With the recent legal activities in Iowa and Vermont, the Same Sex Marriage issue isn’t going away, as some proponents of Prop. 8 hoped it would after the proposition passed. I stated then that people don’t stop fighting for basic rights regardless of how many times those rights are denied them.
Now, this issue will be taken up and debated at the Federal level by the Congress. Not because there is any politician brave enough to address the issue, but they’ll be forced to by the District of Columbia City Council who have proposed to recognize the same sex marriages performed elsewhere. I’ve been thinking about the arguments against Same Sex Marriage as well and I agree with Peter Sagal, who lumped them into 3 groups: It is against God’s law, it is against tradition, and it’ll destroy heterosexual monogamous marriages.
I’ve covered these arguments in the past but thought that I’d do so again, if perhaps you missed it or didn’t understand. The first one isn’t an argument at all, and is irrelevant. What if my God told me it was okay? What if he told me to kill kittens, and build giant obelisks to his glory? It doesn’t matter. My and your personal religious beliefs aren’t an argument for denying people their rights in a secular nation that doesn’t recognize any religious belief as valid. That whole ‘wall’ Jefferson talked about.
Arguing marriages traditional place is also a poor argument, the whole liberal enlightenment movement of which the United States is probably the best product of is based on overcoming narrow-minded traditional beliefs, laws, processes, etc. Slavery has a long tradition in the world, Misogyny does too, as well as genocide, torture, pedophilia, polygamy, etc. The list could go on and on, these are all traditions that we’ve overcome and are better off for it! I won’t mention the fact that what is presented to Americans as traditional marriage is younger than our country, but that can be for another time.
The final argument that same sex marriage will destroy heterosexual ones is ridiculous on its face. What is the divorce race in our Nation? 50% How many more heterosexual marriages are loveless or festering wells of spousal and children abuse? According to the Center for Health and Gender Equality 22% of women interviewed admit to domestic violence abuse. This actual incidence of domestic violence is almost always under reported. In some surveys the number has been as high as 50-70%! It appears that heterosexual marriage doesn’t need any help being destroyed, heterosexuals are doing a bang up job all on their own. All of this and I haven’t even begun to question how what two people do in the privacy of their own home effects what you do in the privacy of yours? You might not like it, but besides not being comfortable with the idea of two men or two women raising children and having sexual intercourse it can’t do anything to your marriage. What is much more likely to destroy it is money issues or infidelity. Besides there’s no evidence to support this, the divorce rate in Massachusetts hasn’t spiked since the same sex marriage became legal, for the few weeks that it was legal in California the only statistics to see a spike was the rate of marriage… They used this argument too when it came to giving Woman the vote, passing Civil Rights legislation, and abolition… Nothing was destroyed then either…
Finally, those opposing same sex marriage will fail for one reason, the young don’t care. It might take more years than it should, but it is inevitable. Look at some exit polling from last year’s election concerning Proposition 8 in California:
Yes No
18-29 (20%) 39 61
30-44 (28%) 55 45
45-64 (36%) 54 46
65+ (15%) 61 39
As older voters die off and younger voters replace them and the LGBT movement continues to press for equal rights, laws protecting “marriage” will fall and the LGBT community will be able to enjoy the same rights heterosexuals take for granted. As Andrew Sullivan stated, the essential civil right is not the right to be different — because difference, in this context, is the prerequisite assumption of bigotry — but the right to be the same.
I love my maternal grandfather. He’s also horribly racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and anything else prejudicial you can imagine. While I still worry about the reactionary stuff going on amongst people our age who are hearing a lot of misplaced blame and bad information, things can’t get started changing for real until his generation is out of the voting pool.
(Even, sigh, my paternal grandmother, an 85-year-old precinct captain who’s the staunchest Democrat I know and who threatened to move back to England [where her parents came from] if McCain won.)
“The Times They Are a-Changin'”, Bob Dylan.
Jonathan,
Three points,
A) Not all arguments can be lumped into those categories.
See:
(I’ll admit that the latter is really a derivative concern, rather than a fundamental one. However it does not neatly fit into your categorizations.)
I’ve also been considering a post on the importance of heterosexual parental configurations for the healthy development of children. This has been a rather interesting emerging topic in sociology, and in no way supports the idea that parental gender is a non-issue when considering the best interests of children.
B) Even those arguments that are based on the categories you provide, are not reasonably rebutted here. (You draw out a single caricature of the argument and then knock it down. You fail to get at the point of anything that is really fundamental to what those making the arguments are saying.) If anything, the most I can imagine if I assume you are being sincere here, is that you simply don’t have much experience with the issues you’re taking up. Where do you hear such shallow arguments? Were you really even paying that much attention to them?
C) I’ve never heard a single prop 8 proponent express any serious hope that this would all just go away. We’re clearly in this for the long haul. We have to be, and we know it.
Sean,
Thank you for the comment. I’ve tried to address them below, I’m sure I’ve missed something. I’m also sure you’ll point it out 😛
A) I do find most of the arguments against same sex marriage as somewhat farcical, so there is some humor here, moreso because my own style of writing trends toward it regardless of what I’m writing about. The two you link to, are to me, nothing more than fearmongering. No one is forced to go to public school, there are private alternatives as well as homeschools if one is worried about what is being taught in public schools. Criticism is something that all of us must deal with when we make a political statement. If your political statement is hate speech than man up and deal with the consequences you’ll have to deal with just like anti-semites and white supremacists have to. We all have the right to free speech that doesn’t translate into respect for the statement or its speaker. I’m sorry if you think church’s with bigoted beliefs should be a ‘protected class’, I don’t.
B) I don’t care how complicated the argument is Sean if it boils down to “My God hates it, or I hate it” that’s a poor argument and can be nipped simply by stating the United States is a secular nation and shouldn’t be enacting law or withholding rights based on a population’s religious beliefs. I imagine you’d be arguing this yourself if the topic was Sharia Law and not Same Sex Marriage… Because something is “traditional” isn’t an argument, and shouldn’t protect anything from revision, if you can explain why this is different for marriage I’d like to see it. I’d also like to see just how you propose saving “traditional” marriage from the depridations of those privilaged enough to participate in it? Finally, I am truly puzzled by the last argument I mentioned, I honestly don’t understand how someone elses marriage effects your own. The same way I don’t see how someone else raises their children effects how I choose to raise my own.
If there are ‘real’ arguments out there Sean, or I’m missing the gist of the ones I’ve mentioned please point out to me.
C) The Sacramento Bee, San Fransisco Chronicle, and LA Times all quoted the the head of ProtectMarraige and others hoping that the voters would respect the people’s vote on this issue and move on to other things. If the head of ProtectMarriage isn’t a proponent of Prop. 8 who is? I’m glad you realize it is a long fight, I also hope you realize it is one you’ll lose. I think the world will be a better place that you did.
A) “I’m sorry if you think church’s with bigoted beliefs should be a ‘protected class’, I don’t.”
Protected class? Forget protected. I’m talking about simple (largely) unambiguous rights like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
You can think what you like of my reasons, and ridicule them all you like, but they don’t fit into your buckets, and so long as you fail to consider them, you have no basis whatsoever for pretending to understand what you so blithely write off as bigotry.
B) It is ironic that you can ridicule my philosophical system and justify it on the basis of your own. This is the sort of thing of shallow thought (and I don’t pretend that Christianity is not full of shallow thinkers). You have no independent criteria which by which you are judging me. You have only your own personal system of beliefs.
The nation, for example, is only secular by convention, and only to the extent that such convention is accepted by the nation. In the beginning the secularization as you communicate it, was not so complete as you pretend it should be. The idea the the nation “should” be secular is the result of a philosophical system and is certainly not based upon any fundamental truth. It is rather touted as a fundamental truth in and of itself. The constitution dictates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
This is a far cry from saying that there can be no law established which is justified based upon a religious philosophical system. It is a far cry from saying that the people have to erase every part of their beliefs, except for those that tow the secular line, before they enter the voting booth. The result would be a prima facie disenfranchisement of all religious philosophies and those who espouse them.
Nevertheless, radical secularist philosophy is, in many cases, made superior to the Constitution by our judges and legislators. To the extent that we accept that supplanting of the Constitution, and to the extent that we more legitimately and directly endorse secular philosophy we are a secular nation. Nevertheless, such a secularization would be rooted in the people themselves, and the ever changing tide of culture, not in the fundamental nature of the nation itself.
In essence, the fundamental assumption behind your dismissal of the “God doesn’t want gay marriage” argument, (that the nation is fundamentally secular) is flawed, and the whole argument falls upon what you want, and there is no vestige of a connection left between “what you want” and “what should be”.
Rather, what we actually see happening is a struggle between the secular and the religious, whereby the secular hope to make secularism the de facto national religion in spite of the first amendment, and they think that their disavowal of God makes them innocent of the crime of establishing and promoting tyranny.
“I imagine you’d be arguing this yourself if the topic was Sharia Law and not Same Sex Marriage”
Imagination is more important than knowledge, it appears.
Of course you would assume that I would attack religion if it were not my own. However, I can’t say that I know Sharia law to be wholly bad. Certainly there are some aspects of the system which have a bad reputation and perhaps rightfully so, but personally, I don’t think that either you nor I know enough about it to intelligently argue its merits or demerits.
Personally, I don’t think you would ever find me making the kind of argument you propose.
Certainly “because something is ‘traditional’ isn’t an argument”. But neither is a religious foundation an argument against. I personally suspect that I’d have plenty of ammunition to hurl at any unsavory points of Sharia Law before I’d have to stoop to the kind of religious bigotry exhibited by the no-on-8 crowd.
“If there are ‘real’ arguments out there Sean, or I’m missing the gist of the ones I’ve mentioned please point out to me.”
Missing the gist, perhaps, but also fundamentally erring in how you judge that which you have understood.
C) Hoping voters will accept the results of the election is a far cry from hoping that the fight over gay marriage is over. You have stretched the truth here for the sake of political posturing.
Though most arguments that people are debating on this issue are the pointless rhetorical pick-apart-the-opponents’-logical-fallacies tactics that bog down the majority of any political discourse in this or any other country, let’s face some serious facts not yet mentioned here that perhaps deserve at least passing mention:
1) {nearly)All laws have a strong moral foundation, whether we like it or not.
The pro-hetero-marriage side strongly believes that same sex marriage is morally repugnant. Those who defend gay marriage think it is morally reprobate to deny anyone equal access to the benefits available in our society. Big surprise.
Both opinions not rooted in any objective measure, both fueled by strongly moral (and might I say emotional) argumentation.
2)There is, in fact, great legal precedent not only supporting, but also necessitating separation of Church and State.
Invoking the proscribed punishments of the various faiths on the individuals in those various faiths who break their faiths’ commandments would be a daunting task. If you think the US code of law is heinously complex, just imagine a system of legal precedent older than western civilization itself being enforced by our government with exceptions and loopholes beyond the scope of human comprehension (and that’s just Hinduism). Such would be farcical, to say nothing of irreverent toward any God, and would destroy the ability of this people to govern themselves.
3)That being said, this issue is a political issue and, in fact, is a generational issue and will, in fact, cease to be debated as a matter of public policy within the next decade if not within the next five years.
No one questions whether racial segregation, etc is an important matter of public policy any longer, it just simply is the way it is. Those like the late Strom Thurmond, whose opposition to the Civil Rights Act led to the longest filibuster in US history (now more a topic of derision rather than glory) will find that people have no problem being racist (or…orientationist?) despite the fact that the government does not permit it. Things will continue to evolve, and the Church will have to evolve (as it always has) to meet the needs of individuals who profess its beliefs, though its doctrines may not change.
4)As a matter of private opinion and morals, individuals in support of heterosexual monogamous marriage (serial monogamy?) will continue to peach, teach, and perform the same without being forced to extend those practices to individuals not permitted by their Church.
Islam still strongly opposes “gentile” marriages, as does Judaism, Christianity and nearly every other faith and those doctrines have not changed. The only difference is now individuals are able to make those choices and only be punished by the state for breaking laws that the state has established, without invoking the varied and severe punishments of their own respective Gods; for a state to invoke so many different gods, hunt down, and in most cases kill offending individuals would be very tiresome ;).
Homosexual individuals and those who defend their rights will also be unlikely to stop promoting universally applicable laws, since they feel only a universal code of law can be liberally and justly applied to all persons protected by the State. Just because Barack Obama was elected President does not mean that the NAACP will stop advancing the cause of black individuals.
The end-game:
Very little will change, with the exception that gay individuals will not feel threatened with disenfranchisement for making choices consistent with their biological and neurological processes.
In my opinion, for what its worth, is that those morally in opposition to homosexual unions need to work much harder at assisting and defending marriage within their own families and congregations than without – the divorce rate in this country indicates that too few religious individuals put much thought into how to be intelligent in their marriage decisions. It is ridiculous in the extreme to say that marriage of one class is important when that same class cannot seem to “get it right”. As professing Christians, we need to set a higher standard than the world in order to show the world how we feel life is to be led. In the words of the Christian whose recorded words say nothing of homosexuality, we must first “cleanse the inward vessel”.
Rick,
1) Completely agree.
2) You are correct, but I will add the further observation that precedent is only another word for tradition, and while “separation of church and state” is a bit of an ambiguity, the ambiguity ranges between, being exactly what the constitution prescribes (as I noted before) and the prescription of radical secularism. Since the latter is close to the more common application of the term today, I will presume this is your usage and note that this is what we would call a “false tradition”. It is a tradition, yes, but it is one based upon unsound principles.
4) You seem to be missing the point of the argument I linked to here:
http://www.smcox.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=692
To make a long story short, there is significant empirical evidence to substantiate the claim that religious people will have their fundamental rights infringed if gay marriage is allowed. (For the competing claim, I submit that there is no basis for consider marriage a fundamental right, and I have never heard a person so much as even reason how such a right might be derived, excepting that I have read some little regarding the California decisions that established California precedent in the matter. See my note under point 2 regarding the value of precedent, however. The extension of what little claim exists, for a right to marry, to the realm of gay marriage, is tortured indeed, and certainly nowhere near “fundamental”.)
Personally, I do set a higher standard than “the world”. Hence, I voted “yes” on 8.
Nevertheless “when the time to act arrives, the time to prepare is over.”
In California, it came to a vote in November. It didn’t have to, but it did. Certainly every Christian should be working to fortify his or her own family, but that in no way negates the fact that they were called upon to make an important decision last November, and lack of preparation was no excuse for making a bad one. In this case, you are also mixing up your paradigm. The man with the beam shouldn’t take out the mote, but in a theological sense, you have your motes and beams mixed up. (I submit that, even from non-theological standpoint, the definition of marriage is more fundamental to marriage than the intricacies of how to make it work, though the latter be very important indeed. Can a man with a mote in his eye prevent a man from shoving a beam into his eye?) I further postulate that you have absolutely nothing in the way of statistics to show the divorce rates among individuals who voted for proposition 8.
Now, if you feel you have a beam in your eye and would do better in this world by not voting (voting either way is taking the part of the physician in some small way in your paradigm), then you are welcome to your position. However, you here seem to pass judgment upon the yes-on-8 community as a whole, and seem to suggest that they should have voted “no”. This is beyond reason. (Though opinions often are.)
Certainly the pro-8’ers of your acquaintance are not, by and large, so inept at managing a marriage as you imply. Upon what basis then, do you suggest that we need to fix our own marriages?
Yes, a great many need to work on their marriage skills. It is exactly for that reason that it is so important that we act to reduce the confusion that exists publicly, regarding what marriage is. Being ambivalent about marriage and refusing to stand up for truth, will certainly do nothing to help society come to understand how to make marriage work.
You know that it is your charge to spread truth. You know very well, that you cannot be “saved” with your family unless you reach out to others. How then can you express such a strangely isolationist opinion in this matter?
I’ve been writing on this topic for some time, and I want to address a couple of points you make in your blog, Sean.
A) “Churches will be sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples”.
This is a misleading statement. Factual on its face, but it has no truth value because it leaves out a key point of information. If a church makes the claim to offer their services to the entire public and seeks a tax-exempt status and/or public dollars because it claims to provide necessary public services to the entire public — and then excludes certain members of the public from those services, THEN churches will be sued.
Any church has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time; however, it does not have the right to retain a tax-exempt status or continue drawing public funds as if it did provide service to all members of the public.
Nowhere in the First Amendment is the right of churches to be tax-exempt protected. Changing tax status does not infringe upon a person’s or organization’s right to free speech, nor does it infringe upon their right to organize. What it does affect is the business structure of a church.
This being said, any pastor has the right to refuse to perform a ceremony for any reason. Nobody has the right to force a religious official to perform a ceremony to which he/she has moral objections. Nevertheless, if a church is receiving a tax-exempt status and public funds, it is obligated to either 1) make its *facility* available to those who wish to use it for the services it claims to provide to the public (such as marriages and funerals), or 2) relinquish its tax-exempt status and public funds and be taxed like any other private organization. In certain cases such as the lesbian lawsuit in Connecticut, the plaintiffs were suing over the right to use the facility alone, as they were providing their own religious officials for their ceremony.
As I described above, so it goes for religious adoption agencies: if they are seeking a tax-exempt status, public funds and a public license to perform their services, they are obligated to provide those services to EVERYONE who meets the minimum standards for adoptive parents as provided in their federal adoption agency license. If they refuse to provide those services to certain sectors of the public who meet the minimum federal standards, then that organization can’t get their protected tax status, public funds or their federal license to practice. End of argument.
Finally, insofar as “hate speech” is concerned, legalizing gay marriage would have no effect whatsoever on existing “hate speech” laws as homosexuals are already protected under them. Granting them the right to marry would have no additional effect any more than does the right of interracial or minority couples to marry does. If you want to hold an argument over the Constitutionality of “hate speech” laws, then that’s fine — but it would do to remember it’s a separate debate entirely.
Sean, your condescension offends me. I *read* your blog post. I wrote what I wrote because I felt you inadequately addressed the many issues in your post, tax exemption not least among them. I simply didn’t have time this morning to write a point-by-point response — primarily, because of your post’s multiple attempts to lead your reader toward false conclusions.
For all your pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-legalistic blathering and hand-wringing over “infringement of religious rights”, your blog post expressly failed to address a key point: I Amendment does not grant churches a right to tax exemption, which is precisely the precedent established by Bob Jones v. United States of America.
Churches cannot have their cake and eat it too. Churches are provided tax exemption because they claim to provide a necessary public service. This is not “nationalization”, despite your inflammatory language to the contrary. In part this is because unlike a nationalized industry a public or charitable organization can choose to give up its tax-exempt status for whatever reason it chooses. I do not equate public funds and tax exemptions; they are different things. However, choosing to accept one of them can cause similar effects for an organization because each comes with strings attached.
Thus, if an organization elects to cease providing its services to any group of the public, regardless of their reasoning, that cessation is a de facto surrender of tax exemption and possibly disqualify it from continuing to receive public funds. Tax exemption and access to public funds are precisely the issue here, and “free exercise of religion” — no matter whether it’s guaranteed on a Federal or State level — does not guarantee tax exemption, nor does it guarantee access to public funds. Again: a guarantee of freedom to practice religion doesn’t guarantee freedom from taxes or free money. How much further need I belabor this point?
I thought my point regarding “hate speech” was pretty clear. It appears you’re being deliberately obtuse here, so I’ll say it again: the constitutionality of “hate speech” laws is a separate legal issue from gay marriage.
How else do you need me to say it?
“Hate speech”: I Amendment.
Gay marriage: XIV Amendment, equal protection clause.
Separate. Legal. Issue.
Legalizing gay marriage will have no effect on the enforcement of existing “hate speech” laws because gays are a group already afforded protection under those laws. I reiterate: if you want to argue the Constitutionality of “hate speech” laws, start another thread.
On a separate but related note, your blog’s attempts to instill fear in the reader over ostensibly impending hate speech lawsuits through your citation of Canadian cases are disingenuous. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious here, but Canada is a separate country, with separate laws, a separate government, and a separate (though somewhat similar) legal system. Lawsuits in Canada by Canadian citizens against Canadian citizens based on Canadian laws have no bearing on the United States. Inferring that they do is, frankly, bullshit.
I’ll notice you haven’t actually argued any of the point I brought up. So far, you’ve only condescended to me and accused me of not having read your post. Rather than attack me, why don’t you argue my points?
I read your post; I found it lacking.
Ethan,
I did not address many of the issues you brought up, because I had already addressed them in my blog, very explicitly. Your irrelevant rehashing of such issues was taken by me to be plain evidence of your lack of proper reading. As you claim this was not the case, I will have to formulate another hypothesis as to why you wasted time making statements that contributed nothing beyond rehashing points I had already addressed.
Your argument regarding tax-exempt status is a good one. Current legal philosophy tends lean more and more in your favor. (As the case you cite makes apparent.) This is a relatively recent trend, however, and concerns regarding the separation of church and state have delayed this move. (People simply seem to have less regard to such concerns when it actually comes down to gaining some measure of control over a religious organization.)
The debate over the merits of tax-exempt status will take more time than I have here. (Personally, I would have to formulate an opinion upon the point more fully.) However, I will state that any system under which a religious organization can be “punished” (even revocation of a privilege is a punishment) by the government for its use of protected speech, or for being selective about how it provides service (even nominally public services where they are permitted to provide public services) – any such system necessarily violates the first amendment. (And… first amendment rights are already being violated, so it is no wonder that we fear further encroachments.) The threat that churches may have their tax exempt status revoked, is a threat of punishment. Revoking status may be permissible, but making it conditional upon conformance to some philosophy or pattern of speech, is a de facto violation and discriminates religious organizations upon an insufficiently substantive basis. McCain-Feingold already accomplishes such institutionalized religious discrimination.
“will have no effect on the enforcement of existing “hate speech” laws because gays are a group already afforded protection under those laws”
… and as I said, Proposition 8 make a significant difference in the climate under which such laws are enforced, and cannot help but affect both enforcement, and the interpretation of the existing laws. There was nothing “obtuse” about my expression of that point. We simply disagree. I can’t see how you fail to see that.
“I’ll notice you haven’t actually argued any of the point I brought up.”
What you mean is that you “haven’t noticed me arguing any of the points you brought up”. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. I did ignore a lot of points that I felt that I had already covered, but as anyone can plainly see, my last paragraph so directly addresses a point you brought up, that I fail to see how you missed it, though, in this case, you clearly read it.
You have the freedom of speech, but if you throw about such cheap speech, then you can have no expectation that you will get a response. Whining about how I didn’t respond to some of your points, is no way to stand tall and avoid being condescended to.
“This is a misleading statement.”
Ethan, you clearly didn’t read my blog post or even perform a satisfactory scan. The whole point of the post was to take simple, but possibly confusing statements (claims) and to analyze both the merits and demerits of those statements.
In this case, my analysis runs very similar to yours, though not exactly the same. You have failed to take into account the reality of some existing precedent which doesn’t really provide all of the protections you claim, but you’re pretty close to accurate. I am aware of the issues you bring up, and have dealt with many of them within the context of my blog post and comments. Your bringing them up here, and to some extent even there, is (or would be) pointless.
One interesting item I see in your post is the way in which you talk about tax exempt status and accepting of public funds almost as if you can’t decide whether or not they are the same thing. Really, I can sympathize with the ambiguity that your manner of expression here evinces. It is an ambiguity under which the public at large labors. Fortunately, existing precedent is not so ambiguous, and having tax-exempt status is not legally the same thing as accepting public money. However, with the confusion under which the public labors, being what it is, I have no great hope that churches will be able to avoid being effectively nationalized under the same doctrine that effectively nationalizes otherwise private institutions that accept public funds. (I will note here, that I am aware that some churches have accepted public funds for some of their functions. This was, I am aware, a factor in the decision Catholic Charities made to end adoption services in Massachusetts.)
The merits of the legal doctrine under which organizations that receive funds from the government are effectively nationalized, is further a questionable doctrine, but it is unnecessary to get into those details for me to argue the validity of my point here. (Unless you become determined to equate tax-exempt status with the acceptance of public funds.)
“legalizing gay marriage would have no effect whatsoever on existing ‘hate speech’ laws as homosexuals are already protected under them”
Nobody said anything about changing hate speech laws. (At least, I didn’t, and it hasn’t been a standard doctrine of prop-8 proponents. Rather prop-8 opponents pretend this is the issue as a kind of straw man argument.) However, the rubric and legal context under which they are applied is almost just as important. I’m sure that if we returned to the prohibition of interracial marriages, the effect on hate speech prosecution would be significant, so I’m not sure what kind of point you are trying to make here.
Do actually read my blog post.
Sean,
Do you need me to say it again? I. Read. Your. Blog Post. While *you* may believe you addressed the points I brought up, it didn’t look like you did to me; hence the reason I brought them up. I didn’t see anything to do with my argument about how a tax-exempt status is not a right guaranteed by I Amendment. I still don’t see it, and after your accusation I have now re-read the thing five times. I *still* think your blog post isn’t particularly clear nor does it cover anything like as much of the argument as you claim it does. Where again do you discuss the effects of tax exemption “explicitly”? Please point it out to me. I’d also like to point out that this isn’t your blog, so either take the time to provide context by restating your arguments *here* or STFU.
Your claim that “[to argue this point] would take more time than I have here” rings false: you can’t argue this point because you haven’t a leg to stand on. “Revocation of a privilege is a punishment” and “threat of punishment violates first amendment rights”? Please. This is a bunch of disingenuous puling. It’s very simple: society sets standards for organizations that qualify for tax exemption, public funds or public licenses. If you don’t meet those standards, or you refuse to meet those standards, you do not qualify. It’s as simple as that. If you choose not to allow in or refuse service to the [insert epithet here] into your organization, you don’t get to claim you “serve the public” and be given special privileges as if you did. Revocation of special privileges is not discrimination; nor is taxation the same as legal persecution. Nobody’s saying you can’t speak your opinion, practice your religion or gather in a public place; nobody’s going to kick in your door or throw you in jail for being a bigot. But our society is based on equality and equal protection under law; and as such, our society has stated its clear refusal to *subsidize* bigotry.
Speaking of bigotry, your whole argument comes off to me as bigotry – encysted though it may be within verbosity and pseudo-intellectualism – but bigotry all the same. No matter how you clothe it, denying equal protection under law to *any* segment of the population or support of such denial is the very definition and practice of bigotry.
Next, I neither said nor said *you* said anything about changing “hate speech” laws. You’re attempting to dodge the issue by arguing a point doesn’t exist. I brought up the point because *you* infer in your blog that legalizing gay marriage will mean hate speech lawsuits against pastors. I keep pointing out that legalizing gay marriage will cause no more or no fewer suits because it’s a separate legal issue. It is your claim of misunderstanding, your cherry-picking of certain phrases I made while avoiding the point entirely coupled with your attempts to block and misdirect that I find obtuse.
Finally, your claims of “you just haven’t read [my blog] right,” or “you’re not comprehending it right”, or “you haven’t noticed me arguing any of the points I brought up” ring the most false of all. Brother, I read and comprehend things just fine. If you’re not capable of clear communication – or if you leave out certain key points of the argument because you’re too busy fearmongering, misdirecting or bloviating – that’s not my fault.
“See the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of my previous comment.”
Oh, so now you’re changing the rules? I was not referring your comments in response to mine, I was referring to your blog, its lack of content on the matter under discussion and my rationale for posting what you call “irrelevant rehashing” because you supposedly “discussed it explicitly on my blog”. I’m asking *you* to point out to me *where* in that blog post you “explicitly” discuss tax-exemption. Find me the quotation. Sorry, but you don’t get to bait-and-switch me here. I’m not stupid.
Second, I make references to your blog because you insist on referring everyone to it. Perhaps it’s because you want to try to hijack the discussion over to your blog where you can ban users, censor comments and delete posts that bring up arguments that are too challenging for you to discuss? Is that it? Is discussion on a forum where you don’t get to play dictator too much of a challenge for you? If you have points to make, make them here. Provide context rather than links. Summarize your points or cut-and-paste from your other blog if you feel you need to “save time”. *I* “continue to be flabbergasted” that you continue to claim to have written things that don’t exist, and try to deny my arguments based on those nonexistent things.
I’m done arguing about how we’re arguing — and just for the record, just because I am no longer arguing this point doesn’t mean I agree with you. I want to shove this aside now that you’re actually bringing up something I can address:
You say that gay marriage is not an “equal protection” argument. I say that it is and I can prove that it is:
Refer to XIV Amendment, specifically its Due Process clause and its Equal Protection clause. The “philosophical system” the government is “hand-picking” here is its own law, laid out in the definition of XIV and multiple subsequent SCOTUS decisions based on XIV. In short, all states must apply all their laws equally to all citizens without regard to gender, race, religion or any other discriminating factor. The law defines the term “marriage” as a form of contract law; therefore all citizens must have equal access to it and the state may not discriminate against the parties engaging in said contract on the basis of any of the reasons enumerated above. A state may not even define marriage as a contract available to a “man and a woman” because XIV prohibits legal recognition of gender as a discriminating factor.
Furthermore, no state may pass an amendment to its own state Constitution that limits the federal rights of its citizens and still remain a part of the United States. It can either: A. apply all rights equally to all citizens or B. secede. Period.
Don’t like it? Tough. The only way the rights of a minority group can be abridged is by convincing a supermajority of states to amend the U.S. Constitution. *You* may see it as not being an equal protection issue, your opinion doesn’t matter. The opinion of SCOTUS and Congress is the one that matters — and they’ve made it pretty damned clear. The law is the law.
Let’s see if I grok the argument in your second point: you’re claiming it’s discrimination for society to set standards against discrimination? This argument can be disproved again: XIV Amendment makes it clear that government may not apply laws in a discriminating fashion, and BJUvUSA as well as other related SCOTUS decisions establish that government subsidy (either by way of tax exemption or public funding) is subject to XIV. Therefore government is prohibited from subsidizing organizations that engage in discrimination. It sounds to me like you’re claiming discrimination against discrimination is discriminatory. It sounds like you’re justifying your position with circular logic.
With regard to public subsidy, I’ll reiterate: tax exemption and/or access to public funds is not a right guaranteed or even implied in I Amendment. Nor do I believe you can claim government standards of qualification for tax exemption violate I Amendment. Here’s the language:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Where does it say religious organizations are guaranteed a right to tax breaks and free money? Maybe I’m having “comprehension issues”, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
With regard to “hate speech” laws: you say you disagree with my revised comment. How? Why? What’s your argument? Do you claim legalizing gay marriage would increase the number of “hate speech” lawsuits against pastors?
“Oh, so now you’re changing the rules? I was not referring your comments in response to mine”
Changing the rules? You were not explicit regarding what you were referring to. I can see how you intended the reference, however, it was not done in a clear fashion.
I think the subject only really got hashed out in the two comments. However, as I said, the point you are trying to make is irrelevant as I have before explained.
“Second, I make references to your blog because you insist on referring everyone to it.”
I provided 3 very contextually appropriate links, and you then decide to make the whole discussion revolve around my blog? (When the points you take up are not relevant to the reason why the blogs were cited.)
“You say that gay marriage is not an “equal protection” argument. I say that it is and I can prove that it is”
No, actually, you can’t.
“XIV prohibits legal recognition of gender as a discriminating factor”
Actually, no. *Precedent*, prohibits legal recognition of gender as a discriminating factor *in many cases*, but not as widely as you pretend. I have already said my peace regarding the validity of precedent. See my comments above.
“Furthermore, no state may pass an amendment to its own state Constitution that limits the federal rights of its citizens”
Right… but as I have already mentioned, the claim that a true federal right is at issue here, is one with a very sketchy rational. The claim that there is a right to marriage is one which relies upon state precedent, not Federal, and that the nature of that already sketchy right extends to gay marriage is a point of even greater doubt, as it is made explicit by the California Supreme Court, that this right was only enumerated under a system which defined marriage, legally, and constitutionally, as being between a man and a woman.
As I have already said I take precedent with a grain of salt, it seems odd for you to argue on the basis of SCOTUS. It is even more odd, when I have explicitly expressed a dissatisfaction with the value and merit of the very precedent you try to use in your argument.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Can’t see why that doesn’t speak for itself. Congress cannot issue benefits with strings attached designed to strong-arm religions into conforming to the philosophy of radical secularism or any other similar philosophy, de facto religion, or anything else of that sort. If a benefit, such as tax-exemption, is offered, such strings cannot constitutionally be attached, whatever SCOTUS may say. SCOTUS is to the US as the Sanhedrin was to Israel at the height of its power. Don’t expect me to take bad precedent seriously in a discussion of political and moral theory such as this. If precedent cannot be justified without referring to precedent, then it is bad precedent, end of story.
“you say you disagree with my revised comment. How? Why? What’s your argument?”
Look two comments back, last few paragraphs. Digest. Learn.
“The claim that there is a right to marriage is one which relies upon state precedent, not Federal, and that the nature of that already sketchy right extends to gay marriage is a point of even greater doubt, as it is made explicit by the California Supreme Court, that this right was only enumerated under a system which defined marriage, legally, and constitutionally, as being between a man and a woman.”
Marriage is defined as contract law. Period. XIV Amendment states that gender may not be used as a discriminating factor in the application of law. Period. XIV’s equal protection clause, along with various SCOTUS rulings dating back to the 1870s say that states are obligated to apply all their laws equally to all their citizens without discrimination. This includes the legal contract incorporating two citizens that the state defines as “marriage”. Therefore a state that passes an amendment to its State constitution that uses gender as a discriminating factor as to who qualifies for a certain form of contract law, such as Prop. 8 does, it has violated the rights granted its citizens under the Federal Constitution. QED.
It’s not difficult legal logic; pretty straightforward, actually. Where it gets sketchy is the arguments a person gets into when trying to both deny the right to equal protection and to avoid being branded a bigot. Saying an irrational thing in a rational tone of voice doesn’t make the irrational any more rational, any more than intellectualizing one’s bigotry makes one any less of a bigot.
As far as your “strings” argument goes, well, as I said: your opinion means nothing. You don’t decide Constitutionality, SCOTUS does. The opinion was handed down in BJUvUSA on the topic of benefits with strings, and whether or not you agree with it; whether or not you consider it “bad precedent” is your problem. Last I checked, buddy, you’re not the one in the robe holding the gavel. The law is the law until it’s overturned — and guess what? You have to deal with it. If you’re now arguing that SCOTUS is wrong and your arguments are superior, go get yourself a bottle of Jergens and a hand mirror because you afflicted with a serious case of narcissism.
“Do you need me to say it again? I. Read. Your. Blog Post.”
Uh… I already tentatively accepted the premise that you read the blog post. (See the first paragraph, of my previous comment, where I hold that I seek to understand your incoherence on a basis other than a lack of having read the material you so inadequately address.)
“I didn’t see anything to do with my argument about how a tax-exempt status”
Nothing? See the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of my previous comment. I made it very clear that I do not currently contest or accept such a point, and find your contention to be largely irrelevant. To that extent, you may not have gotten the fight out of me that you wanted, but I have no apologies to offer on that score.
“I’d also like to point out that this isn’t your blog…”
Exactly. I’ve thought it odd, therefore, that you insist upon discussing my blog so directly here. It is no wonder that I resist rehashing my blog here, when I have a perfectly apt forum there. You are free to comment on *my* blog all you like (though I will insist upon more civility than you have shown, vulgarity is not tolerated on my blog).
“society sets standards for organizations that qualify for tax exemption”
Yes, but standards that violate the first amendment are still a violation of the first amendment.
“Revocation of special privileges is not discrimination”
Right, like refusing to give away coffee isn’t discrimination. Refusing to give away coffee to Christians, or even religions that voice political opinions, or even religions that start with the letter ‘S’, is discrimination, and while you or I could constitutionally get away with that, state and federal governments to not have the constitutional privilege of legislatively punishing religions or hand picking a favorite philosophical system for the purpose of providing benefits.
“denying equal protection under law”
I know, you see this whole gay marriage thing as an equal protection issue. I don’t. It’s as simple as that. If marriage is defined, in part, as being between a man and a woman, then it is not an equal protection issue to refuse to have gay marriages. Gays can still marry under the law. They just can’t have an unmarriage be called a marriage.
I also know that sounds preposterous to you, but chanting “equal protection” does nothing to change my perspective. If you want to change my perspective, you have to get at the root of it. Instead, you just ignore it and shout inflammatory insults.
“I neither said nor said *you* said anything about changing “hate speech” laws.”
Yet you also said:
“legalizing gay marriage would have no effect whatsoever on existing “hate speech” laws”
Perhaps you meant “legalizing gay marriage would have no effect whatsoever on the enforcement of existing “hate speech” laws”, but that is not what you said, and you will have to forgive me for taking you at face value.
Now, I disagree with even the revised version of your statement. I will say further though, that in my last comment, I actually didn’t even imply anything about any putative changing of hate speech laws, but kept my comments relevant only to your more accurately communicated point. I continue to be flabbergasted at your ability to read what I have not written, either intentionally, or accidentally.
“Brother, I read and comprehend things just fine.”
Hmm… and you throw bias in my face.
You probably aren’t aware, but your bias is showing. I wouldn’t wave that around in public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
(I’d seen this referred to as the fundamental bias in previous reading, but I see that it is more standard to call this the self-serving bias, which appears to be only closely related to the fundamental bias, which this is not an example of.)
More particularly, it will impede you from being able to make many reasoned judgments and compromises that are important to coming to a consensus.
I have very clearly pointed out a number of mistakes you made, most likely via poor reading comprehension. (I imagine you normally read relatively well, but these kinds of debates can make people less clear minded than usual.)
If you have any *particular* communication suggestions that would make it easier for you to understand what I write, do please provide them.
Thus far I have been obtusely accused of being obtuse, pseudo-intellectual, and bloviating. I will admit freely that I am wordy, but none of this is helpful for any purpose other than rhetorical posturing.
As Mark Twain is reported to have written: “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” (And if you feel that I’m cheating you in not allocating more time and attention to you, I’m afraid I cannot but regret the reality of my busy position.)
“Marriage is defined as contract law. Period.”
Having never heard this before, I decided to look it up. I can’t really say I find much support for this assertion. While there is some analogy between marriage law and contract law, saying that marriage is defined as contract law, does not really seem to match reality.
Here is the first result I found in a search on the subject, followed by some other relevant results:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2008/05/its-contract-la.html
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/grossman/20040927.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Contractual_formation
It would seem that a contract law framework for marriage is merely an attractive framework for those in favor of gay marriage, not a solid legal doctrine. In fact, I can think of a number of elements of marriage that defy the terms of simple contract law. Usually, in marriage, one “can” establish a contract via a prenuptial agreement, but otherwise, the obligations associated with marriage are not strictly contractual in nature. That is, some terms are due to “social” contract, some are due to legislative imposition, and some may be due to actual contract.
Marriage, is more a definition of a formal and conventional relationship which does not necessarily contain any inherent terms except perhaps the formal definition and possibly those which may be contextually mandated.
Certainly the “vows” which some exchange are not enforceable by law. Only those which are actually contractually made, or those which the law provides contextually can be so enforced and it is questionable whether the latter can be said to be contractual, as such terms are not necessarily made explicit in the formation of the marriage, and may be subject to arbitrary change. Such law is, in effect, only an extension of the social contract, which is certainly not a matter of contract law.
The exchange of something of value (consideration) is also suspiciously absent. Certainly husband and wife speak of giving themselves to each other, but this is more figurative than literal. Indeed, many today chaff at any such insinuation.
With children comes some essence of “shared property”, but again, this is very much figurative and even if taken literally, is not necessarily an element of contract law.
Nevertheless, even if we allow the assumption that contract law is the framework under which we labor, looking at the 14th amendment, I seen no specification that gender absolutely can not be a consideration in the formation of a contract.
Certainly, many types of gender discrimination are accepted, such as is manifest in the division between women’s and men’s restrooms, or women’s and men’s athletic teams. Indeed, in the latter, gender is very often a basis upon which a contract may be made. The former, is, of course, of a rather practical form of discrimination, and the latter is a conventional practice which has some practical basis. Indeed few will cry out that separate, but equal is a crime in these circumstances (though sports has become more of an issue). There are other arenas as well, where such discrimination is considered appropriate, and very often this is due to manifest practicalities, which are so common and obvious that I have heard gender called a pseudo-protected-class.
While, my research seems to indicate the Europe has more strict anti-discriminatory policies than the U.S., I cannot find that level of egalitarian ideology present in the U.S. system.
“You don’t decide Constitutionality, SCOTUS does.”
Actually, they don’t either, except in a limited sense. Constitutionality transcends SCOTUS. SCOTUS is merely charged with, among other things, elucidating what is constitutional, and the body, as a whole, shows some manifest inability to reliably perform that function. As far as my opinion goes, it has much less practical import than SCOTUS, but it is, nonetheless of very practical import to this conversation, as it is my opinion you seem to think so important to probe, rebut, and ridicule. Insofar as you are dealing with my opinion at the moment, it is futile to try to pretend it away. If you really don’t care, and my opinion (including my expression of it) doesn’t matter to you, then say goodbye.
“The law is the law until it’s overturned — and guess what? You have to deal with it. If you’re now arguing that SCOTUS is wrong…”
Yet, oddly enough, even you seem to convey the idea that there is an ideal that transcends the law, and presumably SCOTUS. You seem unable to come to grips with something so simple as a Constitutional amendment, and I’m sure SCOTUS would not currently side with you. Neither you nor I fully agree with SCOTUS in all cases, and disagreeing is neither narcissistic, nor futile. Ridiculing me for having my own opinion and not conforming to your standard (though you pretend to the standard of SCOTUS), is merely juvenile.
Ahh… awaiting moderation… well, moderator, you can keep whichever of the two replies you like. These last comments can be stricken. 🙂
Actually, on second thought… the first one is better… much better. Keep it, and strike all of my following comments.
I don’t know what happened myself. I never edit comments and I let people put whatever they want here. Sean, your original post showed up a few days ago and then apparently disappeared… Only to reappear again. Since I don’t know what happened I’ll apologize for it here and try to make sure it doesn’t happen again! I thought I had this thing on auto-approve… Anyway everything is here now and it’ll stay here. Even the small comments. Sorry for my ignorance when it comes to this sort of thing. Hopefully I’ve tweaked it so that it doesn’t happen again!
Unless Sean you’d really rather I take out the small comments. I suppose I can remove them on the author’s request. Though I might have to think about that.
Hmm… apparently my last comment didn’t make it.
Well, I’ll be brief then.
“Marriage is defined as contract law.”
Actually, no. There are some individuals who define it as contract law, but in my review, it appears to be mostly the anti-8 crowd. There are actually some key elements of contract law that are missing from marriage law, and while contract analogies are often used, they are imperfect, and they are only analogies.
SCOTUS actually does not even seem to support the more radical egalitarianism you seem to impose upon contract law. There are plenty of situation in which it is permissible to make gender, or even age, a prerequisite for a contract. Those situations generally hinge upon practicality, and while many of the anti-8 ilk are blind to the practical importance of gender distinctions in marriage, there is nonetheless, a good argument to be made there.
Certainly the California Supreme Court never thought to give credence to such an argument as this in Marriage Cases, which is a strange absence given the absolute nature of the doctrine as you preach it.
“f you’re now arguing that SCOTUS is wrong and your arguments are superior, go get yourself a bottle of Jergens and a hand mirror because you afflicted with a serious case of narcissism.”
Uhh… right… because disagreeing with SCOTUS implies narcissism. I hardly think SCOTUS would currently take your view of things here, and I’m sure there is many a SCOTUS ruling you would not agree with. There’s nothing narcissistic about disagreeing.
I think it amazing that you can theorize that I must be hateful, when you continue to show such blatant and irrational malice.
Weird… now I see my longer post. (I’m not even using the same computer, so cache isn’t the issue.)
Strange things are afoot.
Technology can be a fickle friend sometimes.
With your disclaimer, I think I’m fine with the context of my comments. At least I don’t feel like I just hallucinated the whole thing. 😀