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life’s joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution’s protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community.
Unfortunately, I am not a constitutional scholar, so all I can try to find out exactly what he meant (because Mr. Olson does not cite actual court cases) is to Google "united states supreme court marriage", which yields an Wikipedia article for Loving v. Virginia, in which the unanimous decision says,
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
So, is marriage a fundamental right? One aspect of it, yes. The decision makes it clear that right to marriage comes from our right to freedom of association, in particular, our right to be with someone we love. But this is a question that we have settled several years ago (although the debate may be ongoing, it's not the main issue here).
Perhaps an analogy would make the issues at hand clear. From the Wikipedia page for Loving v. Virginia:
These activists maintain that miscegenation laws are to interracial marriage, as sodomy laws are to homosexual rights and that sodomy laws were enacted in order to maintain traditional sex roles that have become part of American society.
Well, I agree! Just as anti-miscegenation laws were grave infringement on an individual's right to freedom of association, so are anti-sodomy laws. No one here is advocating for anti-sodomy laws. They have been unconstitutional for many years, and the laws that still remain on books in many states will never be enforced—or be struck down immediately.
That's as far as direct, reasonable comparison goes. Given that anti-same-sex-marriage proposals and laws are generally and usually not anti-same-sex-union (which is sufficient to satisfy requirements of freedom of association, and through which same economic benefits given to traditional marriage by the government can be given), I can't see exactly which widely agreed-upon fundamental rights they infringe upon.
Of course, it depends on whom you ask which rights are fundamental—libertarians trace every right back to property rights, but others may do differently—but here's one general rule of thumb: fundamental rights are given by God (or Nature, if you prefer) and no one else; states cannot grant them nor revoke them—they can only protect them. If something hinges on some sort of state recognition, i.e. an active role by the state, not a passive role of non-infringement, then by that fact alone, it cannot be a right. After all, if a right is truly fundamental, it cannot be dependent upon any human institution.
But in any case, I think the date of the decision might be instructive. This decision was handed down in 1967. The relevant civil rights act (the one outlawing segregation) was passed in 1964. This is an evidence in support of the adage that lasting social changes do not come from the Supreme Court. They come from the people themselves. The court battles of Prop. 8 are, at the very least for the present (even if you are a social liberal), the wrong way to go.
Gay marriage, the right way
The Quakers today agreed to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and said they would ask the government to change the law to allow Quaker registering officers to register same-sex partnerships in the same way as marriages.
At their annual meeting, held at the University of York, 1200 members gave their unanimous approval to revise relevant parts of Quaker faith and practice to treat gay marriages in the same way as heterosexual unions.
Michael Hutchinson, of Quakers in Britain, said: "Many of our meetings have told us that there are homosexual couples who consider themselves to be married and believe this is as much a testimony of divine grace as a heterosexual marriage. They miss the public recognition of this in a religious ceremony."
I can't say that I understand their decision. How are they going to deal with numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual acts? While I am sure there are ways to re-interpret the Bible to make the modern acts of homosexuality acceptable in the "eyes of God", well, I can't say that I would be convinced by the argument myself. But then, I am not theologian or pastor. (One way to argue would be that the homosexual acts referred to in the Bible were often part of idol worship, or in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, it wasn't so much that it was homosexual, but that it was a rape against guests—and how sacred host-guest relations are in the ancient world, that would have incurred the wrath of every god imaginable by men. Committed gay relationships (of two consenting adults) are ... a new phenomena to which there is no real comparison in history.)
But, in any case, speaking as a friend of freedom, if gay marriage is to be accepted, this is the only way it can be accepted—through private, voluntary association of men, whether it be religious (like this one), non-religious, or anti-religious. No government has any business forcing it on any one—the only possible business it has is in approving requests like the one Quakers make (assuming that this recognition is not forced upon other religious groups).
This is the only way that it can be done, and I see nothing wrong with it—except that it was by unanimous decision of 1200-member body. I am always suspicious of unanimous decisions, because it is in the human nature to disagree, especially on controversial issues that touch on the fundamentals of our belief systems. But then, I don't know the Quaker decision making process. Perhaps all (or most) of their decision making is through discussion and consensus. In that case, the unanimous decision makes sense, although getting 1200 people to agree on even one controversial issue seems like a herculean task.
Perhaps those who oppose gay marriage to the end will eventually die out—but if they do, then until they do, they should be able to find their own communities which accept them and associate with the like-minded people. The government has no business decreeing what people's views ought to be.
Difference between personal opinion and public policy
... is that we need to follow the strict rule of the law in regards to public policy, while there should be great allowances for vast differences of personal opinion, even those bordering on bigotry (or beyond).
Do you think Sarahcuda, goddess of True Conservatism, is closer to the McCain or Wurzelbacher position on this one? I’d guess the former. Tell me why I’m wrong.
At first, I thought, sure, Gov. Palin wouldn't interfere with how gay people choose to live. After all, as a governor, she vetoed an anti-gay bill because she thought it was unconstitutional.
But, if you look at the full answer in context, I think then Gov. Palin's response might not be too dissimilar from Joe the Plumber's:
In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.
Three points he makes:
- states have the power to decide this sort of thing, not the federal government (in which sense the defense of marriage act is a good thing, since it unyokes states from each other in these sensitive issues)
- gay people are people too—and "they're going to do their thing"
- personally, he finds homosexual acts repulsive
Well, I think, Gov. Palin, like any, er, modern-day conservative, is going to agree with all these three points. I suppose there are some religious nuts (or just plain bigots) out there who won't agree with the second point and want to ban gay people from adopting children or what-not (the issue of adoption, I think, should lie with each adoption agency, with absolutely no pressure from either federal or state government), but that's not Gov. Palin.
But, however, she does belong in a church which views homosexuality as an abnormality which can and should be cured, so she would be receptive of a gay person as a person but not as a gay.
And really, what's wrong with this viewpoint? We are not forcing our views on anybody. We are not forcing anyone not to be gay (although some of us offer help to anyone who wants to stop being gay). We are not infringing on anyone's rights. Is it somehow required that we like every person on earth regardless of our disagreements on their lifestyle? Are we required to love every chain smoker, love every alcoholic, love every sexual deviants ... when they continue in that life? Even God doesn't force that on us: "Love the sinner but hate the sin."
But, well, while the liberals continue to oppress smokers in every state and every country with immunity, conservatives are punished for merely disagreeing with a ... state of being that is clearly unnatural—imagine a society full of gays ... in a closed system; that society will be lucky to last one generation (because we know it won't last through the nonexistence second). Note the wording Joe the Plumber uses. He didn't say he wouldn't let gays near any children (like one ought to with pedophiles, straight or gay). He said that he wouldn't let gays near his children.
And why should he? If he should, should he also be required to let chain smokers and alcoholics be near his children as well?
Why anyone who genuinely loves freedom must not call himself a "liberal"
Because the label "liberal" is as honest as the name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", or the PATRIOT act.
On HotAir.com:
From the Left, former Crossfire host Michael Kinsley schools his progressive pals:
Miss California's views on gay marriage have nothing to do with her qualifications for the job and shouldn't disqualify her for it.
This is really Liberalism 101, and it's amazing that so many liberals don't get it.
"Liberal" these days stand for whatever the leaders of Democratic party decides it is—never mind the freedom, "liberty", after which the label was given in the first place.
This is why when I say "liberal" these days, I curl my lips, roll my eyes, and distort my face. I need some kind of physical distortion to match the distortion the word has gone through.
The Separation of Marriage and State
Jerry Salcido makes a good argument why Prop. 8 was ... a misguided effort:
On March 5, 2009, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in five consolidated lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the controversial November 2008 California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which added an amendment to the California Constitution to limit "marriage" between one man and one woman. Lawyers who represent public interest groups, universities, official campaigns, individuals, companies, churches, and various other organizations who advocate and oppose Proposition 8 offered their best arguments to the seven justice panel regarding why Proposition 8 should or should not be overturned. Regardless of how the court ends up ruling, however, only one winner will clearly emerge from the courthouse -- the State.
Prop. 8 tried to reverse the state action to change the meaning of a well established word. It stopped too short. It should have tried to get the state out of marriage business, by affirming that state has no power to issue "marriage licenses", let alone decide what the definition of "marriage" exactly is.
NOM is a hate group?
This is why hate crime laws are savage hypocrisy and must be outlawed.
With wide enough definition of "hate crime" and "hate groups", every political advocacy is "hate crime" and every lobbying organization is a "hate group". After all, it's the hate of American consumers that drives sugar (and in general, farm) lobby. It's the hate of tobacco companies that drives anti-tobacco lobby. It's the hate of uptight cultural norm (or, well, conservatives) that drives marijuana lobby. It's the hate of law-abiding citizens that drives lobbying for more money spent and more luxuries provided for prisoners. It's the hate of parents and students that drives the teachers' unions. (Here, I define "hate" loosely, namely, they don't like these particular people as much as they like the people they advocate for.)
There is no group that can't be painted as a "hate group". We should, as a society, look at the groups and people who flippantly label other people and groups as "hate group" as the biggest hate-promoter of all—just like TSA is the largest terror organization ever to exist in America.
Is government recognition really the only goal of gay marriage supporters?
WASHINGTON -- After an emotional debate, the D.C. Council gave final approval Tuesday to legislation that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states.
...
"We don't have any interest in making their religious institution recognize our marriage or our relationship," Grandis said. Instead, Grandis said, it's about the government recognizing the couple's civil rights.
Really? Could I have that in writing please? It's funny that he refers to "civil rights", because the civil rights movement was precisely one which one group's freedom (namely, for private citizens and institutions to discriminate) was sacrificed ostensibly for "rights" (that is, "right" to be accepted by everyone regardless of your color) of others. Is it going to be the same thing all over again except that this time, it will be with churches and religions?
After all, once government establishes this "equal rights", what stops them from barring non-profit status from churches that refuse to recognize gay marriage? What stops them from revoking licenses of adoption agencies who refuse to serve gay couples?
Unless the law specifically excludes such retaliatory actions (and, boy, it's going to be a long list unless it's a broad and powerful exclusion (you know, something like only government agencies being bound by this particular law, not any private entities)), government recognition of "gay marriage" means (forced) religious recognition of gay marriage. Either that or religious persecution, if the leaders refuse to bend and bow.
If the law is not going to have prohibitions against discrimination against those who do not recognize gay marriage, the only palatable solution is recognizing some kind of gay union, but using different words.
If not, you should be honest and say it upfront: you are seeking recognition by everybody including religious organizations.
Roe effect – Wikipedia
An example of self-defeating position.
This hypothesis (I mean not enough time has passed to allow us to see if this can actually happen) also provides a surprisingly logical support to gay marriage for everyone.
After all, there's a reason the derogatory term for heterosexual couples is "breeder". If we let every gay man and women marry people of their own gender (making it less likely—not impossible, given the modern medicine, but given the cost and effort, less likely—that they will pass on their genes), perhaps all the "gay" will be bred out of the population.
Of course, this supposition requires many jumps in logic and assumptions that have no scientific basis (yet, anyway). But it may be ... an interesting argument to make.
Just like rms's argument that if you don't like whoever perpetrated 9/11 (either fundamental Islam or the religious right (i.e. George W. Bush), according to "truthers"), you should support gay marriage. Because it's guaranteed to piss off either one.
Campaign to destroy Miss California escalates; Update: NOM stands by Prejean
If you haven’t seen the “scandalous” new photo yet, feast your eyes. It’s been many moons since I’ve looked at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue but I remember shots like that being in there even when I was a kid. (Or even sometimes on the cover.) Which is to say, it’s very late in the day culturally to be feigning shock at material like this — and yet NBC, the network that aired photos and video of the Virginia Tech killer glorifying himself, has decided that the pic’s simply too hot for the Peacock to handle. A cynic might wonder if they want viewers to imagine that it’s worse than it is. Good thing I’m not a cynic.
I haven't looked at the pictures (I assumed it was NSFW, and I am supposedly at work), but what else would one expect from the media—the same media that tried to character-assassinate Gov. Palin?
In a really twisted way, I hope they continue in their attempts. When they tried to malign Gov. Palin, a lot of people were offended and the reputation of mainstream media took a dive. The same will happen when they try to punish Ms. Prejean for holding a majority opinion. After the mainstream media has committed political suicide this way, come 2012, it won't be able to help Obama as it did in the last election.
This is unfortunate for Ms. Prejean to be a target of such vicious attacks, but if somebody has to endure such level of slander by the media (and in the course, ruin the media's own reputation), I'd rather it be Ms. Prejean, who isn't running for office (yet), then a candidate on whom the future of country would depend so heavily.
Miss California USA Should Quit or Be Fired
A Miss USA represents an organization and an ideal and as such any candidate for the job needs to be both a diplomat and a leader.
A diplomat considers the feelings and worldviews of those around him or her. A leader must do the same and also demonstrate that she is prepared to include, not exclude, no matter what surprising and uncomfortable public speaking situations she might find herself in as she performs her Miss USA work.
I’m not saying don’t speak the truth, but there is a way of delivering truth that can make all the difference and a time and place for opinion as well.
Carrie Prejean might have spoken from the heart, but a leader and a diplomat must process the emotion through the brain –- and in this case the brain should have told her to temper what she was saying in such a way that it would have been more palatable to Perez Hilton and the audience.
Well, here's one sensible argument against Miss California that isn't based on illogical feeling ("gays deserve the 'right' to marriage" ... like brothers and sisters do? What about first cousins? What about father and daughter? Don't they deserve "equal right" to marriage as any other American? "Right to marry" is not a fundamental right and is therefore not an issue of equal rights).
But, for what it's worth, Ms. Prejean already said that she's ready to return the crown if asked. The crown is rightfully hers until somebody higher up the chain asks it from her; she has no more duty to resign than President Obama does for all his reckless spending.
Blame the pageant managers. They can attack her viciously and personally, but they do not have the courage to ask from her what she already said is ready to give up. Do you know why? It's because their cause is a wrong one: that's why they have to worry about being "politically correct" (except for moments of rage, of course), and that's why they cannot perform any official action that might result in a public backlash.
Ms. Prejean expected the backlash and gave her honest answer (compare that to the pageant managers cannot even act honorably). She may not have been diplomatic and perhaps that isn't the quality these fancypants look for in a Miss USA. But she did represent the people of the United States of America. The opinion she holds is the majority opinion in more than 40 states (and mind you, no state actually passed gay marriage (not civil union, gay marriage) in a referendum, not that legislature isn't empowered to do that as they have in Vermont).
If she must give up her crown just because she's ... divisive, well, perhaps President Obama should resign for being the most divisive president since ... oh, at least Reagan?