So you return the favor my forcing your morality upon me? Oh, I guess when *you* do it, that’s okay.

It’s always easy to restrict someone else’s life, isn’t it? If you were serious about legislating morality, you would pass laws prohibiting alcohol, cigarettes, divorce, adultery, graven images, and the consumption of pork and shellfish of all kinds. You would also prohibit any businesses operating on the sabbath and make any sex outside of marriage criminal, and also prohibit interracial marriage. But no — those aren’t important enough to legislate against — it’s always easy to pick on the gays.

Randy,
You are confusing my acceptance of “legislating morality” as a legitimate function of state level government, with a personal desire to enforce my own morality. As I noted in my post, I voted against prop-8. What evidence do you have that I want to force my morality on anyone? You derive it solely from my willingness to let my fellow citizens vote on an issue.

See, I personally would vote to legalize local gambling and prostitution (for example), but I recognize that the vast majority disagrees with me on moral grounds (the crime/health issues with both are worsened by bans — the only real reason to outlaw them is morality). Whenever there is a conflict on a moral issue, the best solution is to put it to a popular vote — as every man is individually capable of making moral judgments (i.e., we do not need a special panel of judges or ‘experts’ to divine morality). I know this means I will lose on a lot of issues.

I do not seek to impose my own morality on society — I seek to impose the morality of the majority on society... as has been done throughout history and will be done forever. I just happen to admit this reality. The safety valve / protection against tyranny is the freedom to move between states, and the federal Constitution as a tool for the majority of states to keep rogue states in check. That safety valve is destroyed by the Progressive(and “Compassionate Conservative”) efforts to raise moral issues and social engineering to the federal level, forcing a ‘top down’ anti-democratic approach. For example, abortion and drug laws.

So you return the favor my forcing your morality upon me? Oh, I guess when *you* do it, that’s okay.

It’s always easy to restrict someone else’s life, isn’t it? If you were serious about legislating morality, you would pass laws prohibiting alcohol, cigarettes, divorce, adultery, graven images, and the consumption of pork and shellfish of all kinds. You would also prohibit any businesses operating on the sabbath and make any sex outside of marriage criminal, and also prohibit interracial marriage. But no — those aren’t important enough to legislate against — it’s always easy to pick on the gays.

If SSM is allowed, no one will force to you get married to a person of the same sex, nor are you required to bring presents to their wedding, so I really don’t see how this affects you any more than interracial marriages affect you.

Gay marriage opponents don’t have any arguments that they aren’t willing to compromise if it benefits heterosexuals. Marriage is about children–except when heterosexuals are childless or when gay couples have kids. They’re defending marriage–but doing nothing to combat divorce. Gays are a threat to marriage–but they can’t articulate just how. They want freedom from government–but want government to impose their moral code on others. You just can’t fool a majority of people forever.

They focus on fear to avoid offering coherent explanations why the denial of equality to one specific group makes good policy sense. Because it doesn’t.

Just because you don’t listen doesn’t mean the arguments don’t exist. Ultimately, it’s a question of legislating morality. We have always, and will always, legislate on the basis of morality. So please do not make the silly argument that “legislating morality is wrong!” because you (like every non-anarchist) are all too willing to force your morality on me, and everyone else, via the power of the state (e.g., you ban me from walking around with my junk out).

The anti-SSM movement is primarily driven by the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and the state should not endorse such behavior. Very few people want to criminalize homosexual behavior anymore, but there are a lot who still balk at the idea of the state endorsing it. All of the other arguments are window dressing, trying to craft some pretext to oppose SSM without playing the “moral card” — since the courts have declared that moral opposition to homosexual behavior is not a legitimate governmental objective (it was still a viable purpose post-Romer in 1996, but 2003 Lawrence prohibits it).

Now of course I know you will call me a bigot and dismiss this post. Your rage at this point probably makes you disbelieve that I am on record (go ahead, search the volokh archives) opposing California’s prop 8 effort to ban SSM. Yet I still thought it was a legitimate use of the proposition process. Gasp! I actually support the right of the people to pass laws I find personally repugnant! How horribly democratic!

As an aside, I find it amusing that Republicans challenged Sotomayor as to whether she considered Baker to be “settled law”, but object to calling “Roe v. Wade that.

Owen H.:
Brown overturned it, and it is generally held that Plessy was wrongly decided. I believe the future will see Baker overturned, for the same reason.

You are certainly entitled to make predictions about the future of constitutional law in this area. Those predictions are, however, irrelevant to the issue at hand. Plessy cannot be cited as a valid constitutional precedent because it has been overturned. Baker can be cited because to date it has not been overturned. Most observers think that it is extremely unlikely that SCOTUS will overturn Baker in the near future.

The State of Illinois does not require registration of handguns.

It allows cities to require registration of all guns. Chicago requires registration of handguns and just ignores all applications.

This is effectively the same thing.

As long as the same-sex marriage debate stays in the realm of emotion and religion, gays will be at a disadvantage. Many voters have not yet stopped to think beyond their pre-conceived notions about gays to examine the affirmative case in favor of marriage equality. Some never will. But, the ongoing public discussion ensures that increasing numbers will be exposed to the real arguments–not just scary TV ads about school indoctrination and moral decay caused by “those people.”

Commitment and responsibility are either beneficial to society or they are not. It doesn’t make sense to have a government policy of promoting stabilizing institutions for one segment of the population that it denies to others who could also benefit. The increasing number of same-sex parents raising children, and the need to give them legal protections, will further expose this nonsensical stance.

Gay marriage opponents don’t have any arguments that they aren’t willing to compromise if it benefits heterosexuals. Marriage is about children–except when heterosexuals are childless or when gay couples have kids. They’re defending marriage–but doing nothing to combat divorce. Gays are a threat to marriage–but they can’t articulate just how. They want freedom from government–but want government to impose their moral code on others. You just can’t fool a majority of people forever.

They focus on fear to avoid offering coherent explanations why the denial of equality to one specific group makes good policy sense. Because it doesn’t.

The majority of the public opposed inter-racial marriage. By the arguments made by SSM opponents, the legislatures were wrong to remove those laws.

Freedom has a point here. There is a clear difference between “disapprove” and “make illegal.” There are many individuals who might disapprove of an action, but would balk at the idea of making such action illegal.

Thrasymachus: My general point is that Loving was not nearly as anti-majoritarian a decision as is sometimes suggested.Like Brown, it was much more the case of a national majority overruling a regional majority.

The majority of the public opposed inter-racial marriage. By the arguments made by SSM opponents, the legislatures were wrong to remove those laws.

Thrasymachus:
Um .... Plessy v. Ferguson has been overridden and as such is no longer a valid legal precedent.Baker v. Nelson has not been overridden and remains the law of the land.See the difference?

Brown overturned it, and it is generally held that Plessy was wrongly decided. I believe the future will see Baker overturned, for the same reason.

Randy: Thal:I seriously doubt that very many southern states would have ever repealed the ban on interracial marriage, and most of them didn’t until Loving.Or, it would have taken them a very long time.As someone said earlier, 40% of the people in one state *still* think it should be illegal.

I don’t disagree with this at all. Most of the 16 states with anti-miscegenation laws were unlikely to have repealed them around the time when Loving was decided. The point, however, is that 33 states either repealed these laws by legislative action or never implemented them in the first place. This is a HUGE difference from the contemporary situation with anti-SSM laws, which have been repealed by only two state legislatures, while many states have implemented constitutional and not just statutory bans on SSM.

I seriously doubt that very many southern states would have ever repealed the ban on interracial marriage, and most of them didn’t until Loving. Or, it would have taken them a very long time. As someone said earlier, 40% of the people in one state *still* think it should be illegal.

yankee:
Because every time there’s not a “massive backlash” against some government policy, it means the people support it?Get real.And of course in a large part of the country there was a massive backlash to the cause of black equality, including marriage equality.There’s a reason it took a Supreme Court decision to decriminalize interracial marriage in much of the country.

For the record, I don’t share Freedom!!!!!!‘s views about the desirability of gay marriage. He is clearly correct, however, in stating that there is a substantial difference between the acceptability of interracial marriage in the 50’s and 60’s and that of gay marriage today. Interracial marriage was legal in 34 of the 50 states at the time of the Loving decision, and almost all of those states repealed anti-miscegenation laws through legislation rather than judicial review. (California is the only exception that I can identify immediately). To date only two states have enacted same sex marriage by legislation.

While there’s no question that interracial marriage was unpopular, during the 1950’s and 1960’s states steadily repealed anti-miscegenation laws without the backlash that gay marriage provokes at present. People may have disapproved of interracial marriage, but they did not think that it should remain illegal. Obviously this does not apply to gay marriage today, since anti-SSM groups have placed the issue on the ballot in 31 states and won every referendum.

Owen H.:
Why cite Brown v. Board of Ed., when there’s Plessy v. Ferguson?

Um .... Plessy v. Ferguson has been overridden and as such is no longer a valid legal precedent. Baker v. Nelson has not been overridden and remains the law of the land.

See the difference?

Oren: I count the following States are requiring registration of handguns: CA, IL, IA, MA, MD, MI, MN, NE, NV (Clark County, but that’s most of the state), NJ, NY, NC, SD.That amounts to ~125 million people (as of 2008), or more than 1/3rd of the population.

The State of Illinois does not require registration of handguns.

At any rate, I would predict that many such state laws will be challenged post-McDonald ... and some of them will be overturned.

As an aside ... what in hell has happened to the quality and relevancy of comments on the VC? The site seems to have attracted a lot of blowhards as of late. Are junior high schools across America on recess or something?

Weasel Silver is completely discredited. He bet the farm that the marriage referendum would lose in Maine. He lost. Anything that he says is less than worthless at this point.

Interesting. First, he “bet the farm” by calling it 70/30 then he’s totally worthless for failing to make his call.

With respect, I’m not sure I agree. People object to registration (defined as ‘the gov’t has a list by serial number of every legally owned gun’) for various reasons.

1)A time-of-purchase check is a one time hassle — having passed, you don’t have an ongoing annual paperwork hassle, and you don’t become an inadvertent felon by forgetting the annual paperwork either.

2)People who object on ‘first step to confiscation’ grounds may not care about getting a purchase permit, if the permit is just documentation of passing a background check, vice sending in serial numbers. Not my personal bugbear, but I think it is for some.

No disrespect taken at all, of course. I don’t buy your guesses either, but they are reasonable. Without more precise polling questions (probably beyond the patience of the person volunteering their time to answer), I think we can broadly separate into “free to purchase/posses” and “needs paperwork’, at least to zeroth order.

As to the actual complaints, point-of-sale seems to me far more burdensome than a once-a-decade licensure requirement, but that’s neither here nor these. As to the conspiracy nuts, I don’t imagine that they find having to submit to a background check palatable no matter when it is (and most of them will insist that they are keeping the data anyway).

Freedom!!!!!!: The fact is, the overwhelming MAJORITY of States had removed laws against interracial marriage. If that was as unpopular as the homosexualists are suggesting, there would have been a massive backlash.

Because every time there’s not a “massive backlash” against some government policy, it means the people support it? Get real.

And of course in a large part of the country there was a massive backlash to the cause of black equality, including marriage equality. There’s a reason it took a Supreme Court decision to decriminalize interracial marriage in much of the country.

Freedom!!!!!!:
Weasel Silver is likely a homosexual himself. Thus he has a vested interest in spinning poll results to his liking. It doesn’t matter, his reputation is shot at this point.

Because clearly only a homosexual would support gay rights. I myself am also an elderly black woman.

Freedom!!!!!!: By the way, why do homosexualists constantly scream “Loving v. Virginia” when they should be referring to Baker v. Nelson?

Why cite Brown v. Board of Ed., when there’s Plessy v. Ferguson?

Freedom!!!!!!:
A bold face lie. The overwhelming majority of States had legislatively repealed laws against interracial marriage. Only a small minority of States retained the Statutes. If it was so unpopular, the reverse would have been true.

Calling his statement a “bold faced lie” is incorrect, no matter how hard you try to spin it. States had repealed laws, but the public strongly opposed it. In addition, many other states (such as MA), had laws to refuse to perform marriages to out-of-staters who lived in states where the marriage would be illegal. Yes, a majority of states had repealed such laws (those that had them), but you called his statement on public opinion a lie, when in fact he understated it.

You fail. Epic Fail. Total Fail.

Well I for one am sold.

Owen and Jab, thank you for calling me on my lie. I apologize to everyone for saying opposition to interracial marriage was only 60% when it was clearly higher.

Wrong.

34 > 16.

68% > 32%

Do you really want to continue to play that game when it is so easy to debunk?

Not to mention, as I pointed out, the question presented in the Gallup poll doesn’t support your cause.

Incidently, the graph I linked to at Nate Silver’s cite was from another source. It’s not Silver’s own graph. So I guess everyone involved must be a homosexual.

Your agenda is well known. And yes, Weasel Silver, the discredited nerd is also a homosexual who relies on dubious sources to produce his fantasies. He bet the farm on Maine, and he LOST.

Here’s some polling data on approval of black-white intermarriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx

In 1958, 94% OPPOSED it.
In 1968, 70% OPPOSED it.
Even as recently as 1972, 60% OPPOSED it.

But the trend is unmistakable and incredibly monotonic.
The lines crossed sometime between 1983 and 1991...
In 1997, 64% SUPPORTED it, and by 2007, 77% supported it.

So Freedom!!!, you owe Randy an apology... he was exactly correct.

Gallup has a record of cooking its polls to suit its agenda. In any case, the question that is presented in that dubious “poll” isn’t the same as “should interracial marriages be ILLEGAL.”

The question was, “Do you approve of marriages between blacks and whites.” Many people might disapprove, but still not want a law against it.

The fact is, the overwhelming MAJORITY of States had removed laws against interracial marriage. If that was as unpopular as the homosexualists are suggesting, there would have been a massive backlash.

There wasn’t, because the overwhelming majority didn’t want to see laws against Blacks marrying Whites outside the deep south.

Once again, 34 > 16. I’ll say again, 68% > 32%

You fail. Epic Fail. Total Fail.

Incidently, the graph I linked to at Nate Silver’s cite was from another source. It’s not Silver’s own graph. So I guess everyone involved must be a homosexual.

Your own post is the one that is wrong. Polls at the same time showed public opposition to inter-racial marriage at closer to 72%. And 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws.http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm

“Religioustolerance.org” is not a credible site. That said, you just pwned yourself. 16 States out of 50. 50 — 16 = 34.

So 68% of States had repealed laws against interracial marriage.

Just as I said. The overwhelming MAJORITY of States had repealed laws against interracial marriage.

In 1958, 94% OPPOSED it.
In 1968, 70% OPPOSED it.
Even as recently as 1972, 60% OPPOSED it.

But the trend is unmistakable and incredibly monotonic.
The lines crossed sometime between 1983 and 1991...
In 1997, 64% SUPPORTED it, and by 2007, 77% supported it.

So Freedom!!!, you owe Randy an apology... he was exactly correct.

Freedom!!!!!!:
A bold face lie. The overwhelming majority of States had legislatively repealed laws against interracial marriage. Only a small minority of States retained the Statutes. If it was so unpopular, the reverse would have been true.

Your own post is the one that is wrong. Polls at the same time showed public opposition to inter-racial marriage at closer to 72%. And 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm

Freedom!!!!!!:
A bold face lie. The overwhelming majority of States had legislatively repealed laws against interracial marriage. Only a small minority of States retained the Statutes. If it was so unpopular, the reverse would have been true.

Which part of Randy’s statement are you calling “a bold face lie”? The part about SCOTUS ruling in Loving, or the 60% opposition to that ruling?

It’s certainly telling that in 2000 when Alabama voters had a chance to remove their constitutional ban on interracial marriage, 40% voted to retain it. Why would anyone support retaining this, 33 years after the Supreme Court invalidated it?

However, if we look at something fundamental, such as interracial marriage, you will find that just after SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia, Americans opposed interracial marriage by 60%.

A bold face lie. The overwhelming majority of States had legislatively repealed laws against interracial marriage. Only a small minority of States retained the Statutes. If it was so unpopular, the reverse would have been true.

And Randy has it exactly right: the trend is likely to accelerate when all the dire “end of mankind” “man-dog marriage” predictions of the bigots don’t happen. Gay marriage exists and we haven’t experienced armageddon. In fact, the failure of bigots’ claims about the results of marriage equality can be seen in the way they have changed their arguments over the last few years. I like Nate Silver’s post on “Aguments Against Gay Marriage Officially Stop Making Sense.”

Weasel Silver is likely a homosexual himself. Thus he has a vested interest in spinning poll results to his liking. It doesn’t matter, his reputation is shot at this point.

Nate Silver has an excellent graph of how SSM and other gay rights are trending in every state. Click here and then scroll down to June 13, 2009.

Weasel Silver is completely discredited. He bet the farm that the marriage referendum would lose in Maine. He lost. Anything that he says is less than worthless at this point.

He’s been caught in numerous other lies and erroneous predictions. Why the little Weasel is such an icon is beyond me. He wasn’t even the most accurate of people who averaged polls in 2008. Some guys from Princeton beat him by a mile.

However, “SSM inevitability” could be reversed instantly if any of the polygamy suits succeed. That (not man-on-pumpkin action, for example) is where the ‘slippery slope’ arguments have some thread of credibility. All it will take is one court victory authorizing polygamy — even if overturned on appeal — and SSM will be dealt a fatal blow for at least another generation. Regardless of how ridiculous you think the polygamy arguments are, you have to admit that (1) such a case would validate some of the concerns of the anti-SSM side, and (2) there are enough wacky lower judges out there that there is a real chance a polygamy suit will succeed just long enough to do the damage.

So the question is can the current trend going in favor of SSM be stopped or reversed? If so, what would be the cause? You would need to differentiate SSM from interracial marriage, or find another differentiator. So far, anti-SSM people haven’t been able to come up with anything to stop the trend and they have been trying for at least ten years. Despite all their arguments and efforts, approval is way up from ten years ago.

All their arguments rest upon fears that something bad will happen. As we get more SSM approved throughout the country, those fears will evaporate, as they are already. Significant point: approval rates of SSM in massachusetts far exceed what they were just five years ago. I would suggest that’s because people have become comfortable with SSM, and found that the fearmongers were wrong.

For non-Simpsonphiles, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.