Villainous Company

"Glad we got that...err... straight."

Things like that are why I luv ya. If you were a guy, and I was gay, and we were in New Jersey...but none of that.

Sorry camo ... I'm going to marry Deb and we're going to sail away into the sunset on her wonderful sailboat :D

Except she's probably got ladies lined up halfway across Florida... heh.

So maybe I will just sail away.

There's a simple solution to this - altho not for persons who wish to inflict their particular religious preferences on ALL OTHER PEOPLE in the country.

How's this:

Make a "civil union" available from the State to all couples. Essentially, it's just a legal contract between 2 parties. [In truth - anyone who wants to be in a civil union could draft an agreement and a couple of Durable Powers of Attorney - and endow his/her partner with all of the rights attainable in civil union/marriage except perhaps health insurance).

So - make "civil union" available to all couples - how is that skin off your nose?

Then, allow each religious denomination to perform the sacrament of marriage according to the rules of their church. That is - if Catholics don't want to perform a sacrament for gay couples - then don't. If the Unitarians want to perform marriages for gays - let them.

Maintain the separation of church and state - and allow churches to decide who qualifies for their sacrament.

How is that a problem?

no the question is why don't you look at the new jersey constitution which says everbody needs to be treated equally...if you come up with a law that violates that constitution then that law goes away....how dumb do you have to be to understand that there is a law on the book that supersedes your bigotted law.

Marriage is within the church...nobody said the child molesters at st assholius needs to start performing services...the law says the state needs to give gay people the same rights they give straights.

Actually that is what I favor: civil unions.

I don't have a problem with anyone, in any state, doing whatever the heck they want to. I just want to see this go through the democratic process rather than being imposed by judicial fiat. I truly believe that it is more harmful in the long run to ram this down people's throats, so to speak, than to allow the natural process that is taking place, even if it is painfully slow, to persuade people of what is so right.

This is what law is in a democratic republic: a social contract, and in an increasingly heterogenous society we cannot continue to force divisive issues to a head by circumventing our own
laws, which say that only those rights explicitly granted in the Constitution flow from that document and all others are to be decided by the people, not any smaller body of unelected men and women, no matter how wise and learned.

And madmatt, the NY Constitution is silent on the question of marriage, so it most emphatically does *not* say that 'everyone needs to be treated equally'.

That is the point. There are Constitutional issues and issues which properly lie within the purview of the legislature. This is one.

Gee Madmatt, where did all that testosterone come from? Everyone needs to be treated equally. Truly. I tell my children that too. I also tell my children that there are people "out there" with a perverted sense of what "love" is who want the State's holy blessing on their particular perversion. To me, that is asking to be MORE equal than others. --Ziobuck not buying it. Impeach the judicial activists!

get a life you pathetic homophobe

Ya know what's funny? This is probably the first and only time that liberal gay activists and the GOP were hoping for the same thing in a gay court decision.

A decision to allow gay marriage would have given fodder to every Republican across the country and rallied the base.

Not so much with this since Bush has said he favors this, as has McCain, as have countless other Republicans.

It is not activism to find that state law does not comport with fundamental rights accorded in either the state or the US Constitution. Neither is the judicial upholding of that right activism when you disagree with it.

And it is not the slippery slope of legislation that is leading towards legalized gay marriage. It is the slippery slope of prior judicial decisions that reduces the power of the states to restrict heterosexual marriage. And yet I see no one arguing that states should be able to turn the clock back and re-enact anti-miscegenation statutes.

Finding that African-American school-children had the right to attend the same schools as white children certainly "polarized the electorate", but in hindsight is arguably the only just course of action. The fear that anti-gay marriage activists will come howling out of the wood work may be something that court has to consider, unfortunately. But that alone is not a good enough reason to deny someone their fundamental right.

Lastly, I cannot understand those who say they support civil unions coming out against this decision. First of all, the NJ Court is not mandating that gay marriage be made legal. Second, to me, the distinction between civil unions and marriage is one without a difference. Both accord the same legal rights, which is really all anyone is talking about. How can you support one without the other? Is marriage truly to be reserved only for heterosexuals, so that we may marry overnight in Las Vegas, end half of our marriages in divorce, and neglect the children produced by those marriages?

Let's try to keep the conversation civil, OK guys. I do not like to ban anyone or censor comments, but I will do it in a heartbeat if anyone becomes personally abusive. We can't discuss ideas if people are hurling brickbats.

This is a controversial issue. I have gay readers, as well as friends, who are unbelievably dear to me and I have readers who believe homosexuality is wrong.

I am not going to reconcile those two positions in this life or the next, but let's try not to insult each other, OK?

Xanthippas, I am not entirely sure I 'came out' (love the choice of words :) against the decision. I would have to have read it in its entirety - something I haven't had a chance to do - and had far more time than I've had yet, to do that.

I am extremely leary of any state finding a constitutional basis for opposing either gay marriage or civil unions because I have yet to be convinced that any state constitution addressed the issue of marriage.

It's that simple.

I believe marriage is an issue which properly lies within the purview of state legislatures, and therefore the courts have no business constitutionalizing it - they are engaged in a false business of rights creation by construing into the state constitution a 'right' to marriage which simply does not exist.

Period. I suspect that in this case, by flat out telling the legislature that they HAVE to create an equal status civil union structure for gays, though that might be the end I personally think is equitable, is judicial overreaching since the state Constitution does not address the issue of marriage - that is for the legislature to decide, not the Court. IOW, right result, wrong process.

But again, I have not read the entire opinion. Either way I am flat out against calling it marriage as I think it is something new, and furthermore I think the Court is DEAD wrong in telling the legislature that, if I understand it, it must grant EQUAL rights to gay couples. This is a 'legislature-stripping' measure that is, in effect, telling the state congress how to make laws - an attempt to wrest from the people their power to debate public policy.

And I think that's wrong.

[[I don't have a problem with anyone, in any state, doing whatever the heck they want to. I just want to see this go through the democratic process rather than being imposed by judicial fiat.]]

That's absolutely correct regarding policy decisions ... and absolutely wrong regarding fundamental rights.

Irrespective of how one feels about gay marriage, the Constitution (as amended) exists primarily to protect the rights of the People from abridgement by their government. When you hear the term "tyranny of the majority," that's what's being discussed: use of the legislative process to deny some Americans rights afforded others, for no good reason.

One such right is the right to equal treatment from that government, absent relevant distinctions between people, as spelled out in the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

To repeat: We don't put *rights* up to a vote. The NJ Supreme Court was doing no more and no less than its duty in this case.

Now, what's the most constitutionally appropriate solution?

It's the one offered by commenter Robert Lewis above: Get the state out of the marriage business, which will bring it into compliance with the establishment clause of the First Amendment AND the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause, by granting civil unions to all who wish them, while allowing religions to marry, or to refuse to marry, whomever they want, thus continuing to respect the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Cassandra:
My apologies to you for comments made above that evoked a shrill response from one of your readers. Man, sometimes in my old age I forget to be PC as I write/think. It's just that I really do have a "life", with great KIDS, and a loving wife. I'm not afraid of hetero-phobes. I want them to experience life to the fullest. They can't do that if they are too darn lazy to face the true challenges of trying to get along and live with the opposite sex. That struggle, with God's blessings, makes life worth living.

At one time, people thought interracial marraige was perverted and quite a few southern states had laws on the books outlawing it.

Now I am not saying that sexuality and race are the same thing. However, people have reacted to them the same: Opening up their bibles and finding scriptures that support one's feeling of repulsion at said ethnicity/sexual preference. I certainly do not knock anyone for having strong religous beliefs, and sharing those beliefs with their families. However, your religious beliefs don't always jibe with the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, the bible sanctions all manner of things that the Constitution of the United States does not. We cannot own slaves, though the old testament clearly says that that is an okay thing, as long as you treat them nicely. We aren't condemned to death for eating seafood or hanging out in the same house as someone who is on their period, though Leviticus lays down those laws.

The second point is that one of the reasons the Constitution of the United States is so ingenious is that it protects the rights of EVERY AMERICAN no matter what the prevailing opinion of certain sectors of Americans might be. The Constitution protects us from mob rule. We have had a majority of Americans in favor of all manner of stupidity. Luckily we have a Constitution and a branch whose job it is to weigh our stupid (but usually wildly popular) legislation against the Constitution.

So now the voters of NJ need to craft a constitutional amendment that outlaws "whatever it is".

Can a constitutional amendment be unconstituional? :)

They would have to craft a constitutional amendment for the Constitution of the United States. Not just for their state constitution. And then they need to get, what is it, 2/3 of the other states to ratify it (after it moves through congress and the white house). It has been done for more inane things, like prohibition. A constitutional amendment is quite constitutional, indeed!!

Lisa, you're right.

You are conflating two unrelated things - religion and the issue of same sex marriage.

They are not the same. There is some overlap, however they are not the same. Atheists can (and do) oppose same sex marriage and homosexuality. People of faith can (and do) accept homosexuality. And there are all flavors in between.

So let's let that one go and just deal with the issue of same sex marriage - there is enough controversy there without throwing more gasoline (much less unneeded gas) onto that particular fire. Yes the Bible said you could own slaves too, but atheists could (and did) defend slavery and it was God-fearing Christians, citing age-old Judeo-Christian principles, who founded the Abolition movement and ended slavery. End of story.

Your arguments are interesting, but they are also off point.

The point is simple: the Constitution lays out, quite clearly, the process for making law in this country.

A certain (and quite small) set of enumerated rights flow from the Constitution.

No one can take those rights away.

Congress and the State legislatures may, however, add to those rights. Marriage is one of the rights which is NOT enumerated in the state OR federal Constitutions. It was added by STATE legislatures. Marriage has ALWAYS been a matter of state law.

You all are falsely conflating matters that do not belong in the Constitutional arena, because you desire to engineer a particular social end quickly. But that is not LAW. That is social engineering, and judicial activism.

The Constitution protects you from mob rule only where it specifically says it protects you from mob rule. Where it is silent, it is up to the federal and state legislatures to protect you.

If We the People desire our federal or state Constitutions to confer upon us a new Constitutional right, we may create one for ourselves. But we do that by amending the Constitution, not by allowing unelected judges to infer rights into a document that neither the original drafters placed there (and are thus unratified) nor the People subsequently explicitly
moved to create.

That is not democracy.

One such right is the right to equal treatment from that government, absent relevant distinctions between people, as spelled out in the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But currently, homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I do. I don't believe it's my problem that they don't prefer to.

But I do have to admit one thing. With marriage the way it is now, with unilateral no fault divorce, is it any wonder gay people want to get in on it?

Once was a time when marriage, as most widely defined by society, was good for society. I don't believe that marriage as it is defined now, holds those same benefits.

So how about this, we give homosexuals exactly the same benefits as what are currently defined by our sucky marriage statutes, and we creat a new and improved (old) definition of marriage that is harder to get out of than a car lease. That supports the stable home and encourages couples to produce more children and nurture them for the next generation.

We give those who choose covenant marriage more benefits and help than for the other definition of marriage.

So we "civil union" everyone and save marriage for those who plan to act like they are married for as long as they both shall live (with huge penalties for the at fault partner in a breakup).

And Tony, yes, that is one way the people of NJ could solve this problem.

They could amend the constitution to explicitly have it say that marriage is a right protected by the Constitution. Then the legislature could never pass a law which diminished those rights.

Or, they can simply direct their legislators to do the same thing at the state level, which leaves them freer to change the laws over time, but more vulnerable if (though this is unlikely) a shift in popular opinion causes some titanic change and snake-handling Red Staters bent on harshing the collective mellows of the rainbow collective are ever in the majority and are able to reverse the law.

Of course this would be democracy, but that is what the people of New Jersey need to decide: is same sex a fundamental right so important it belongs at the level of enumerated rights in the Constitution that can never be overturned except by a direct state-wide referendum (pretty damned hard to do?)

OR:

Do they want to leave themselves more free to change and do it at the level of the state legislature?

Tony, to paraphrase Harris Telemacher, ordinarily, I don't like to be around interesting people because it means I have to be interesting too.

Cut that out :)

b/t the devil and the deep blue sea,

actually marriage is a fundamental right under the US Constitution: Loving v. VA, which outlawed miscegenation (sp?) laws. the Court stated that everyone is entitled to marry the person they chose. (it wasn't quite that broad in language but that was the idea when written). since, then the US S.Ct. has upheld the rights of prisoners to marry because marriage is a fundamental right that states cannot unduly impede. therefore, your argument that this has always been a matter of state law is not completely correct.

i live in nj and i am proud that our judges understand that their job is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. because to me this issue is not about whether or not gays can marry, it's about whether or not my liberty can be infringed upon by people who don't like me.

if judges had taken the viewpoint conservatives want on this issue when desegregation was the hot button, schools in the south would still be segregated because the legislative will of the people would have ruled. is there any conservative that would argue that desegregation was not the correct decision, in spite of opposition from the majority of white southerners?

courts occupy an important role in our government. they make sure that laws do not conflict with rights. so, the question is: is marriage a law or a right? (which is really me making your original point, in a way)

PS: i like that fact that people over here can discuss this without calling names. i was at another conservative site earlier and it was disgusting all the hostility.

i tried to fix this but couldn't. sorry it looks this way.

BtDatDBS: "A certain (and quite small) set of enumerated rights flow from the Constitution."

That's what they all say. And while technically correct, it's quite misleading, inasmuch as Amendments 9 and 10 make quite clear that Americans' rights extend far beyond those enumerated in the Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That ain't social engineering. That is constitutional smackdown.

Meela (this is still me, Cass, by the way) I have a disturbing propensity to change monikers when I'm messing around on other sites. I'll stay with my real 'name' from now on :)

Actually Loving vs. VA did outlaw miscegenation, but again you are extending that farther than what the court actually said.

The Court did not hold that gay marriage was a fundamental right in Loving vs. VA.

It held that RACE (not sex) could not be used by the states to prohibit marriage to two people.

As Lisa (I believe) so aptly stated, race is not sex. Two entirely different things, and wanting them to be the same does not make them so, no matter how much we might want that to be the case (or not, as one's individual political or religious beliefs may dictate).

Again, it is my sincere belief that although we might believe a thing is right, though we might in our hearts want it to come to pass, what the law says is that there is a proper way to cause that to happen, and that is this: you must either find it in the law, or convince enough of your fellow citizens that the law must be changed.

Now you can do this in any number of ways:

1. By amending the constitution, if you wish to establish a permanent right that cannot be taken away except by constitutional amendment, which is pretty hard to do and requires serious, deliberate effort, or

2. By passing a law. Still hard to do, but more susceptible to the ebb and flow of popular opinion and the inevitable learning curve we humans must endure as we bumble through life. I like this better because it allows us the freedom to make incremental changes and adjust as we go. It allows us to learn from our mistakes. But it is slow.

Anything else is NOT the rule of law, but allowing nine unelected and unaccountable people to 'make it up as they go along'. You may like the result, but that is NOT what the law says as it currently stands.

Real democracy is messy. It takes *time*. It requires us to get our hands dirty and fight to make sure the right thing happens. And what really, really disturbs me sometimes about the liberal way of looking at things, (and I used to be a liberal) is that you guys keep wanting to take short cuts. But that does violence to the system and prevents us from thrashing these things out for ourselves. We don't learn from the process.

We sit at home and let others do our thinking for us. We don't fully participate in our own government, and so it grows like topsy turvy and we become ever more disconnected from those who govern in our names.

Lex, you just proved my point. All that clause says is that the rights enumerated in the C aren't the ONLY ones you have.

A right either comes from the Constitution or from somewhere else. Marriage doesn't come from the Constitution. It comes from state laws.

*sigh*

Oh crap. Those last two comments were me.

I thought I had the right 'name' in the comments field this time. Looooooong day!

I meant to write a post last week on the Constitution, suggesting that we really ought to have a Constitutional Convention about every 50 years or so.

Conservatives get our Hanes UltraSheers all in a wad over the liberal idea of a Living, Breathing Constitution, because we want the words in that document to mean something. I think that if we actually reviewed what it said every 50 years and had a national referendum on parts of it, we might be more tempted to actually adhere more closely to the plain meaning - we might treat it with more reverence b/c it would be "our" document in the real sense - a truly living document, but living because WE ARE INTENTIONALLY AMENDING IT, NOT BECAUSE NINE UNELECTED DUDES AND DUDETTES keep conjuring rights into it out of a few Camembert crumbs and some leftover pages of Jacques Derrida's last book... :D

Cass,

the Court said "marriage", not heterosexual marriage. your comment about gay marriage not being a fundamental right is my problem with the conservative position on this issue. you are nit-picking and spliting hairs about our rights in order to not grant that right to a particular group of people.

Loving v. VA deals with marriage and mandates that states must have a compelling state interest to intrude in that area. i need one anti-gay person to explain the compelling GOVERNMENT interest against gay marriage? it will grant recognition to gay families and allow them to have the same rights and privileges as hetero marriages. it will provide them financial stability because they won't have to make sure that the contracts they write include every possible variation on things that could happen. it will ensure that gay parents don't both have to adopt their own children to protect the non-biological parent's right to his/her own kid. in short, it strengthens families. why is this such a problem?

every time i hear an argument against gay marriage it ultimately ends up being about religious views and God. church and state are separate in this country, therefore i need a non-religious reason why gay marriage is the end of society. and i am really not trying to be an asshole, i just want someone to explain without using the word God once.

above should read anti-gay marriage...oops:)

Meela:

I think you're assuming a few facts not in evidence here :)

1. That necessarily conservatives are anti-gay, or even anti-gay-marriage. Wrong. Some are, but for me this is an argument about means, not ends. And at any rate it was always that because we live in a democratic republic, and unless we do what y'all are advocating (let judges make law) the people will decide. And the tide of popular opinion, just as with abortion, is turning towards allowing this. That is what drives me nuts about your position: persuade the people of the rightness of your position. Don't impose it by fiat. This is democracy. This is freedom. It's a good thing.

2. There are public policy reasons some people argue that allowing gay marriage will 'devalue' marriage. I am not sure I want to advance that argument, but I know you know them. Here's one, and it's valid even if you don't like it. It is the slippery slope.

If you allow the courts to usurp the traditional power of the state legislatures to define marriage, then you have set a precedent. Once that happens, that case is cited as precedent for future usurpations (you can't deny my "right" to marry x, y, z because you did it back then, citing this "right" which didn't exist until the court "found" it in the constitution). Now it can be between a man and a dolphin (some wacky tart just married a dolphin, so don't tell me this can't happen!). Or a man and six women.

The state legislatures (otherwise known as the People) lose the right to protect a mother against a man who wants to lessen her marital rights when she married him and thought she would be the only one, for instance. And children are impacted. And because of reciprocity and the fact that state court decisions are cited as persuasive authority in other states, they reach beyond the borders of their own state.

And for those who say "that won't happen", look at meena's argument - she thinks Loving (which no matter what she says, did NOT argue that race is sex for the purposes of marriage) effectively wrote gay marriage into the Constitution. Slippery slope reasoning in action, and people have been trying to make that case for decades. So far though, it hasn't been upheld.

Again, not an argument I want to defend here because it's a distraction, but that's one :)

2. Personally, I think there are very valid public policy interests for society in supporting monogamous gay relationships. I don't want to call that "marriage" because I think it is something new and deserves its own name and special status. You don't call a dog a cat or a horse an elephant. But I am OK with calling it civil union, and I don't much care if state legislatures confer the same benefits on gay couples. I am not going to come into your house and peer through your window - to me that is your business.

To me, that is democracy.

The ONLY thing I care about, is that these decisions be put through the wringer of public debate. I think that is SO important, meena.

Yes, it's harder.

Yes, it will take longer.

But I think it will be better for gays in the long run. I think the world will be a better place. I think we will accept the changes more easily if they are not foisted on us, but we participate in them.

I think it will be better for gay community too, because they need to participate in the debate too.

You can't wave a wand and overnight change society. Lasting change must be organic.

Sorry camo ... I'm going to marry Deb and we're going to sail away into the sunset on her wonderful sailboat :D
Posted by: Between the Devil And the Deep Blue Sea at October 26, 2006 11:27 AM

Please tell me more about this "wonderful sailboat". After all, I am just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
(And such a man!)

But seriously, as someone already pointed out, gay people are just as free to get married as straight people...to somebody of the opposite sex. In fact, when I was in the military there were quite a few people who did just that, then went their separate ways and got to live off post with their "partners". I love it (NOT!!!) when people throw that term "homophobe" out there when someone disapproves of deviancy. A phobia is a fear; one does not have to fear a thing to disapprove of same. Some may bristle at my calling homosexuality deviant. But because gay people are a minority, their lifestyle deviates from the norm, by definition. There is a small but highly vocal minority of people who wish to cause the world at large to recognize their "choice" as just another "alternative", no different from a preference for strawberry ice cream over butter pecan. The reality is, leaving ethics, morals, religious teachings, etc. out of the equation...biology alone dictates that such behavior is abnormal. A purely homosexual species would quickly die off. No, the principal reason these folks want to call it marriage is to give it some type of legal legitimacy. Which is something the majority would probably never do, given the option.

For the record: I don't hate homosexuals, I know a number of very nice ones. I simply disapprove of their "choice"...but that's a whole 'nother topic.

Are you saying that they made up that equal protection clause? Those bastards!

=

Please tell me more about this "wonderful sailboat". After all, I am just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
(And such a man!)

I saw a Star Trek Episode about this very thing!
I think the transporter was out of whack.

Mein Gott im Himmell.

Has anyone seen Carrie today? Mommy...I'm scared.

Where is the Professym when we need hym? I ducked out on my last class in Kama Sutra studies at the Institute and now my chakras are feeling distinctly out of whack.

To Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea:

Your point is well taken. One does not have much to do with the other, alas. Religious feelings are one thing but you are correct, they have nothing to do with the issue that the host of this blog put forth: Is what the courts are deciding in line with the constitution? Should they even be involved in deciding what is constitutional in this matter? She says no on both counts.

I strongly disagree with the idea that this is judicial fiat, but the blog post and comments have really put forth some compelling arguments (and you write so well it really distracts me from being angry and outraged like I should be).

I will have to stand on the idea that the right of two CONSENTING ADULTS to form a union is not up for negotiation or the approval of the masses. Maybe I am wrong. I realize we put limits on marraige even now - we don't allow brother and sister to marry even if they are consenting adults. And yes, we could pass a constitutional amendment that would codify heterosexual marraige in law. But I think it would be a mistake. We can have really good reasons to deny someone equal rights - and we can even get away with it for a very long time. But in the end, it is against what this country stands for.

In a perfect world, Lisa, I would agree with you.

But this isn't a perfect world, sadly. And I guess I see government as a social contract where we give up some of our rights in exchange for having some other rights protected by the polity. So if we want that to happen, we need to get the polity to agree with us - we need some degree of consensus. We can't ram our opinions - right or wrong - down their throats or that social contract becomes null and void.

I fear - I really do - that in our increasingly fractured and heterogenous society, we are straining the social fabric by trying to ram things down the throats of the polity in the name of equity without first trying to establish consensus as to the essential rightness of what we are doing.

I was talking to my daughter in law about this over dinner and she said, "Would you vote for a constitutional amendment for gay marriage?"

I really had to stop and think. I was surprised that I did not know the answer. At the federal level? No. Because I truly don't see this as a federal question. I think it should be left to the states, but then I am a federalist so that is not surprising. I wouldn't vote for a constitutional amendment *for* heterosexual marriage either, for that matter. Marriage, IMO, does not belong in the constitution. Period. It is a matter of state law.

At the state level? Perhaps I might. I honestly don't know. Something in me shrinks from constitutionalizing such a matter, but I am not irretrievably opposed to it, not at all. I would have to listen to the arguments and think about them carefully.

Please tell me more about this "wonderful sailboat". After all, I am just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
(And such a man!)

I saw a Star Trek Episode about this very thing!
I think the transporter was out of whack.
Posted by: Cricket at October 26, 2006 08:22 PM

The very last episode of the original series to be aired: "Turnabout Intruder". I cite that one whenever someone says Shatner can't act; his portrayal of the proverbial "woman scorned" having a hissy fit while inhabiting Captain Kirk's body was masterful...the rest of his hammy emoting notwithstanding.

I often think that William Shatner is an unrecognized comic genius. His video performance of Elton John's "Rocketman" is one of the funniest things I think I have ever seen in my entire life.

I'm not so sure the comedic aspects of Bill Shatner's singing is intentional...

Oh I am. He was making fun of himself. The guy has an incredibly dry wit, but then many Canadians do.

Oh...you..guys! You need to watch 'Over The Hedge.' Talk about hysterical. Shatner actually did a terrific job giving voice to a possum. He parodied himself...and I can't give it away because it is just too funny.

And in an odd sort of way, the CG of the possum character even LOOKED like him. Absolutely brilliant.

Nobody could have foreseen that allowing gays to marry in Massachusetts would have no noticeable effect on the rest of the population.

Let's put slavery to a vote too!

That's a false analogy since the ban on slavery was constitutionalized by AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION: THE EXACT LAWFUL PROCESS I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS ENTIRE POST. And the states did indeed "put it to a vote" when they ratified the 13th amendment.

Wow. The process works, and you don't even need courts to legislate from the bench! Imagine that!

Pull out a history book there, big guy!

I've always thought the amendment process was the right one for resolving gay marriage as an issue. It seems to me that, while the People delegated the State some authority to handle the paperwork around marriage, they never delegated the right to define marriage. The institution of marriage predates the Republic.

As such, the state ought to have to ask for new authority if it wants to redefine marriage. The way to ask for new authority is through the amendment process.

I always thought the appropriate place to resolve this was the legislature for the exact same reason you thought it belonged to the courts, Grim.

Marriage predates the Republic, It was and is a societal concept. Marriage has changed definitions before (from political/arranged to choice/love), but each change has been because society wanted it changed.

The societal branch of the gov't is the legislature, not the courts.

It's hard. A marriage is (after all) only an agreement between a couple.

As such, what does it matter what society thinks?

Except it does, when you are asking society to recognize your union and treat you differently than it would treat you if you were two individuals. Then, you DO have to get society to agree that you are, in fact, a couple upon which it wishes to confer "marital" rights.

So where do you go to get that "permission"?

The courts? How can you ask unelected persons whether society at large considers you "married"?

The legislature. They speak for We the People. They say, "Yes, you are the class of people upon which We the People will grant certain rights and privileges thereunto appurtaining".

The fact is, you love each other and are a couple whether or not society blesses your union. You can "marry" your freaking dog if you want and live happily ever after. But if you want society at large to give you things, you have to get society at large to agree that your union does, in fact, meet the criteria for being the type of union it wishes to grant those privileges TO.

And by privileges I'm talking about things like tax credits, insurance status, right of survivorship, etc.

There are tangible benefits to being married vs. being single, and this is one reason people wish to marry. There are others.

Cass, you're making me blush.

Meela said: the Court said "marriage", not heterosexual marriage.

This is a common statement made by the gay marriage advocates. Marriage has since time began meant the joining of one man and one woman. Oh, you have had polygamy, but that is just a number of those unions.

Claiming that a gay relationship is a marriage, is like claiming a banana is a .357 magnum. And having a judge, even a supreme court judge insist that a banana is a firearm doesn't change the reality. If you pointed a banana at me and said "stick 'em up", I'd fall to the ground laughing.

I get somewhat the same reaction when I hear gays tell me they are married to each other.

But now judges are calling bananas "firearms", and it's not quite so funny anymore. We in a situation of having to enumerate it for them with a constitutional amendment that should not be required.

"Silly judges, guns are guns and bananas are bananas. Please try to keep them straight."

Cass said: But if you want society at large to give you things, you have to get society at large to agree that your union does, in fact, meet the criteria for being the type of union it wishes to grant those privileges TO.

One thing we've gotten away from is the concept of associated responsibilities with rights. Was a time society said: "We will give you these benefits, and in return, you will produce the next generation of citizens, you will raise them in a stable home and teach them how to be good productive members of society."

Now gays are saying: "They get this stuff, we want it! It's unfair!!!". Well, gays are not capable without medical intervention to live up to the responsibilities that those rights were predicated on.

There is no compelling societal reason to extend those benefits to gays.

Let me follow up my own comment with: "...and with the advent of widespread contraception and abortion, there is no compelling reason to extend those benefits to straights either".

What I said, MM and Cass, is that the amendment process is the right way.

The legislature isn't good enough. At least, no single legislature is. The amendment process is how the government comes back to us and asks for new authority. Congress proposes and, if they manage a supermajority in both houses, sends it to the states. The states then have, also by supermajority, to ratify the idea.

That's how it's supposed to work. That's how the whole People consider the question, and decide to grant the government a sweeping new power of this sort.

Is 'gay marriage' at the point that it could pass that standard? Of course not.

So we're just gonna do it this other way... well, we'll call it just as good.

There's no rights creation: it's the extension of a pre-existing general rule to a novel case. (here, the law can't discriminate without good reason)

The states then have, also by supermajority, to ratify the idea.

That already happened. It's the 14th Amendment (and its state corollaries)