The Associated Press reports:
The Supreme Court is blocking a broadcast of the trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days. . . . The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday
ruuffles says:
Any insights as to how an order gets issued while they are in the middle of oral arguments?
Also, perhaps this thread should be categorized …
January 11, 2010, 11:38 amOren_ says:
Is there any background reading on why video testimony is detrimental to witness testimony or the distinction between a video feed, an audio feed and a written transcript? It’s hard for me to get a feel for the logic here.
January 11, 2010, 11:41 amjosh bornstein says:
Good for SCOTUS. (Or is it just Kennedy who made the decision?) I think the public is much better served by keeping court proceedings hidden. Much better for us to rely on second-hand accounts by various media. Various contributors here at the VC have blogged about rational ignorance. Does the term still apply when the ignorance is forced upon us and shoved down our throats?
January 11, 2010, 11:44 amcaliforniamom says:
While I don’t like the supporters of Prop 8 being interrogated on why they supported Prop 8 (which has the feel of a government-mandated witchhunt), I don’t see the logic of prohibiting the broadcasting of an open trial. Was there some specific threat to a witness?
January 11, 2010, 11:47 amDaniel Charlies says:
Keep it closeted.
Somehow, the message sent seems appropriate, eh?
January 11, 2010, 11:53 amMartinned says:
I’d say this trial is enough of a witch hunt as it is. There’s no need to make it worse by having cameras in the court room.
January 11, 2010, 11:58 amKharn says:
I agree with banning any live broadcasts from the courtroom, especially on a case such as this where people will see others having to explain their political beliefs while under oath, having a chilling affect on other persons desires to engage in the political process, a violation (if you will) of their First Amendment rights.
January 11, 2010, 12:00 pmWilliam A. Siebert says:
What is the logic of requiring a convicted sex offender or a doctor who performs abortions to make his street address a matter of public record?
January 11, 2010, 12:03 pmCMH says:
Breyer dissented, so presumably it’s the full court.
January 11, 2010, 12:04 pmOren_ says:
A little overwrought Josh? There’s always the transcript and oftentimes the audio. “Hidden” seem wildly inapt.
January 11, 2010, 12:06 pmOren_ says:
Can you explain how a (live/delayed) broadcast of the (video/audio) are distinct? Are they more of a violation than the written transcript that will be made public in any event?
January 11, 2010, 12:09 pmbadlaw says:
Supporters of Prop 8 are not sex offenders or abortionists, though. These are law-abiding citizens with unpopular (though that’s a little hard to say when the measure in question has passed not only in CA, but everywhere else it’s been considered) political opinion and they made it known via their right to vote.
January 11, 2010, 12:13 pmMartinned says:
??? Sex offenders (presumably: former sex offenders, otherwise they’d be in prison) and abortionists aren’t law abiding citizens?
January 11, 2010, 12:16 pmMalvolio says:
The analogy to abortionists is apt. The point is to expose them to obloquy and petty terrorism. The difference is that what abortionists do would be unlawful if it weren’t for judicial fiat while Prop 8 has the support of the majority.
January 11, 2010, 12:22 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
Wacko Walker will go ballistic now. Watch and see.
January 11, 2010, 12:26 pmMartinned says:
So people are not “law abiding” if what they’re doing is only lawful because of “judicial fiat”? If people do something unpopular that is only lawful because of “judicial fiat”, it is OK to expose them to “petty terrorism”? Hmmmm…
January 11, 2010, 12:28 pmbadlaw says:
Martinned, I think you’re trolling, but my point is, those people aren’t who we’re talking about. I get so tired of people getting bogged down in one analogy after another. They only address your point; they don’t make it. These people shouldn’t have justify their vote to a judge (who’s already more than made it clear that he’s in no way impartial or unbiased).
It’s just interesting that the gay community wants what it cannot give: respect. Prop 8 was winnable, like Prof. Carpenter said. There was misfiring on some fronts, but there was more than enough support — systemically and socially — and enough funding to fully present the issue in the most liberal state in this country, and people rejected it for a second time in under ten years. Now people have to explain their views on SSM (without using religion, because as we all know, personal belief is only valid if it’s non-theistic or religious-based and left-leaning) in court like they’ve done something wrong or committed a crime. This is terrible, and I hope this is a means to an end where the SCOTUS protects people’s right to amend their constitution and have a say in fundamental policy discussions.
January 11, 2010, 12:38 pmzuch says:
Sex offenders are required to register, and their location is a matter of public record (searchable, even). But who’s requiring these witnesses to give their sttreet address? And FWIW, the witnesses have chosen to make themselves “public figures”. Do you object to the Hollywood tours pointing out which star lives where?
Cheers,
January 11, 2010, 12:43 pmArrowSmith says:
It’s a GREAT thing that the pro Prop 8 folks have to explain themselves UNDER OATH. After all, they are the ones attempting to take away civil rights from others. Let’s crush em.
January 11, 2010, 12:47 pmRPT says:
A procedural/factual question: Is the objection from the pro-8 side to the broadcast of the video of their own witnesses or of the plaintiffs’? That is, do they want to restrict the dissemination of the testimony of their own witnesses (who are pro-8) or are there anti-8 witnesses about whom there are similar concerns?
January 11, 2010, 12:54 pmBruce Boyden says:
I’m a little confused. Isn’t this a Ninth Circuit issue? Did they already pass on it? How did the Supreme Court get involved? I confess I haven’t been paying close attention.
January 11, 2010, 12:54 pmBrian G. says:
What do you expect from the Bush Supreme Court that wants to continue to allow the wholesale discrimination of gays to continue under the cover of darkness. The American people should be allowed to see and hear how bigoted right wing religious zealots stole the elction.
January 11, 2010, 1:05 pmMartinned says:
I agree with that. I just didn’t agree with the suggestion that abortionists were somehow not “law abiding”.
January 11, 2010, 1:06 pmParenthetical says:
There’s been no mention of objections by any of the experts (regardless of which side). The plaintiffs will appear (two couples) and two same-sex couples who did get married before Prop 8 will testify as to how that has effected their families. None of these folks object to the delayed YouTubiness.
It is the official proponents themselves who fear for their lives.
Ninth Circuit summarily denied the petition for mandamus last week.
January 11, 2010, 1:08 pmruuffles says:
@Bruce Boyden
The appeal was first to the 9th, you can find the order on their website
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/01/09/10-70063_FiledOrder.pdf
This (liberal) liveblog has Judge Walker’s account of the 9th’s administrative review processs.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/23357
January 11, 2010, 1:08 pmcaliforniamom says:
Have there been any threats to any of the witnesses/supporters of Prop 8? Will they have to go into a witness protection program after having to justify their political beliefs to a judge? If the court is open, then there’s no difference between having an audience in the courttoom and having an audience via YouTube.
What I truly don’t understand is why anyone has to justify why they supported a Proposition? What difference does that make? The Proposition either passes constitutional muster or it doesn’t. The reasons why people supported it or didn’t support it shouldn’t matter. The newspaper’s explanation is that the opponents of Prop 8 want testimony that supporters of Prop 8 (essentially) hate gays. Are the supporters going to put be permitted to explore the opponents’ views, like whether they hate Mormons?
It truly does seem like that part of the case is nothing more than a political witch hunt.
January 11, 2010, 1:12 pmfirst history says:
Kharn:
They have a funny way of showing their fear. Most of the witnesses defending Proposition 8 are experts, and their addresses and telephone numbers are on the Defendant-Intervenors’ Witness Statement, the argument that their political expression will be violated by televising their testimony is hollow. In fact, the only non-expert witnesses on the list are plantiffs in the lawsuit (their addresses aren’t on the defendant’s list).
January 11, 2010, 1:16 pmRPT says:
Thanks. A followup: Does the pro-8 defense object to video broadcast of witnesses “on their side” who are being called to testify—involuntarily—as part of the plaintiffs’ case? It would make a difference if it is only pro-8 defense witnesses who are testifying voluntarily who object to the wider dissemination of their testimony that video broadcast will bring.
January 11, 2010, 1:19 pmMartinned says:
Of course there’s a difference between having a few dozen people in the Court room and having a million hits on Youtube.
January 11, 2010, 1:21 pmyao says:
badlaw: “It’s just interesting that the gay community wants what it cannot give: respect.”
That’s a very nice tie you’re wearing, badlaw. Cool shoes, too. Can my partner and I have equal rights now? Kthxbai.
January 11, 2010, 1:25 pmAlfred says:
The People of California voted fair and square according to the constitution. The The Homo Sexual lobby wants to extort and intimidate honest citizens with a corrupt homosexual judge. The homosexual lobby needs to be prosecuted with the Rico laws.
January 11, 2010, 1:33 pmPerhaps a wittness can explain the aids lowest life expectancy and highest sexual diseases. Also the highest suicide rates in the nation that homosexuals have. Do not forget the highest sexual preditor rates on children.
californiamom says:
That’s like saying there’s a difference between a courtroom that seats 10 people versus a courtroom that seats 100.
January 11, 2010, 1:33 pmspasticblue says:
They point of developing a factual record on the reason for Prop 8 is that mere animus is not a legitimate reason to curtail a person’s civil rights. There are parallels between this case and Romer (both involve constitutional amendments which restricted the civil rights of gays and lesbians), and the court is investigating, in part, whether mere animus was a major factor in Prop 8 as SCOTUS found in Romer.
January 11, 2010, 1:38 pmMartinned says:
I’d say there is a qualitative – not just quantitative – difference between a courtroom that seats 10 people versus a courtroom that seats 100. The former would cause the parties and the judge to tone down the formality and the oratory relative to how they would behave in a bigger room, especially if all those 100 seats are actually filled.
Do you really think the OJ Simpson trial would have been such a national obsession if the public’s access had been limited to the court room and trial transcripts? (Or even audio?)
January 11, 2010, 1:40 pmyankee says:
Yes, but the plaintiffs’ witness list includes (by my count) fourteen hostile witnesses who were directly involved in the “Yes on 8″ campaign, plus a number of hostile experts.
January 11, 2010, 1:40 pmAlfred says:
The anti 8 people harrassed and threatened the contributors to the prop 8 campaign. That is a published fact and the pro gay lobby would like to hide it.
January 11, 2010, 1:41 pmParenthetical says:
That’s a little murky (from the record at hand). The Prop 8 proponents are holding to the line that none of the disputed facts are material (yet feel free to rely on their version of the facts to argue that homosexuals do not constitute a suspect class). So the defendants initial position is that no one need testify.
Having failed with that argument at summary judgment, the official proponents did appear on the defense witness list (and the plaintiffs too). If the proponents didn’t appear, it seems obvious that the plaintiffs would have called them.
Interestingly, one of the defendant-interveners (Tam) on Friday moved to withdraw from the case. It was his incendiary email blasts that the defendants “somehow missed” during discovery (and left attorney Cooper in quite a pickle when arguing about discovery before the Ninth Circuit panel). Even if this guy were to withdraw during the trial, the plaintiffs would almost certainly call him–at least so he could authenticate his Satan-riddled, child-rapist fulminations.
January 11, 2010, 1:47 pmyankee says:
Seems more like the difference between a courtroom that seats ten people and a courtroom that seats one million.
January 11, 2010, 1:49 pmParenthetical says:
Scratch that. I just looked at the initial witness lists again. The proponents didn’t call themselves.
January 11, 2010, 2:09 pmDangerMouse says:
I agree with that. I just didn’t agree with the suggestion that abortionists were somehow not “law abiding”.
To the extent that abortionists routinely violate rape reporting laws by lying about or not reporting as required by law the differences between sexual partners, then they are not law abiding. This happens with routine frequency. See Live Action’s website for more info.
As for the rest of this idiotic trial, yes, the left is perfectly willing to require voters that disagree with them to go before a judge and justify why they voted “incorrectly.” Then, of course, the Judge will make a finding that the vote was based on animus or some other kind of BS-excuse, and will overturn the finding. It’s happened before, it will happen again. Heck, at least in this case there’s the charade of making a finding of fact of animus. In other cases, they didn’t even bother with that step. And of course, this sets the precedent that all voter action can be overturned if they have illegitimte motivations. Expect this to be used to overturn electoral contests in the future, because the “right” candidate didn’t win because of anumis or prejudice or something.
January 11, 2010, 2:15 pmzuch says:
It sure helps to formulate an ‘argument’ when you get to just make ‘facts’ up!
Cheers,
January 11, 2010, 2:32 pmNate says:
I’m looking forward to viewing the trial as well as equal rights for gay people, which is the inevitable outcome of this battle. (Be it now, or in thirty years. We will prevail. I don’t know anyone who questions that, barring some sort of imminent return of the previously absent deity worshipped by most opponents of gay marriage.)
Some of the “factual” assertions opponents of gay marriage propagate about gay people deserve to be scrutinized before everyone. It is simply not true, as stated in this thread above, that gays have the highest rate of “child preditors”. When a proposition’s campaign relies on hints and suggestions that such vile and unfactual assertions of pure bigotry are true, then it must show that the law wasn’t motivated by animus, under Romer. If it wasn’t, then the record will show that. Bring. It. On.
January 11, 2010, 2:40 pmCan't find a good name says:
I realize that the judge in the trial ordered that the broadcast be made available on YouTube, but even if he had only ordered that the broadcast be made available on television, wouldn’t the broadcast show up on YouTube anyway?
I don’t even see how there could be a copyright claim to stop the recordings from being uploaded, given that works of the U.S. government are not copyrighted (assuming the trial broadcast would use a single “pool” camera controlled by the court, not cameras operated by television stations).
January 11, 2010, 2:49 pmDangerMouse says:
It sure helps to formulate an ‘argument’ when you get to just make ‘facts’ up!
What am I, your mother? I said take a look at Live Action’s website for more info. Here’s a link, if you really are incapable of googling. You can see the Youtube videos yourself.
January 11, 2010, 2:54 pmresh says:
One needs to chuckle at the irony of the role-reversal of the victims and demons here. Prop8 proponents fearing that their avowed positions might render them indignity, harm or stigma? Someone get me a hanky.
Ah, isn’t that de facto what they supported-to perpetuate the harms and indignity suffered by their opponents?
Maybe we should revisit the abolition of the KKK. Hell, look at all the negative exposure they suffered from those invasive media types. Poor bastards.
January 11, 2010, 2:57 pmDangerMouse says:
When a proposition’s campaign relies on hints and suggestions that such vile and unfactual assertions of pure bigotry are true, then it must show that the law wasn’t motivated by animus, under Romer.
I can’t believe that people are really defending Romer. Even if you’re purely results-oriented, at some level you must understand that continuous legal overturning of popular legislation affecting core family issues like marriage will cause a backlash of tremendous proportions. You’ll only end up getting worse results in the long run. Romer is completely anthetical to democracy. It says that a perfectly fine and constitutional law suddenly becomes bad because the people had a bad motivation for passing it.
Its days like these where I think abolishing Article 3 would be a great idea. Dueling is looking much better as a way of settling disputes.
January 11, 2010, 2:59 pmcaliforniamom says:
Romer does seem antithetical to democracy. Further, it seems irrelevant what the motivations of the organizers of Prop 8 were. They alone didn’t vote for it. Are we going to examine the motives of the majority of the voters in California? That is what got Prop 8 passed. If animus for getting a Proposition passed is relevant, is animus is getting the Proposition overturned relevant? Are we to examine the motivations of the organizers of other Propositions in the future? What does that do to stifle people from participating in propositions, which are one of the purest forms of democracy?
If gay marriage is a civil right that is purely a legal issue and these factual issues aren’t relevant at all.
January 11, 2010, 3:20 pmMartinned says:
That goes for all judicial review.
True
January 11, 2010, 3:23 pmNate says:
DangerMouse: I can’t believe that people are really defending Romer.
Believe it!
Where is the continuous overturning of popular legislation under Romer? Really hasn’t materialized, has it? Also not seeing a “backlash of tremendous proportions”. If anything, seeing some rights move forward, some move back, small margins of victory here and there. Soap Operas featuring gay love scenes, gay American idol contestants, and with a very vocal backlash from a small minority. Get out of Westboro and maybe you’ll see that most people remain apathetic.
Maybe antithetical to democracy, but not to our democracy.
It says a little more than that, come on.
Can we at least duel on a slippery slope?
January 11, 2010, 3:27 pmNate says:
Re Californiamom:
Yes! By all means! Please launch an animus scrutiny into the campaign to overturn Proposition 8. But before you do, why don’t you *read* Romer and OED’s definition of “animus”.
I mean, this is just laughable. A proposition to establish gay rights is motivated by, uh, animus? I realize women being the political victims is in vogue right now, but this is too much.
January 11, 2010, 3:30 pmDon de Drain says:
Given that the trial is being covered extensively by media other than television, the identities of all witnesses are known to everyone who wants to know them. Their testimony is public record and available to everyone as well. I have not reviewed the pleadings on the “TV/video” issue, but, in the absence of any specific threats to the witnesses or other similarly meaningful evidence, the argument that televising or showing video on you tube is somehow going to cause harassment of witnesses that would not occur in the absence of video/TV broadcasts is weak.
Has anyone reviewed the pleadings on the “TV video” issue in detail? Do those pleadings contain anything other than speculation regarding the potential harm to witnesses?
I have no problem with “protecting” witnesses where there is evidence that they are truly threatened or evidence that steps really need to be taken to protect the integrity of the trial. But I don’t see how preventing the trial from being shown via videotape provides any meaningful protection to witnesses whose names/identies and testimony are public record if all you have is a generalized fear of some sort of unspecified “harassment.”
January 11, 2010, 3:30 pmRandy says:
This is actually part of a much bigger issue facing court rooms today. There was an article in the Washington Post about jurors who now routinely look up definitions and information on the internet when at home before they conclude their deliberations. Jurors have even formed a facebook page, in the case of the trial of Baltimore’s mayor.
After Prop 8, someone overlaid the donor list with a google map so that you could easily see who contributed how much and where they live. You could just look up your neighborhood and see who contributed.
Technology is moving ahead very fast, and we need to deal with the issues. I can gaurantee that those who are dead set against a live broadcast of this trial because they favor Prop. 8 will some day be demanding a live broadcast for some future event that they deem necessary to be disseminated. The reverse is true for the other side.
The worst way to consider this is whether a live feed supports or hinders our preferred outcome of the case. I don’t have the answer, but in general, I believe in greater transparency of our governmental workings, and that includes our courts.
January 11, 2010, 4:08 pmzuch says:
Yeah. A virulent anti-choice website. Any real evidence?
Cheers,
January 11, 2010, 4:15 pmzuch says:
Just 2 questions, DangerMouse:
Was that person 13 years old? Were they pregnant? Did they have intercourse with someone over 18?
And why should we accept these videos are genuine?
Cheers,
January 11, 2010, 4:21 pmegd says:
Personally, I’m glad that Proposition 8 withdrew the right of homosexuals to vote, own property, run for public office, petition the courts for redress, speak freely, and a host of other “rights” that homosexuals have no right in possessing.
Oh wait, Prop. 8 didn’t do any of these things. Strange.
Marriage is a government benefit, which the government can provide based on whatever criteria it desires, at least, as long as it means (strict/intermediate/rational basis) scrutiny for (suspect/quasi-suspect/non-suspect) classes.
Given how ardent the Prop. 8 opponents are for invalidating laws which provide a government benefit based on a non-suspect class, I’m shocked that more of them aren’t lining up against affirmative action (outside of CA at least), clinics catering to women, progressive tax rates, and a host of other social ills.
There’s some question over whether homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, but gender is unambiguously immutable, so why should women’s clinics get funding while men’s clinics are nonexistent?
I eagerly await prop. 8 opponents’ fervor in curing the social ill of the deprivation of equal rights to men in our society.
January 11, 2010, 4:24 pmyankee says:
Not under our Constitution as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. Marriage is a fundamental right that the government may not deny even with a very good reason. See Turner v. Safley (prison inmates have a constitutional right to marry), Zablocki v. Redhail (people in arrears in their child support have a constitutional right to marry).
January 11, 2010, 4:52 pmNate says:
Not strange. No on here said it did.
Maybe, maybe not. In progress, eh? See Loving v. Virginia, etc. Your statement vastly oversimplifies it. But calling it a “gay right” was really tangential to the point I made above–that there is no way “animus” is motivating marriage equality movement.
So clever you people are at false equivalencies. I don’t think most people are shocked that the courts aren’t being driven to address the plight of inequality for men right now.
By the way, there are men’s clinics. While they don’t offer abortions, they do exist! And receive funding! Also, so-called women’s clinics offer services for men (birth control, STD testing/treatment).
But enough of this. Your argument wasn’t serious and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
January 11, 2010, 4:53 pmAlex S. says:
Well, if nothing else I’ll take as a good sign of progress that in a highly public contentious debate about homosexuality it is the anti side that is afraid of societal reprisal (whether that is immediate or aghast disbelief of future generations).
This is not to in any way endorse any form of reprisal beyond being argued with (and maybe some pointing and laughing), but it is indicative of a fundamental change in the debate.
January 11, 2010, 4:56 pmPerseus says:
Can you explain how a (live/delayed) broadcast of the (video/audio) are distinct?
One is popular, the other is public. The former is far more prone to demagoguery than a printed, delayed transcript.
January 11, 2010, 5:01 pmRPT says:
Actually, after having been Mark Fuhrman’s counsel in OJ case-related matters, I am interested more in the issues presented by the live broadcast/video ruling, than taking up the more general 8 issues. The broadcast of that case certainly affected all involved; some better some worse.
1. What kind of showing should be the threshold for a no broadcast order based on witness fear, and presuming the good faith of the complaining witnesses?
2. Are there any related issues re the upcoming Dr. Toller trial in Kansas? I haven’t heard of any.
3. Many 8 supporters, i.e. Lou Engle, or various public interest law firms on the right, i.e. Jay Sekulow, have no hesitancy about taking a very public and broadcast stand re their position. Should that position be imputed to the hesitant witnesses here?
January 11, 2010, 5:12 pmbadlaw says:
But none of those cases concerned a definitional ban on marriage. Those were based on criminal sanctions or simply harsh regulations on the fundamental right to marry. Under the EPC, gays and lesbians would have a legitimate grievance if they were denied the “fundamental right” to marry in the way we’ve always defined marriage. They’re not entitled to a fundamental change in policy because it doesn’t go far enough to include the type of unions they want. The role of the courts is to uphold the constitution, not create new legislation. The one case I can think of that concerned a definitional ban (the 19th century case regarding polygamy) was upheld.
And to be honest, since we’re talking about a fundamental definition and not a de facto cultural belief or systemic regulation, I don’t know that one could conclude that the people wanting to maintain this definition is simply invidious discrimination meant to deny people their civil rights. The history of marriage in any context cannot be generally concluded to be the mere result of basest hatred and animus towards homosexuals.
January 11, 2010, 5:39 pmCMH says:
Agreed. The substance of this case has been debated and redebated, hashed and rehashed, over and over again. I’ve not heard anything new from either side of the issue in quite some time. Once the novelty of the “Bush v. Gore opponents team up” angle wore off, this suit became un-interesting to me. I’ll save it for the decision and the appellate decision and the (probable) Supreme Court decision.
But the broadcast issue seems pretty unique, coming on the heels of the RIAA v. [Kid represented by crazy Harvard Professor] from a few months ago. I’d love to hear more focus on this.
In that vein (and although this is heard secondhand), does public sentiment alter the analysis any? Judge Walker has been reported as saying on the record that out of 138,000 public comments on steaming, only 32 were opposed.
January 11, 2010, 6:15 pmDangerMouse says:
Yeah. A virulent anti-choice website. Any real evidence?
The youtube videos posted there show Planned Parenthood employees agreeing to violate the law. But since you think that Live Action’s website is impure for your tender eyes and ears, go to youtube and see them yourself, if you can stand it. God knows that libs are so afraid of the truth. Then again, I’m sure you can read the statements of Planned Parenthood saying that the violations of the law that are exposed in those videos isn’t reflective of their organization’s ethics, yadda yadda yadda.
Tell you what: don’t look at the videos. I’m sure that the shock of them would upset you far too much. Liberalism is a mental disorder and I don’t want to see you go over the edge.
January 11, 2010, 6:24 pmtorrentprime says:
One of my favorite parts of the SSM debate is the unthinking reliance on the argument that expanding governmental licensing to two members of the same sex instead of a matched set, affecting a tiny percentage of society and affecting those previously-licensed or to-be-licensed-in-the-future (under the old rules) not at all is somehow a fundamental change. This is my second favorite part: the belief that what we have now is anything like “traditional” marriage.
Hint: the only reason people see some SSM as a “fundamental change in policy” is because they have views on what gay relationships are like, what they’re worth, and how they should be treated by society. Millions of Americans view marriage as worthy of governmental favor, important, sacred, and valuable. They also believe that’s precisely why it should be expanded to gays. It was said upthread, but, again, conservatives should read Olson’s write-up.
January 11, 2010, 8:14 pmDarleen says:
Marriage is pre-political and has always, in whatever form (monogamy, polygamy) contained a blending of male and female. To now say “marriage” includes a partnership/group of same-sex partners is to fundamentally change the definition of marriage regardless of the actual percentage of SS relationships.
Unless, of course, you believe males and females are fungible.
Same-sex partners should be afforded a civil union/domestic partnership policy arrangement. It just can’t be called marriage, because it’s not. Just because a table has 4 legs it is not a cat, no matter how much you want to torture the language.
I’m also amused at the assumption that supporters of Prop 8 and marriage are the only ones in this issue with “nefarious motives.”
January 11, 2010, 8:56 pmtorrentprime says:
Marriage is pre-political and has always, in whatever form (monogamy, polygamy) contained a blending of male and female.
Let’s take a whirl at this one.
So, the union of kingdoms, tribes and the family-over-the-hill, women exchanged for goats, water rights or to breed in/out heirs, etc: these are all non-political?
And marriage has changed in innumerable ways, and I am going to greatly assume that you believe the extensions of rights to wives in a marriage is a good thing, but none of those ways marriage changed (even from poly to mono!) matter; all that matters is the one “matched set” concept. Got it.
Oh, and this one can’t be missed! Can you share what the “nefarious motives” of SSM supporters are? I realize that vague, overblown (not to mention cowardly) threats are the MO for the anti-equality side, but here is your chance to disprove the stereotype: what are the nefarious reasons gays want to get married. We’re waiting.
January 11, 2010, 9:15 pmBonus points if you can fit both “destroy the family” and “weaken America” in the answer.
Martinned says:
Let it go. The interesting thing about this thread isn’t SSM, but the question of cameras at trial.
January 11, 2010, 9:37 pmDoug InSanDiego says:
torrentprime: “Can you share what the “nefarious motives” of SSM supporters are? I realize that vague, overblown (not to mention cowardly) threats are the MO for the anti-equality side, but here is your chance to disprove the stereotype: what are the nefarious reasons gays want to get married. We’re waiting.
Bonus points if you can fit both “destroy the family” and “weaken America” in the answer.”
I’ll take a shot, since you have offered up points. Further, given the more than rather sarcastic and hostile little rants you have included in most of your Comments (usually toward the end – I am sure there is meaning in that ….) I’ll be blunt and suspend human niceties so that we can clearly communicate.
nefarious reasons
1. So they do not feel as marginalized
2. In weakening the systems enjoyed by normal folk, they hope to feel better about themselves.
3. To achieve the joy from causing anguish on people they simply dislike.
4. To gain the wedge (as in Massachusetts) needed to promote homosexual training into young, immature, naked grade school minds
5. Oh – to destroy the family
6. To weaken America (more than they have to this point)
Hope that helps. Just ask if you have any other vexing questions.
January 11, 2010, 10:00 pmDarleen says:
… careful with that upturned lip, torrent, you may cramp something.
It should be noted your sneer did not address my statement that including SS partners is a fundamental change; nor did you (because you cannot) counter the fact that marriage has always been male/female, never same-sex. Ever. I realize you like to put words in my mouth according to some little cartoon you are carrying around, but I never said anything that the only thing that matters is a “matched set.” Try parking your bigotry at the curb next time, eh?
And yes pre-political. Marriage existed as a private arrangement long before any government/state body of law addressed it. Not that the state wasn’t petitioned from time to time by citizens to settle disputes in regards to marriage/property/inheritance.
Just recall that the violence, including harassment, that occured during the Prop 8 campaign came from opponents toward supporters, including hunting down even small donors to the campaign and harassing the employers of the donors into firing them.
I would also include that some leftist same-sex marriage advocates have been quite open in their goals for “marriage equality” — that marriage disappears completely as a “privileged institution” so all rights of married couples are extended to unmarrieds. Also that it will provide the legal means in which to remove religious institutions/practices/people from the public square. A church won’t marry two women? Strip ‘em of their tax-exempt status! A photographer declines a booking for a same-sex marriage ceremony? Sue ‘em out of business. A marriage therapist confines their practice to heterosexual couples? Strip them of their license.
First Amendment rights? Pffffft. How “old fashioned”! Us modern, know-it-all, superior beings have no need of thousands of years of history or Dead White Men — who may have written a Constitution, but they owned SLAVES so screw ‘em.
January 11, 2010, 10:24 pmptt says:
Your assertion lacks adverbs. “marriage has always been male/female” isn’t the same as “marriage has always been exclusively male/female”. Why not just say the latter if that’s what you mean? As for the other half, “never same-sex”, if you mean “never exclusively same-sex”, I suspect you’d get little opposition. I suppose we’d have to consult with the anthropologists for a definitive answer.
When societies had social structure that in any way resemble ours today, they almost always had opposite-sex marriage. Some, along the way, also allowed same-sex couples to use the same structure. Some others allowed for different structures for same-sex relationships (don’t go assuming, as many do, that the same-sex relationship was necessarily inferior to the opposite-sex one).
January 12, 2010, 12:26 amKen Arromdee says:
It’s a lot easier to rile up a vigilante mob against someone when you have a recording of their testimony than if you don’t. It’s true that there’s no rational reason why someone paying attention would get any new information from the trial being televised, but mobs are not rational.
January 12, 2010, 1:14 amchiMaxx says:
Darleen:
An anthropologist will tell you this isn’t true. How they will put it is that marriage had typically been between a man and a woman. By “typically” they mean not universally but,well, typically, most often, most commonly, and they would use the terms man and woman (which indicate socially performed gender) rather than male and female (which indicate biological sex) because one of the more common accommodations was to allow for people to perform the gender opposite their biological sex, thus allowing same-sex marriage but maintaining the typical opposite gender configuration.
And the fundamental change has already occurred–the flattening of gender roles. We already have essentially same-gender marriage in this country and in the West generally. This is what makes same-sex same-gender marriage an obvious and inevitable next step.
That dispensed with, I think the crucial issue here is the issue of televising. I think the claims of fears of literal real-world harrassment by Prop 8 supporters are disingenuous. Televising the trial even 10 years ago would have been an entirely different proposition. A few clips would have ended up on the evening news. Years later, they might end up in some documentary. What they fear is their compelled comments being autotuned, mashed and ridiculed. NOM had an expensive video PR effort (withheld from this trial) rendered worthless in days by mashups that ridiculed its content quickly gaining more currency and views than its own video. They fear being made to look ridiculous on The Daily Show and Autotune the News in a way that simply can’t happen with a transcript.
Is this sufficient reason to bar he televising of trials in general?
In general, I think not. However, I am sympathetic to claims that the judge has tried to push the televising of this trial through hurriedly without allowing such claims to be fully considered–especially since once the video appears online, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
Part of me would love to see the mashups in this case, but I can imagine other cases where I would think that such easy access to easily manipulable video would harm the public debate and the long-term outcome of the issue, if not the immediate case, so I appreciate the Supreme Court’s stance here.
January 12, 2010, 8:25 amDarleen says:
Link, please.
Shorter: marriage has always blended male and female elements. What I have already said.
Sure. That’s the ticket
I’m sorry, that’s nonsense. You are torturing language. “Same-gender marriage”? Oh, yes, a cis-male but queergender marries a cis-female whose gender is strangely in sync with her sex. Happens all the time.
Only for those superior beings who are wiser and more enlightened then the majority of obviously evil godbotherers and their ilk who want to provide legal sanction to same-sex couples but just don’t want to call it “marriage.” “Marriage” should be open to whatever definition du jour Superior Beings feel it should have!
Oh THANK YOU, Superior Being! I am so grateful for your obvious wisdom!
Yes, do ignore the $100 donor Prop 8 who was forced from her job when mobs of loving, anti-8 activists harassed the customers from her restaurant. Ignore the threats of violence against the Mormon church. Disingenuous. Totally, dude.
What’s to argue? As a Superior Being I’m sure you have beamed yourself right into those H8er’s minds.
Oh, but not HERE! Here any easily manipulating of H8ers is an obligation! Any harassment of knuckledragging godbotherers is a practically a moral obligation!
Oh, geez, how would civilization survive without such Superior Beings as yourself?
January 12, 2010, 9:36 amchiMaxx says:
Darleen:
No. Typically is not always. Man and Woman (performed gender) is not identical to male and female (biological sex).
You ask for a link about the anthropological view of marriage? Try this.
No. By that I mean that there are no longer any significant gender differences in terms of livelihood, social roles or social access.
Sneer all you like. That is simply true.
January 12, 2010, 10:35 amchiMaxx says:
Darleen:
The very fact that you can post here as a Woman (this being the Internet, I do not know your biological sex, but you are posting with a feminine name, so you are posting as a gendered Woman) and have your arguments read and considered on an equal footing with arguments posted by Men, rather than being told to return to the domestic sphere where you as a Woman belong, is in itself a testament to the extent to which gender roles have been flattened and equalized in our culture.
I consider this a good thing.
But it is also why marriage is essentially same-gender in our culture: There are no longer significant differences in the roles of Men and Women and the social spheres they occupy. What differences there are are superficial, vesitigial and dimiishing.
January 12, 2010, 11:02 amchiMaxx says:
Darleen:
As to the question of the cameras: You can sneer at me for acting superior only by pretending to reverse my actual argument. THAT is telling.
January 12, 2010, 11:03 amAmiable Dorsai says:
Agreed. Also, the business of choosing leaders through this new-fangled “democracy” is destructive of the natural order–for millenia, the leader was the the guy who was best at clubbing the other guys, or his son. We should go back to that.
This “metal” stuff has got to go, too. If sticks and rocks were good enough for our ancestors…
January 12, 2010, 3:28 pmSteverino says:
ChiMaxx, argue against reality all you want. And link to articles that discuss the fantasies about gender in stone age cultures all you want. It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Marriage is about producing children and protecting resources for that purpose.
It is in institution that exists for a purpose, and more importantly it exists within a social and legal framework. Governments take an interest in marriage purely because of the biological function; production of future citizens.
You see, when our government started monkeying around with more ancient forms of “social security,” and replacing them with a system of federal benefits, they did so with our society in mind. Not the Bugis of Indonesia and their five genders. They did so with the two that exist in this country. And to sell their program to those two genders, they had appeal to a society where men worked and women stayed home to rear children. Marriage being a legally binding commitment that the man’s resources would go to the woman who could not supply her own and her children. And if you wanted out of the marriage, you still had to arrange for that to continue. So if the bozos in DC or later your state capitol wanted to take money out of a man’s paycheck then it had to also be community property.
Unfortunately for you, gay activists have already given away the game. The whole push for gay marriage is about accessing state and federal benefits. Sure, there may be a fringe out there with some interest in it for its own sake. But if there wasn’t a wealth transfer that the gay lobby thought it could benefit from, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Seriously, who cares about Samoan gender roles? What does that have to do with larding up our entitlement system which wasn’t designed around them with a bunch more beneficiaries? Especially in a state like CA, that is going in the completely wrong direction.
If marriage, as you claim, no longer serves the function stated above, there is no reason for government to be involved. End the system of entitlements.
Do that, and I guarantee the vast majority of gay marriage enthusiasts will decide they have better things to do. Just like the anti-war protesters went away when the draft ended. It turns out they weren’t all that interested in the things they claimed to be protesting about; as everyone outside the protest movement suspected they were primarily interested in just not going.
January 12, 2010, 4:10 pmJamie Ward says:
Marriage has never been about producing children. In fact, children are neither mentioned or insinuated in the traditional wedding vows. Furthermore, if it was about producing children, then the way to strengthen traditional marriage would be to require married couples to be fertile and willing to produce children before they get married. There has never been such a law in the united states. Your argument is complete hogwash.
January 12, 2010, 5:05 pmSteverino says:
Jamie, just because you can’t accept facts don’t make them “hogwash.”
Actually, your attempt to make a point by referring to the marriage vows is hogwash.
Actually, it’s hard to keep a straight face when reading that. You obviously know nothing about western civilization because Catholic doctrine requires exactly that. Not the fertility requirement, but you can’t marry in the Church unless you are willing to produce children.
Considering how important the Church has been in influencing the development of societies over the centuries, you’re statement that “marriage has never been about producing children” is sort of breathtaking in it’s ignorance, wouldn’t you say?
The whole reason for making marriage a sacrament was because the union of a man and woman allowed them to imitate the Creator. It was the means for creating life; all future generations flowed from it. It was why the marriage bed was blessed.
I suppose it’s a prerequisite for the pro-gay marriage cabal to remain willfully ignorant of their own history so they can say such ridiculous things.
Marriage has never been about producing children? Seriously, you posted that? You are a funny guy, Jamie!
January 12, 2010, 6:04 pmRandy says:
Darleen: ” It just can’t be called marriage, because it’s not.”
And yet, that doesn’t square with reality. Currently five states allow SSM, and several countries. In those jurisdictions, two married guys are in fact married. Sorry if that offends you, but it is the reality.
Steverino: “Marriage is about producing children and protecting resources for that purpose.”
Terrific! And yet somehow, there are numbers of married couples who do not have children. There are numbers of married couples who cannot have children, or choose not to. And yet marriage as institution has survived all that. It will — and does — survive even with gay couples who don’t have children.
And there are gay couples who in fact DO have children — sometimes the children are adopted, and some children are from a previous marriage, and some are biological children of the parents. So if marriage is about procreation, then you are conceding the argument that gays should have the option of marriage.
So, the scorecard is this: Plenty of straight married couples without children, plenty of gay couples who do have children. If procreation is the purpose of marriage, how is the purpose frustrated by allowing gays to marry? Straight couples still can have children in Massachusetts, right?
And since children is your basic concern, as I’m sure it is, you will surely agree that the children of gay parents deserve to have married parents just as the children of straight parents do as well. Or are you willing to argue that children of gay parents somehow don’t deserve the benefits of having their parents married?
January 12, 2010, 7:11 pmRandy says:
Steverino: “You obviously know nothing about western civilization because Catholic doctrine requires exactly that. Not the fertility requirement, but you can’t marry in the Church unless you are willing to produce children.”
And that’s a very persuasive argument to prevent gays from marrying in the Catholic church. However, marriage isn’t a religious status only — it is also a legal status. And not everyone marries in the catholic church. Some people just get married by a justice of the peace, and the marriage is just as legal and recognized everywhere as that made by a church. And that’s not to mention the fact that many other churches don’t care whether you can have children or not.
So we are left with the basic question, which is what is marriage about? It’s about two people who love each other and want to care for each other for the rest of their lives, *regardless* of whether they have children. Which is exactly how our marriage laws are currently written, right?
January 12, 2010, 7:16 pmDavidicus says:
Sure Yao–just as soon as its legal for me to marry my mom.
January 12, 2010, 7:19 pmSteverino says:
Just to clarify, in my earlier post I said that the payroll taxes taken from a husbands paycheck for social security was considered community property. This was sloppy on my part. Surviving spouses recieve the benefit, but SS isn’t community property.
But for those of you who hallucinate that marriage has never been about producing children, here’s a blast from our pre-christian past via Plutarch, quoting an unidentified orator at the assembly (probably Demosthenes)
When Europe adopted Christianity, the great leap forward in women’s rights were that they were no longer considered the property of her husband, marriage was for the mutual benefit of both spouses & not just one, and the husband lost his immunity to the charge of adultery.
We have quite a few centuries of legal and theological thought that define the purpose of marriage. “Traditional marriage vows” not being the ultimate authority on the subject.
I realize that we have no laws mandating that married couples be “fruitful and multiply” but that doesn’t mean that producing children, and protecting the woman and children of the marriage if the man wanted out, wasn’t the universally understood purpose of marriage. It’s more of a case of it being so glaringly obvious that no such laws could have been considered necessary.
That is, until just recently. Which just goes to show that some people can be over-educated to the point where they can believe just about anything.
Such as “marriage has
been about producing children.”
Which requires you know absolutely nothing about our civilization since, oh, the time of the Trojan war. Only what passes for “gender studies” in what pass for our universities.
January 12, 2010, 8:12 pmDoDoGuRu says:
No, they’re not married: they’re playing an incredibly destructive game of make-believe. And I don’t mean destructive to “traditional marriage” but destructive to gays.
As a gay man I’m surprised by the rest of my supposedly educated community and their blind acceptance of this idiot notion that they should be copying heterosexual cultural/religious practices. And frankly I’m surprised by the vast swathes of ideological ground that proponents of SSM are willing to sacrifice in order to make the asinine “just like everyone else” argument about same sex couples: specifically, a willingness to erase difference and identity in order to achieve a linguistic band-aid they can call equality.
Firstly, I reject the idea that my relationship is functionally the same as Jack and Jill’s. Heterosexual relationships are not interchangeable with homosexual relationships and we do no one any good by pretending they are. I am not a woman: I am not blandly interchangeable with a woman and my relationships are not similarly interchangeable with male-female relationships. The suggestion that the two are the same is preposterous and I’m always surprised by gays who are willing to scrap their identity by embracing such nonsense.
Secondly, I reject the idea that I should be up in arms to support the 0.5% of people who want to play make-believe and ape ancient heterosexual institutions to make themselves feel better.
Finally, marriage is – in fact – a heterosexual practice and I think it’s destructive to imagine we can just graft it onto whatever kind of definition we’d like to contrive for it. Marriage as such has thousands of years of signs, mythology, culture, history, memory and power relationships behind it that cannot be blithely projected onto a new alien context. It is a union between men and women, and this casual Derridian insistence that the “marriage” sign has no stable referent (marriage can be whatever we want!) is both silly and utterly unconvincing.
And why should we want to be “married”? Marriage doesn’t describe what two men have. We have something different. Not something “Other” or “less privileged” or anything of the sort, but definitely something distinct. As such, we should invest in our own rituals appropriate to what we are and not waste so much on trying to crudely assimilate the hegemony. The gay community does itself a great disservice by bastardizing what straights do, creating a pale derivative of heteronormativity, instead of generating their own rituals appropriate to us.
January 12, 2010, 8:38 pmRandy says:
If you don’t want to be married, you don’t need to. I know plenty of heterosexual couples that do. However, for those who wish to be married, there is no need to block their rights simply because you don’t choose to use it.
You may hate the car culture and refuse to drive a car or get a license, but that doesn’t mean you should prevent others from enjoying the same privilege.
Additionally, it is rather arrogant of you to assume that all heterosexual marriages are the same. They aren’t. Each one is functionally different from the other, just as they are all functionally different from yours. A good friend of mine is a man who stays at home and raises the kids while his wife works as a teacher. They are redefining traditional marriage just as much as you do.
If you have a better plan, more power to you. But to force all other gays to follow your plan just because you think you’ve got it all figured out is rather condecending to everyone else.
January 12, 2010, 9:06 pmptt says:
Speaking of ignorant, did you know that marriage wasn’t a sacrament until the 12th century? (or was it 11th?) Early Christians frowned on marriage, until deciding that sex within marriage was preferable to sex outside of marriage and the whole no-sex-at-all idea wasn’t catching on.
January 12, 2010, 9:54 pmptt says:
Do you understand the concept of “only about about producing children”?
January 12, 2010, 10:03 pmptt says:
That’s all very well written and all, but you do realize that heterosexual marriage encompasses a very, very wide range of personally crafted relationships, don’t you? Asking to have the the same legal status does not require one of you to become Ozzie and the other to become Harriet. What “two men have” may be different from most heterosexual marriages, but it’s not different from ALL of them.
Frankly, I, too, would prefer if straight society let us craft our own institutions (note the plural), but I seriously doubt they’d let us.
January 12, 2010, 10:04 pmSteverino says:
Yes, that was the concept the Greeks and Romans had toward marriage. It was only about producing children.
It is roughly the same concept of marriage in non-western cultures such as Chinese, Indian, and African.
For instance in Japan (a culture heavily influenced by China) one traditionally had to get married regardless of one’s sexual preferences. There was no moral complaint against infidelity, or against homosexuality. Your personal life was your own business, but you still had to do your duty to your ancestors and get married to produce successors and continue the family line. If you had the wherewithal to see to your familial duties and have whatever constituded fun in your mind, then you could go to the geisha houses or male prostitutes and get your rocks off on the side.
It was the same way in the Greco-Roman world. Marriage was only about producing legitimate heirs. It purpose wasn’t to restrict a man’s sexual activities to an monogamous relationship, only the woman’s.
You’re embarrassing yourself. Yeah, those early Christians sure took a long time to decide that sex within marriage was preferable to sex outside of marriage. They took that decision sometime prior to 65 AD. That was when St. Paul died, and that was his advice to Christians who couldn’t remain celibate; marry, don’t have sex outside of marriage.
You have a small point; the no-sex-at-all thing wasn’t catching on. Neither was the no-Christmas thing. But just as with Christmas the Church eventually overcame it’s hostility to marriage. They tried to convince people to abandon their earthly ties and concerns and focus on the world to come. But not even the Church, over centuries, could change people’s ideas about family and marriage. They couldn’t even convince people to give up their pre-Christian winter festivals. They best they could do is modify them somewhat. They still had to acquisce to the popular will.
In that sense, the Catholic Church shows a hell of a lot more smarts than the pro-gay marriage lobby. The lobby can’t convince voters to see things it’s way. Do you think imposing the viewpoint via a court decision will do the trick?
Anyway, thanks for the unnecessary history lesson on the Catholic Church. Obviously if marriage has only been a sacrament for 8 or 900 years, then the gay marriage lobby is certainly well within its rights to challenge such a recently fabricated social construct.
January 13, 2010, 12:48 amNate says:
Such a great discussion, but I’m always a bit surprised at the end of it how no one, pro or con, spends much time focusing on the real world suffering caused the prohibition on SSM.
Real people–children some of them–are affected by the withholding of marriage rights. Something which I think should be part of the discussion.
January 13, 2010, 1:07 amSteverino says:
Uhh, no, I’m not conceding anything. That is simply your wish, but it doesn’t flow from the facts.
Your scorecard is anything but. It leaves out the central point. For the first time in the history of western civilization, you want to expand the definition of marriage to include relationships that, in their very formulation, are physically incapable of producing children.
Where it is has only concerned itself with marriages that were physically capable of producing children, at least in formulation. Marriages that do no produce children, or where the spouses don’t adhere to traditional gender roles, do not alter “traditional” marriage at all. Marriages between an elderly man and woman don’t alter “traditional” marriage at all.
Marriage has been accorded a special status in western civilization since the Greeks invented the concept of history due to a simple fact; only a union between a man and a woman can produce children. The fact that not all do doesn’t change that.
Since a gay marriage is incapable of producing children without the assistance of a lab or at least willing third parties, it is in fact not a marriage. You may adopt children; so what, so can single people. One or both parents may have been involved in a previous, actual marriage that may have produced children. But their new relationship is unlike the previous one and doesn’t deserve to be called the same thing.
And yes, I do believe children deserve married parents. But obviously since the parties involved didn’t think to put their children’s interests ahead of pursuing their adult lusts, then they are the ones depriving their children of married parents. Not me.
Quite obviously, if marriage is about protecting children then you stay in the marriage that produced them. You stay with them, provide for them, raise them. That is how marriage protects children. It is a purely adult conceit, and frankly an indication of an immature approach to marriage, to suggest that a child will somehow be better off if the partner who left the marriage to pursue a same sex relationship is allowed to marry that new partner. The child knows perfectly well that the new relationship, whatever you call it, whoever is involved in it, exists to satisfy the adults. That is part of the trauma a child suffers from a divorce; that the parents are putting their interests before the child’s. Yours is an absurd argument, that the child’s interests are somehow protected by society sanctifying that new relationship. The child’s certainly are not in 99% of the cases, regardless if that new relationship is heterosexual or homosexual. It’s an argument that could only be thought up by someone who clearly doesn’t care a whit about the child.
It is true that heterosexuals have harmed marriage irredeemably by instituting easy, no fault divorce laws. But the fact that you can dream up an argument that the child of one broken marriage will be better off if one of the parents can go on and marry a same sex partner illustrates that gay “marriage” will do nothing to strengthen it. That argument, in and of itself, shows that same sex marriage is simply a further repudiation of the institution.
Although I must admit that the child of the broken home will be better off in one sense only. Not because the parent is married, but the parent is at least not involved in a relationship that will produce other offspring. Not without the parties involved going outside the relationship to acquire offspring, something unnecessary in an actual marriage.
At least the child of a parent involved in a new, same sex relationship, won’t have to deal with new competitors in addition to dealing with the fact the parents didn’t love him or her enough to stay together.
Of course, the child can reap that benefit without society applying the label “marriage” to that new relationship.
But really, you’re avoiding the main point. And not very artfully. My main concern in providing the history lesson isn’t to convince anyone to accept the Catholic Church’s definition of marriage. Or any other traditional definition of marriage.
Because my main concern has to do with this new definition of rights. And the concept of rights underpinning the gay marriage debate is not too different from the one underpinning the healthcare debate.
That “rights” no longer means the ability of free citizens to act in their own best interests (i.e. speak out, vote, defend their lives, petition their government). The term “rights” is now used to gain access to a publicly funded benefit. In other words, someone elses money through taxation.
You don’t have to accept my definition of marriage. But by the same token I certainly don’t have to accept this new definition of marriage. One in which marriage exists primarily to allow people to the “right” to access public money.
You claim that gender roles are changing. That significant differences in the social roles men and women play in our society no longer exist.
Fair enough. So why would I want to add a new category of people to an entitlement system that was crafted when it was assumed otherwise? When it was assumed that one party to the marital contract, the woman, would be the dependant spouse of the other. Dependant because her child rearing responsibilities would keep her at home.
If, as claimed, gender roles have changed to where there are now no longer any significant differences then we don’t need a system that assumes there are.
Create your own rituals, guys. Have a committed, fulfilled relationship. But we can’t afford to pay for everyone’s idea of an ideal relationship. Entitlement spending is killing us. Public pensions are out of control, killing state budgets. Social Security is insolvent.
You may get a court to impose a new definition of marriage by arguing society has changed so much that marriage is essentially single gender now. Of course, that argument hasn’t gone over well with voters in a society that actually hasn’t changed as much as you claim. Which is why you’re trying to over-ride it and go to the courts. Which will just piss people off. It is far more likely that the same people who reject gay marriage now would prefer getting the government entirely out of the marriage business at that point.
Of course, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly that would kill the movement. It’s not the marriage these enthusiasts are interested in; it’s the federal benefits they currently can’t access because of DOMA. They may be clamming up about it now, but in the past they haven’t been shy about saying it.
January 13, 2010, 2:28 amchiMaxx says:
Steverino:
Marriage has always been about multiple things. As you admit, when an older couple marries or an infertile couple marries, it is not about producing children. There must therefore be some other value to marriage, or such couple s would never choose to marry.
In fact, as your very argument shows, to the extent that marriage is about children, it is about the care and raising of children, not their production.
I wonder: Do you hold as much anger toward the widowed or abandoned parent who remarries as you obviously do for those who willfully divorced? Is their choice to remarry always to “satisfy the adults” rather than in “the interest of the child”? Would you say the same about someone who divorced a partner who was physically abusive to the children as well as the spouse?
Of course the pursuit of legal marriage is in part to obtain the legal rights of marriage–most of which do not include “someone elses money through taxation” (e.g., whose money through taxation is accessed by not being compelled to testify against one’s spouse in court? or even by having access to the same inheritance rules as opposite-sex married couples?). Same-sex couples can already be married in the churches of several denominations and thus be married in the eyes of their God, their family, their friends and their community. Why should they happily tolerate being denied the legal protections and obligations of marriage?
January 13, 2010, 12:14 pmchiMaxx says:
And again, I think the more interesting question here is the video question.
Is compelled–or even voluntary–testimony sufficiently “public” that it should be provided in a video format that allows for copying, dicing reformatting, satire and ridicule.
Certainly when NOM–or any other organization–makes and publishes an advocacy advertisement, that is fair game for such commentary, satire. remixing and dissemination. Is court testimony something that should be treated as public in the same sense?
As much as I might have liked to have watched the testimony in this trial in a YouTube window on my desktop, I appreciate the Court’s caution in this.
January 13, 2010, 1:05 pmptt says:
Of course they changed people’s ideas about family. They managed to change homosexuality from a commonly accepted facet of many people’s lives and the exclusive expression of some people’s lives into a criminal act punishable by death. And they drove a minority of people from active participants in the culture and members of families into hiding and persecution.
January 13, 2010, 3:56 pmSteverino says:
It is precisely these sorts of absurd statements that lead even reliably liberal groups such as blacks and hispanics to oppose gay marriage.
It is absolutely without any foundation in reality.
First, it requires a complete misstatement of my argument. In which I said that easy-to-obtain, no fault divorce has harmed the institution of marriage, that if one has a mature approach to marriage one continues in the marriage that produced the children, as divorce is harmful to children.
Second, it also completely ignores the fact that western society has placed great emphasis on legitimacy vs. illegitimacy since ancient times. To argue that marriage, to the extent it is concerned with children, is not concerned with their production but only their care, simply flies in the face of historical fact.
Illegitimate children were not allowed to inherit property as a general rule until 1991 in this country. To the degree that has changed, it has been part of an assault on marriage. Which you are continuing. As that change was imposed by the courts and not a result of any greatly evolving public attitude toward marriage.
What you SSM advocates are running into is the gap between what courts and other out-of-touch entities proclaim to be true, and what the majority of people know to be true about an institution that is not an invention of government. And it is not at all the same thing you would have a court invent for you.
Deliberately misprepresenting the convictions and arguments of others while imperiously demanding they go along with the bait-and-switch has hardly worked as a campaign strategy, has it?
It may work in the courts, as I believe they have just as much contempt for the social institutions that have evolved over time, and haven’t been engineered by government “experts.”
But it will be a pyrrhic victory. If a court decides that the Constitution contains a right to gay marriage, that will just add to the groundswell of resentment against a government that is willing to impose its preferred but unpopular and unwanted policies by hook and by crook.
January 13, 2010, 5:29 pmSteverino says:
Sigh.
First, the situation was a bit more complicated than you imagine. Attitudes toward homosexuality were not what you pretend they were.
The Church of Rome didn’t invent the death penalty for homosexuals. In fact, homosexuality was punished by death in the Roman army a loooooong time before the birth of Christ.
That’s right, those free-lovin,’ anything-goes swingin’ pagans, weren’t so anything-goes as you’ve been led to believe.
Second, you are talking about sexual expression. I’m talking about marriage and family. It is precisely you inability to grasp the difference that leads people to conclude SSM is nothing more than a crude joke.
You might want to ponder that. It is a big part of the reason why, as I mentioned to ChiMaxx, even liberal groups like hispanics and blacks reject gay marriage. Because they, unfortunately for you, know that marriage is not just any relationship as there is something unique about the union of a man and woman. Which is why it has and has always had a special status in our society.
For you and ChiMaxx to argue that it really is no longer special, and that the factor that made it unique is no longer central isn’t convincing. If society evolves to where it becomes convincing, it is more likely to lead to the conclusion we ought to get rid of it. Not extend it to same sex couples.
January 13, 2010, 6:03 pmchiMaxx says:
Of note:
The temporary ban on publishing video of this trial to YouTube has been made permanent. The decision cites essentially the rush to make the change allowing video recording and distribution of trials and the rushing of the process. It doesn’t settle the underlying questions of privacy and when and under what circumstances plaintiffs can petition to have their testimony not videocast.
January 13, 2010, 6:11 pmtorrentprime says:
Deliberately misprepresenting the convictions and arguments of others while imperiously demanding they go along with the bait-and-switch has hardly worked as a campaign strategy, has it?
January 13, 2010, 10:04 pmWell, I don’t know about that. Lying about churches being forced to perform SSM, children being “taught gay marriage in school”, and pastors being dragged from their pulpit and carted off to jail for disapproving of homosexuality worked out pretty well for the religious right in both CA and Maine.
Steverino says:
You a funny guy, torrentprime.
The lies the SSM advocates are perpetrating have to do with the past.
They are significant because, as I understand precedent, to be a fundamental right under the Constitution the right must have roots in the history and traditions of the United States.
The historical and traditional roots go back thousands of years, through the recieved religious and legal traditions of Europe.
Which renders ridiculous claims that marriage has never been about children, or isn’t about procreation.
Indeed, the very fact ChiMaxx has to cast about for anthropological studies of cultures such as the Bugis of Indonesia or the Samoans to cobble up a case that marriage hasn’t always been confined to men and women is evidence that his concept of marriage has nothing to do with our history or traditions.
1. It is patently absurd.
2. The lie I was referring to was specifically in regard to my argument, on this thread, r.e. that I “conceded” the point that marriage isn’t about producing children.
Which is the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying all along.
Which brings us to your “lies.” Your cry of “lie” in one case has already been overcome by events; it’s happend. The other two are predictions based upon past actions. So they don’t constitute lies because it’s about a future yet to be born out.
1. “children being “taught gay marriage in school.” They already have been. Buy a newspaper. If you buy the right one, you’ll find pictures of school children being brought on field trips, without the knowlede of their parents, to cheer at gay weddings.
2. “pastors being dragged from their pulpit and carted off to jail for disapproving of homosexuality.” Has happened in Scandinavia and Canada. Could happen here; especially given the progressive contempt for the first amendment rights of religious people, which I’ll expand on below.
3. “churches being forced to perform SSM.” Well, they’re being forced to buy abortion coverage for workers at church-run hospitals. The city of San Francisco censured the Catholic Church for refusing to place children through its adoption agency, and directed the local bishops to defy church teachings to do so.
I see the “seperation of church and state” doesn’t really apply, does it, when it’s the state lecturing the church.
So what are the chances that the same people who don’t respect the first amendment when it comes to the free exercise of religion also won’t respect the first amendment when it comes to free speech? I’d say pretty high.
Now, they don’t have the authority to do anything now to force the church to do so; but the rumblings about using the tax code to force churches to comply with the progressive efforts at social engineering aren’t encouraging.
The icing on the cake? The San Francisco city attorney, attorney for the city that believes it has authority over the Catholic Church, is a party to the prop. 8 suit and portraying Catholics and Baptists as bigots and their views hate speech.
Again, it just causes religious people to believe that the proponents of SSM will have no compunction over trampling all their first amendment rights. Not just free expression of religion but of speech as well.
It’s not 100% proof that this prediction will be borne out, but it provides sound bases to find it plausible.
And, frankly, progressives have used this gimmick of declaring perfectly reasonable concerns over future actions the progressives (when in positions of authority) would have to take to make their schemes work, based upon their own past record, as “lies” and it’s worn out.
Case in point? VMI. A decade ago when the government forced VMI to accept women. At the time the government stated it would never force the Insitute to lower its standards to accommodate women.
At the time, conservatives and friends of VMI predicted the government would not keep its promise. We were called “liars” by you and your ilk.
Guess what? The government is doing exactly as we predicted.
Really, your characterization of these things as “lies” can only find fertile ground in the minds of people who aren’t paying attention, or in the minds of people like you who believe in “revolutionary truth” as opposed to “objective truth.”
I believe in objective truth; that’s why I went back through the history of western civilation to counter the fantasies of SSM proponents. Their fantasies have no basis in our history and traditions.
You believe in revolutionary truth. Perfectly reasonble predictions about what may happen here, based upon what has happened here and elsewhere, and the dishonest behavior of progressives in other social engineering arenas, must be cast as lies.
Not because they are not reasonable. But because they don’t advance the agenda.
January 14, 2010, 5:42 pmSteverino says:
I regret using torrentprime’s terminology a little too loosely in my last post.
I did not mean to accuse anyone of “lying” about my argument.
It is a misrepresentation of my argument to claim it illustrates that marriage isn’t about producing children, only about raising and caring for them.
I don’t see how anyone can arrive at that conclusion, given that in making my argument I noted Plutarch’s quote about marrying wives to “bear legitimate heirs,” the Catholic Church’s view that procreation was central to the sacrament of marriage, reasoning that by becoming one flesh man and woman imitate the Deity’s act of creation, etc.
I’m convinced that other SSM advocates have deliberately misrepresented these views on marriage, views which have shaped the historical and traditional views of marriage of not only the framers of the Constitution but the current citizenry.
But that doesn’t mean anyone on this forum has done so. An honest error isn’t a lie.
January 14, 2010, 6:44 pm