Posted on 08/06/2010 6:42:03 AM PDT by TitansAFC
(Aug. 5) -- In Joseph Heller's famed novel, an Air Force bombardier named Yossarian and his mates are confronted with a downright Kafkaesque rule: if a pilot was crazy, he could avoid combat missions. But if he wanted to be grounded, it was clear he wasn't crazy. Thus entered into the vernacular a phrase signifying circular reasoning that traps its victims in an inescapable double-bind.
Opponents of same-sex marriage, meet Catch-22.
In November 2008, California citizens enacted Proposition 8, defining marriage as constituting a union between one man and one woman. In fact, the tally in states where the issue has been put before voters stands as follows: traditional marriage 30, same-sex marriage zip.
Yesterday, however, in the least-surprising development since summer followed spring, a San Francisco-based federal judge ruled that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution, casting a considerable pall over all such state-level voter and legislative initiatives as the case winds its way to an inevitable showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Funny, that. Because up to now, one of the most widely repeated and compelling arguments against federal action favoring traditional matrimony has been that marriage is a state issue.
Flash back four years to the floor of the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate, where the World's Greatest Deliberative Body considered a federal Marriage Amendment that would have enshrined in the federal Constitution roughly the same language adopted by a solid majority of Golden Staters.
The amendment went down to crashing defeat, as its managers could not even attract a majority of their colleagues, much less the constitutionally required two-thirds vote. Why? Because seven GOP Senators joined all but two of the chamber's Democrats in turning thumbs down on the resolution -- with a number of naysayers pointing to the tradition that marriage is regulated at the state level.
New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, for example, maintained that "federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach." And future Republican presidential candidate John McCain was even more to the point, insisting that the issue was "currently and properly being resolved in different ways, in 50 different states."
Fast- forward to last month, when another federal judge gave the heave-ho to the section of the Defense of Marriage Act -- enacted 14 years back by massive majorities of both houses of Congress and inked by Democratic President Bill Clinton -- which bars the U.S. government from granting marital benefits to same-sex couples.
Thundered Judge Joseph Tauro, "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing (the Defense of Marriage Act), plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state ... And this court is convinced that the federal government's long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government." (Emphasis added.)
In a classic in-your-face gesture to conservatives, Tauro even cited their cherished 10th Amendment, which reserves all powers not expressly numerated by the Constitution to the states or the people.
Which brings us back to the Prop 8 case. Here we have a constitutional amendment, duly enacted by a solid majority of the people of a sovereign state.
A no-brainer, by the Senate's and Judge Tauro's standard, right? Hands off, feds.
Not so fast.
In his opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker disposes in short order of the right of a state or its citizens to regulate marriage. "Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest," the jurist claims. (Emphasis added.)
Referring to support for traditional marriage as involving "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles," Walker adds dismissively, "The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot."
With Judge Walker's decision, it comes down to this for proponents of traditional marriage: go to the feds for constitutional protection of marriage, and they say regulating marriage is a state matter. Regulate marriage on the state level, and the feds will invalidate your actions as violating the U.S. Constitution.
Heads, they win. Tails, you lose. Catch-22.
Well, I reckon we disagree. I don’t think gov’t involvement in marriage hsa been good for the institution, at least in modern times.
Government has an almost perfect record of messing up whatever it is involved with. Like marriage. On the other hand, my faith has a perfect record and has never forced anyone to accept impossibilities like “gay marriage”. If it was left to folks’s faiths, I would be free to accept someones marriage based on what my faith says about it, not whatever the gov’t says.
Freegards
Well, I'm sorry that you have voluntarily made yourself incapable of understanding the end results of arguments you are making.
In due course it is almost guaranteed that society is going to change enough that gay marriage will become the majority opinion. At that point your advocacy of marriage as a government licensed institution means there will be every justification for gay marriage being stuffed down your craw without a damned thing you can do about it. You advocate a government intrusion into a very private matter, and that is truly a ceding of personal authority. Without expulsion of government from the marriage contract, you will be at the mercy of whatever social fad comes into being and pulls 51% of the vote.
What's ironic is that if we "get the government out of marriage," you either throw the issue completely to religious bodies (which many libertarian types also don't like), or else you end up with a system where everybody get's to define their own idea of marriage, and which is functionally the same as the government-imposed system you just decried.
Guess what - without the government in marriage, you will have a lot more gay marriage, and lot more quickly, than you would otherwise. Very bad argument you're making.
As I said above, you are ignorant of the way the winds are blowing. Even without the activist judges trying to push things along before most people are ready to move that way, the fact that the younger people today already hold those views means what is coming is coming. You can either propose a solution that will prevent coercive enforcement of gay marriage, or you can get run over by the juggernaut of state run marriage morphed into a form you don’t like.
You know whose fault that is? Conservatives for not making a more compelling case against gay marriage. You can't expect people to oppose it just because you don't like it. You have to make the social case that gay marriage is harmful to society as well as individuals, and then present the evidences (which are out there). But...tada...in doing so, you also have to accept that society has an interest in the regulation of marriage.
So you'll be cool with it if the company you've worked for for fifteen years decides that it no longer accepts your marriage as legitimate, and ends all spousal benefits for your wife, as well as for the kids who no longer qualify as the products of a legitimate marriage?
aol news.
works both ways the homosexuals have the same but opposite catch.
Notice how all the articles are spinning to avoid examination of the judges piss poor opinion.
if this was a law school paper it would have just barely been a borderline D. at best.
No. That wouldn’t be cool. But I guess I would have to find another job.
Would you be cool with it if you owned the company and the gubberment forced you to recognize your long time employee steve as being married to five other guys?
If it was left to folks’ faiths, I would hazard that regular couples would be in much better shape, because there would be only a fraction of people who would think “gay marriage” is possibe. Now, the gov’t has conditioned many to think that marriage comes from them, so they accept whatever bizarre combination the gov’t chooses to make people accept.
Freegards
Of course not, but the point is that if we want the gubmint to do right, then we have to MAKE it do right by being specially vigilant.
I want to investigate your argument a little further, though. Beyond just the stock phrase of “getting the gubmint out of marriage,” what exactly do you intend to replace it, and how do you think it will work out, pursing extended ramifications of your policy choice?
>> who no longer qualify as the products of a legitimate marriage?
You make some interesting points although I don’t agree with the wholeness of your argument. Even if the ‘family’ was in contract with the company, what’s to stop the contract from being broken to the benefit of the company. How’s it litigated? What arbitrary precedent would be set? Yes, the govt generally eliminates such random acts of hostility against the family.
In total, the ‘traditional’ family is still far in the lead.
BTW, the pro-govt position is an economic one, the non-govt argument is to the advantage of Liberty - a dichotomous relationship to say the least.
So America just drops the entire concept of "marriage"? If there isn't a definition of it, then let us first remove the word from our language so that we do not confuse it with the definition and the institution that we used throughout history.
Sorry, I don't buy into that assumption. I don't view gay marriage to be compatible with liberty.
“Of course not, but the point is that if we want the gubmint to do right, then we have to MAKE it do right by being specially vigilant.”
And my point is you can’t trust gov’t to do right, at least in modern times. You can trust what your faith says about it, and it bats 1000.
As far as practical matters go, I figure free people can have a contract between them if they want one. I imagine some faiths would require some sort of legal contract in order to get married, some wouldn’t. Hopefully many would stop looking at marriage as a lousy gov’t contract but as something to do with their faith, and that would improve the state of the institution and the culture.
But I know the gov’t is ‘probly never going to give up its involvement in marriage, to that institution’s detriment. It affords too much control in the culture, and is a great weapon for the Enemy. Do you think the homosexualists want the gubberment to quit defining marriage? Not hardly. They want gov’t to be able to regulate marriage, or at least fool folks into thinking it does, forcing and conditioning folks to accept an impossibility like “gay marriage”, contrary to what their faith teaches about it. I voted for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman in my state, but I doubt it will really make much difference eventually. The good news is that what my faith says about marriage is really all that matters. It’s just a shame that the gov’t has the power to punish if they disagree with what your faith teaches.
Freegards
>> Sorry, I don’t buy into that assumption. I don’t view gay marriage to be compatible with liberty.
I never said it was predicated on “gay marriage”.
There’s enough evidence in the tax code to show how the Fed manipulates relationships. You may agree with the outcome, but that form of economic involvement in one’s family is not necessarily derived from the concepts of Liberty.
Employers shouldn't be involved in health benefits anyway. If it wasn't for government taxation laws, people would still be in charge of their own medical coverage.
I was all for homo "rights to privacy," when younger, even though more than one older relative assured me they wouldn't stop there.
It's a matter of words, that words have meaning. A state has no right to redefine some basic words. By this same 'logic' a state could redefine what 'man' means, what 'woman' means, and remove all sex (or gender) from that definition. It could, for example, redefine all persons older than 80 -- non-human.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.Webster's 1913 Dictionary
\Mar"riage\, n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See {Marry}, v. t.]
- 1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
> Well, I’m sorry that you have voluntarily made yourself incapable of understanding the end results of arguments you are making.
Umm, no. When an example goes off the rails, it stops being valid.
In any case there is a drastic difference between a crime of violence and an issue like marriage. Your inability to see the difference between the two makes me question your rationality.
>What’s ironic is that if we “get the government out of marriage,” you either throw the issue completely to religious bodies (which many libertarian types also don’t like), or else you end up with a system where everybody get’s to define their own idea of marriage, and which is functionally the same as the government-imposed system you just decried.
If we get the government out of marriage it becomes a contract between two people. If you understood what that actually meant along with the concept of freedom of association, you would grasp there is a huge difference. Only the parties to a contract must honor a contract. If two gays get married and there is no government sanction, I don’t have to consider them married if I have an issue with it.
>Guess what - without the government in marriage, you will have a lot more gay marriage, and lot more quickly, than you would otherwise. Very bad argument you’re making.
Yes, but you will have gay marriage you can ignore because big brother with the guns will not have a law with which to apply its power of coercion.
>You know whose fault that is? Conservatives for not making a more compelling case against gay marriage. You can’t expect people to oppose it just because you don’t like it. You have to make the social case that gay marriage is harmful to society as well as individuals, and then present the evidences (which are out there). But...tada...in doing so, you also have to accept that society has an interest in the regulation of marriage.
Of course. It’s because we just didn’t do it right. Of course, every conservative intellectual who has taken on the issue has been an incompetent boob and failed because they just didn’t try enough.
How about you face the fact that some people don’t buy into the message? Alternatively how about you proffer that miraculously compelling argument which will convince all comers? Since it’s assured you don’t have that argument, why don’t you just face reality?
>Young people believe a lot of stupid crap that, if they’re not blithering idiots, they come to realize as folly when older and more wise.
>I was all for homo “rights to privacy,” when younger, even though more than one older relative assured me they wouldn’t stop there.
Yes, they do believe all kinds of stupid things, and often they don’t grow out of it. Even worse they vote.
It is simply better to remove the power of government over marriage before it gets perverted into something unrecognizable. At that point it becomes a club to be used against anyone who prefers a traditional approach to life.
Without a government enforcing marriage laws, civil society ends up being the arbiter of what and what is not a valid marriage. Sure, two gays could make themselves a marriage contract, but that contract isn’t my problem if I want to ignore it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.