Marriage Equality For All Couples
Robert A. Levy and John D. Podesta write at Cato in early June about the case at heart of the California court decision to overturn Prop 8:
The Perry case ... was brought by two couples whose relationships are marked by the sort of love, commitment and respect that leads naturally to marriage. Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and their four children, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, ask for no more, and deserve no less, than the equal rights accorded to every other American family. But they are blocked from obtaining marriage licenses under California's Proposition 8.The plaintiffs' legal team, headed by former Bush v. Gore antagonists Theodore Olson and David Boies, has demonstrated that no good reason exists for the denial of fundamental civil rights under Proposition 8. We support that position.
Although we serve, respectively, as president of a progressive and chairman of a libertarian think tank, we are not joining the foundation's advisory board to present a "bipartisan" front. Rather, we have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.
Over more than two centuries, minorities in America have gradually experienced greater freedom and been subjected to fewer discriminatory laws. But that process unfolded with great difficulty.
As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word -- "all" -- has evolved as well. Our nation's Founders reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truth that "all Men are created equal," and our Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the simple and definitive words "liberty and justice for all." Still, we have struggled mightily since our independence, often through our courts, to ensure that liberty and justice is truly available to all Americans.
So now we all have to "play like" men and women are the same.
We can pass laws and judges can rule, but men and women have intrinsic differences with intrinsic possibilities together that preclude the very existence of "same-sex marriage."
So the ruling renders marriage effectively non-existent under the law. It's like priority. If everything is high priority, nothing is high priority. If any set of adults can claim to be married, it means nothing, intrinsically, to be married. (And of course, removing meaning is a big leftist occupation, and here is a success.)
Civil unions for same-sex couples? OK. But marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.
Alicia at August 5, 2010 12:26 PM
Quote:
As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word -- "all" -- has evolved as well.
- - - - - - - - -
"All" does not include dysfunction.
Although with judges willfully stupid enough to assert that "gender no longer is a component of marriage" - we may very well find that age, consent, or number of participants also no longer matters.
Yes, homosexuality is dysfunctional. The vast majority of gays who swear they just wanna get hitched live in relationships forced open by compulsive promiscuity.
I can't wait for the first gay "palimony" suit resulting from an open "marriage" relationship.
Ben David at August 5, 2010 1:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/05/marriage_equali.html#comment-1739946">comment from AliciaBut marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.
Why? What if there's no vagina in the arrangement, but two loving adults give love and attention to their children and teach them good values and send them to college? They don't get the rights and protections a man and woman do?
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2010 1:19 PM
Based on the Court's rationale, our laws prohibiting incest, polygamy, and even bestiality, are now indefensible and unconstitutional. After all, they are all based on the majority's sense of traditional morality -- which may not now be imposed on a minority group.
Next up will be laws giving any preference to married people at all. Why should the children of unmarried parents have to face the "shame" that their parents are not given all of the rights and privileges of married couples, and so are treated as "second class citizens"?
Marriage is effectively dead, and the gays and lesbians who seek it are like passengers fighting to get a place on the Titanic -- they are going to go down with the ship, which is sinking even faster with their presence.
Jay R at August 5, 2010 1:37 PM
But marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.
"Why? What if there's no vagina in the arrangement, but two loving adults give love and attention to their children and teach them good values and send them to college? They don't get the rights and protections a man and woman do?"
Ever read Anne of Green Gables? What about Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert, a brother and sister who raised a ten year old orphan? Shouldn't they have the rights and protections that a man and woman who are married do?
Isabel1130 at August 5, 2010 1:59 PM
Civil unions give "rights and protections."
And no, I do not think siblings should have the rights and protections that a married husband and wife do. I completely forgot siblings and first cousins, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Jointly adopt fictional little Anne? OK. That gives her next of kin and someone to take care of her.
The way it's all going, I suppose if my sister and I outlive our husbands, we could get married and raise some kids. Oh goody.
I used the word intrinsic for a reason.
Alicia at August 5, 2010 2:38 PM
"Based on the Court's rationale, our laws prohibiting incest, polygamy, and even bestiality, are now indefensible and unconstitutional. "
Polygamy, yes - but that Biblical anyway, so you should agree with it. So is incest for that matter. Bestiality, no - since there is the issue of consent. Animals can give legal consent to anything,
Jim at August 5, 2010 2:56 PM
As the judge remarked, marriage nowadays (in the United States anyway) is regarded as a "partnership between equals." No longer is the Man the only one who works, while the Woman is the only one who keeps house, does the dishes and raises the children. People who long for the "old days" might consider moving to Afghanistan, where such charming old customs are still rigorously observed.
Steve H at August 5, 2010 4:55 PM
Civil unions for same-sex couples? OK. But marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.
Posted by: Alicia
Except for when it was between a man and a woman of the same color, and except for when it was arranged, and except for when the church only offically recognised the marriges of nobility, and except for when polygamy was legal.
Seriously what is it with you religious people? You do realize that up until Jebus himself the leaders of christianity(cough, cough, Juedism) were fucking their slaves and wives maidservents? Right? Ever read the Song of Soloman? Non stop orgy.
Slavery was one moral, human scarifice was moral, canabalism was moral. Please explain how a man sticking his cock in another mans ass is worse the slave labor and murder?
Based on the Court's rationale, our laws prohibiting incest, polygamy, and even bestiality, are now indefensible and unconstitutional. After all, they are all based on the majority's sense of traditional morality -- which may not now be imposed on a minority group.
Posted by: Jay R
God you are an idiot. First most of the laws about incest are acctually about statuatory rape. Tell me dubass how does a leagal child or an animal consent to sex? or a contract. As for polygamy? See my response just above your quote. Polygamy is THE ORIGINAL form of marriage. I though you were all about traditional forms of marrige man, why are you against the most traditional form of them all?
Homosexual behvior has been witnessed in all major forms of land based vertabrates. Tell you what, get the homo animals to pray the gay away and then you can talk about denying human beings equality under the law.
lujlp at August 5, 2010 6:42 PM
It's interesting to me when people jump to the conclusion that I am traditionally religious.
Abuse of those in one's power is a different subject from that of marriage.
It is my understanding that civil unions permit consensual sexual behavior, so the placement of cocks is up to the couple, should there be a cock among 'em.
Alicia at August 5, 2010 9:11 PM
luj provides a teaching moment by regurgitating another pro-gay lie:
Homosexual behvior has been witnessed in all major forms of land based vertabrates.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) Which has zero bearing on human sexuality with its emotional and moral facets.
2) Natural is NOT Normal is NOT Moral.
The pro-gay media strategy deliberately attempts to blur those - bombarding us with "news" stories about "gay" polar bears, mosquitoes, and probably cockroaches... none of which has any bearing on lived, human sexuality.
The strategy is to sloppily equate "occuring in nature" with "normal and healthy". And to divert the discussion entirely from moral evaluation.
Again:
Every major, successful civilization in human history has defined healthy adult sexual expression in terms of committment, fidelity, and intimacy.
In the gay "lifestyle" compulsive promiscuity is the norm - to the extent that the Dutch Ministry of Health reported that "committed" gay couples had 20 or more "partners" a year. And the health departments of gay meccas around the world confirm this pattern.
Remember Sesame Street?
One of these things is not like the other,
One of these things is not the same.
Ben David at August 6, 2010 5:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/05/marriage_equali.html#comment-1740113">comment from Ben DavidWhy would homosexuality be immoral? Two consenting adults having sex -- the harm is where?
Furthermore, it isn't gay men but men who are promiscuous. Gay men have the ability because they are pursuing men, not women, who evolved a more reserved sexual strategy.
Amy Alkon at August 6, 2010 6:03 AM
Ben David, according to your religion it is moral for me to slaughter your familly and rape your virgin daughters as a form or marriage. It is also moral for me to have sex with slaves so long as once I'm done violating them I force them into a marrige with one of my sons or a nephew. Unless they are one of my several wives slaves in which case I dont have to pass them off on someone else.
Also if I were king of the jews I could have my palace gaurds gang bang vistiting female heads of state.
Perhaps your definition of the word 'moral' is the problem here.
lujlp at August 6, 2010 7:44 AM
I blame this all on the hetrosexuals. They're the ones that keep having gay babies.
Steamer at August 6, 2010 9:57 AM
Ben David, according to your religion
- - - - - - - - - - -
Citations, please... the pro-gay folks always ask for citations.
Ben-David at August 7, 2010 12:33 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/05/marriage_equali.html#comment-1740644">comment from Ben-David"pro-gay" -- how weird and leaking of your prejudice.
I'm neither "pro-gay" nor "pro-heterosexual." I'm for individual rights, and the same individual rights for all individuals. If your particular evidence-free belief in an imaginary friend, and the ensuing culture, doesn't cotton to gays getting married, the rabbis don't have to marry them.
The state shouldn't be in the marriage business, but as long as it is, any citizen in the state who is a consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult. How two daddies raising children availing themselves of the marriage rights the divorced single mom next door got (before she got sexually bored and left her husband) "endangers marriage" or causes any harm to anyone is beyond me.
Amy Alkon at August 7, 2010 1:51 PM
If you would like me to use any particular english translations in the future, please let me know. In the mean time - sex slaves and rape in the Old Testement/Torah
(Exodus 21:7-11)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
(Numbers 31:7-18)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
(Judges 21:10-24)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Is that sufficent?
lujlp at August 7, 2010 4:35 PM
Tell me Ben, why is it you always disappear once I give you te quotes you're looking for?
lujlp at August 8, 2010 6:43 PM
Leave a comment