From Brian of Liberty Pundit:
Vermont Passes Gay Marriage Act, And I Don’t Have A Huge Problem With It
Now, I know this may come as a shock to most people, but I really don’t have a big problem with this:
Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.
It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
I don’t agree with the issue of gay marriage at all (and no, libs, it’s not because of religious reasons or whatever), but I disagree even more with people passing an agenda without a vote of the people (i.e., by the courts). This is a much better step, in my opinion. There was actually a vote by those who were elected to represent the people. If the voters of Vermont agree with this, they will keep these people in the legislature. If they don’t, they’ll kick them out and elect new people, who will overturn the law.
It’s basically the same thing as what we saw happen in California, only with a different result. Voters in California said “no” to gay marriage, voters in Vermont (via their elected representatives) said “yes”. Will those votes be the final say in each state? Probably not. The left is mobilizing to overturn the California vote, and I’d suspect there are some people gearing up to overturn the Vermont vote. That’s the way things work, I suppose. Not the best way to handle it, but probably the best that can be had right now (except an amendment to the US Constitution, but it’ll never get past Congress to be voted on by the states).
If the left wants to legalize gay marriage, then they need to have the voters decide, not a handful of people in black robes. If the people of a state decide to allow it, then that’s their decision, and we should accept it. But we shouldn’t sit still and accept it when it’s forced on people against their will by judges who have no business making laws.
Donald Douglas of American Power has a different take:
How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?
Well, there’s a lot of news on the gay marriage front today.
The Vermont legislature legalized same-sex marriage by overriding the veto of Republican Governor Jim Douglas (more here and here). Counterintuitively, what may be even more significant is the vote at the D.C. Council to recognize the gay marriage laws of other states. As the Washington Post reports, “The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress …” And that debate would then raise questions in Congress surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allows states to refuse recognition of the same-sex marriages of another state.
I’ve written so much on this question, and sometimes I have to wonder: Maybe Rod Dreher’s right – are traditionals indeed “on the losing side of this argument?”
Actually, I don’t think so. The problem is that I’m not seeing enough conservative activism against the same-sex movement, or maybe I missed it?
In any case, let me share another section of Robert Bork’s essay making the case for a Federal Marriage Amendment, “The Necessary Amendment.” I often hear the question posed, well, “how does gay marriage even effect me?” Bork responds:
How does homosexual marriage affect me? What concern is it of mine or of anybody else what homosexuals do? The answer is that the consequences of homosexual marriage will affect you, your children, and your grandchildren, as well as the morality and health of the society in which you and they live.
Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz raise at least the inference that when there is a powerful (and ultimately successful) campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.
Homosexual marriage would prove harmful to individuals in other ways as well. By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life. Despite their use of the word “gay,” for many homosexuals life is anything but gay. Both physical and psychological disorders are far more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. Attempted suicide rates, even in countries that are homosexual-friendly, are three to four times as high for homosexuals. Though it is frequently asserted by activists that high levels of internal distress in homosexual populations are caused by social disapproval, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has shown that no studies support this theory. Compassion, if nothing else, should urge us to avoid the consequences of making homosexuality seem a normal and acceptable choice for the young.
There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangements that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: “Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter.” Many consider such hypotheticals ridiculous, claiming that no one would want to be in a group marriage. The fact is that some people do, and they are urging that it be accepted. There is a movement for polyamory—sexual arrangements, including marriage, among three or more persons. The outlandishness of such notions is no guarantee that they will not become serious possibilities or actualities in the not-too-distant future. Ten years ago, the idea of a marriage between two men seemed preposterous, not something we needed to concern ourselves with. With same-sex marriage a line is being crossed, and no other line to separate moral and immoral consensual sex will hold.
Now, just wait … Pam Spaulding and other representatives of the nihilist hordes will no doubt be attacking me as “bigot” for even posting this.
God, what is happening to this country?
Loathe though I am to agree with anything on the Delaware Liberal, they may have nailed it:
“You’ve Already Lost.”
April 7th, 2009 by Delaware DemPiggybacking on Pandora’s post, I must post this video of Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D), in blocking a Republican attempt to reverse the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling:
Here is the transcript:
One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: ‘You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.’ I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And Ive talked with other people about it and that’s what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know I’ve been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other. No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.
David Anderson, you have already lost. The future does not care about your hang-ups. Stop standing in the way of love.
That’s the key line:
You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.
Yes, that’s exactly it: the coming generation doesn’t care if people are homosexual. Gays in this country have done an excellent job in persuading people that they aren’t “queer,” but simply have a different sexual orientation.
And it all falls into line with other societal developments. Society used to care if unmarried heterosexual couples shacked up; now, it’s almost expected that they will try living together before marriage — assuming that they don’t simply skip getting married at all. Fifty years ago, bearing a child out of wedlock was a tremendous embarrassment for a woman; today, little seems to be thought of it.
I wrote, the better part of a year ago, that I really have one, and only one, concern when it comes to state recognition of same-sex unions as marriages:
I don’t at all like the idea that such is being imposed on a clearly reluctant society by judicial fiat, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize a fait accompli when I see one.
I have one, and really only one, concern. I want churches protected from criminal and civil liability if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage. Many of our friends on the left pooh-pooh the idea that churches could be compelled to perform such, under the First Amendment, but seem strangely reticent to be willing to enact more explicit protections for churches in the event that same-sex marriages become legal.
To me, it’s simple: it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what could happen if an interracial couple went to a church, and asked to be married, and the minister refused because his church does not believe in interracial marriages. That minister and his church would face being sued, because they had discriminated on race, and churches fit the definition of a public accommodation. Since we license ministers to perform marriages, they have a dual religious-state legal function.
Well sooner or later, a same-sex couple is going to present themselves to a Catholic priest, and ask for a nuptial Mass. The priest will have no choice but to refuse, and he, and his parish, and his diocese will all get sued. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which undid a discharge under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy held that classifications based on sexual orientation would be examined under a higher level of scrutiny; Patterico explains it here. This could mean that discrimination based on sexual orientation might be held to the same standard as discrimination based on race.
In the event of legally recognized same-sex marriage, we need solid protection for churches.
My friends on the left all pooh-poohed my concern, saying that no, such could never happen, not here, not with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Yet I never received a satisfactory answer as to why, if they actually believed that churches would be immune from such suits, they were so reluctant to consider specified legal protections from such suits, if that specified legal protection wouldn’t actually harm their position. If such laws were superfluous, then so what; they’d be superfluous.
Yet, it wasn’t terribly long after that a civil rights complaint pointing in that direction was filed, and won, by a same-sex couple based on a church owning a public accommodation; I addressed that here.
Count on the lawsuit I have said is coming being in the news within the next few years.
I wonder if in the Parallel Universe, the Wedding Feast at Cana was between Joshua and Mordecei? Or maybe I’m in the PU and when I wake up, it will be 1959 and the world will be right again.
Don’t worry, Yorkie, you’ll be gone before us kids can screw things up too bad
Dana, I think I mentioned this last time, but your concern isn’t with same-sex marriage, it’s with anti-discrimination laws. It’s the anti-discrimination laws that are being abused in these lawsuits you reference. The marriage itself is a legal contract that is not a necessary part of the proceedings at the center of the disputes you cite, and the dispute would be present with or without said contract (Jersey, in fact, does not allow same-sex marriages).
Jeff:
Don’t worry, Yorkie, you’ll be gone before us kids can screw things up too bad
At work I tell them I’m at the KMA stage of things. I’m a one legged old fart having worked for 40 years and I have seen too many changes and feel like the world is spinning out of control. Or like that guy in the movie Network where he cracked and yelled I’m tired of this and I can’t take it anymore. But I know my parents said it, their parents said it, and going back forever have said it.
Rest assured, your right to freedom of religion will be subjugated to the right to endorse homosexuality.
If the left wants to legalize gay marriage, then they need to have the voters decide, not a handful of people in black robes.
Question – would you be happy stating that you’d apply that principle to, say, Loving vs Virginia and miscegenation?
If the voters decide to have gun control, would you forgo any objection on a Constitutional basis? Do civil rights enshrined in state and federal constitutions (such as, say, protection from gender discrimination) trump “the will of the voters”?
Yet I never received a satisfactory answer as to why, if they actually believed that churches would be immune from such suits, they were so reluctant to consider specified legal protections from such suits, if that specified legal protection wouldn’t actually harm their position.
I’m fine with that, provided you specify exactly what it is your “legal protection” protects you from. You keep saying “being forced to perform gay marriages”, but there’s a string whiff of “being forced to recognise gay marriages in the secular context”.
I’d be prepared to give the Catholic Church exactly the same protection against Teh Gay as it would be willing to accept against Catholics. If it wants to be allowed to discriminate against gays in housing or employment, then it better be willing to state that it’s alright to fire Catholics or refuse to rent to them.
Question – would you be happy stating that you’d apply that principle to, say, Loving vs Virginia and miscegenation?
The difference, of course, is that there was already legislation–indeed, there were Constitutional amendments–that protected black people from miscegenation and other forms of discrimination. That the Court would then apply those principles to laws enacted by legislatures is a typical and traditional role of the Supreme Court.
What we see in the state court determinations is not a traditional role for those courts at all. Instead, it is the imposition of an unpopular position on an unwilling populace for sociological purposes outside the normal legal system.
Like both black people and women, homosexuals can go through the amendment process to achieve their goals. After all, that was the process set forth in the Constitution to create large scale changes.
The difference, of course, is that there was already legislation–indeed, there were Constitutional amendments–that protected black people from miscegenation and other forms of discrimination.
Gee, i wonder if we should be taking legal advice from someone who doesn’t know not only what the facts of the Loving case were, but also doesn’t seem to know what the term miscegenation means.
Like both black people and women, homosexuals can go through the amendment process to achieve their goals.
_Loving vs Virgina_. Look it up, Sharon.
You wrote this:
And I must say your fears are completely unfounded, even your example is poor, because guess what, churches are free to not perform ceremonies for couples for ANY reason, many churches require people to be members of the church, or to convert, some refuse to marry interracial and inter religious couples, and yet they don’t get sued day after day, and if a couple attempted to sue them, the judge would throw the suit out because of the First Amendment and the fact that Churches are EXEMPT from all anti-discrimination laws.
There are a few exceptions, spelled out in federal law, and those have to do with religious organizations affiliated with a church, and/or church properties that are considered public accommodations(for example, a church affiliated/owned Bookstore, or a church affiliated/owned soup kitchen). In cases like that anti-discrimination laws do apply, in narrow instances, however, the church itself is exempt. Note that anti-discrimination laws do NOT apply to “members only” organizations, so a private religious schools are also exempt, as are many other organizations, including non-religious ones.
The fact is that churches are already solidly protected from frivolous litigation, whether its protecting the Catholic Church from marrying previously divorced Catholics or Homosexual Catholics.
An update, if you will, Churches do NOT fit the definition of “public accommodation” that is where you erred.
Phoe, you have it backwards: our constitutional rights are written into our constitution specifically. That’s how we do things in the United States. But there is nothing in the Constitution which mentions marriage or sexual preference or anything like that.
Our Constitution also declines to ban same-sex marriages. When the Constitution is silent on an issue, it ought to be up to the voters, either directly via referendum, or through their elected representatives, to take the decisions. When judges “find” things that aren’t there, they are acting wrongly.
I would love to see all of us “corrupt” gay citizens go out and support a marriage bill for polygamy and incestuous marriage. Is it possible for marriage equality opposers to make a valid argument besides, “what’s next, you can marry a goat”?
Mr J: Well, why wouldn’t you? If the argument is that marriage is a fundamental right which society cannot deny on the basis of not being heterosexual, why would the argument be fundamentally different for polygamy?
Ms. Dana: You certainly have a point on the surface of things. But you and I both know that argument is nothing more than a scare tactic that has been used since interracial marriage was an issue. Marriage equality is about having the same rights, not introducing a brothel.
Pho queries,”If the voters decide to have gun control, would you forgo any objection on a Constitutional basis? Do civil rights enshrined in state and federal constitutions (such as, say, protection from gender discrimination) trump “the will of the voters”?”
Constitutions, state and federal, can and have been amended by the will of the voters. There have been 27 amendments to the US Constitution, the first 10 the Bill of Rights.
As for your first question, there are plenty of gun control laws on the books decided by voters in states and municipalities. See how many citizens, think ex-cons and parollees, have lost the right to bear arms.
Mr J: Well, wait a second now. The “rights” to marriage that you are claiming surely don’t stop with your particular case. Why should those rights extend to you, or to some other two, and not to other arrangements, unless you are conceding the point that society does have the right to limit marriage to those relationships of which society approves?
Just in a reference to enforced groupthink, Sharon has an article on her site concerning Eastern Michigan University, which dismissed a student from the school’s counseling program for not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.
Phoe, you have it backwards: our constitutional rights are written into our constitution specifically. That’s how we do things in the United States. But there is nothing in the Constitution which mentions marriage or sexual preference or anything like that.
State constitutions. Not abridging rights on the basis of gender, Dana.
If Adam and Eve can get married, but Adam and Steve cannot, this is discrimination on the basis of gender.
But that’s just it, Phoe: it isn’t discrimination based on gender. Adam can still marry Eve. The fact that he might prefer to marry Steve is his problem.
There was a proposed Equal Rights Amendment referencing sex; it was defeated, and is not part of our federal Constitution.
The dispute was over renting out land for a wedding, land that was not a church itself and fell under other public regulations.
No church will ever be forced to perform any marriage it doesn’t want, ever. Dana, do you also need a law to make sure no Catholic church can be forced to marry a divorced person? I mean, like you said, I really don’t care if you need this law to soothe your fears, but I’m wondering why gays are getting singled out here.
Also, has it occurred to any of you folks that Constitutions are created democratically? You guys are just complaining because you can still win over 50% in some places. But Constitutions are created by the people, for the people. They talk of equality, and those crazy judges go and regard such words as actually meaning something. And, as I have taught you folks before, Constitutions are not exhaustive lists of rights, so no need exists for “gay marriage” to be specifically mentioned.
And so I see you guys moving back towards the slippery slope. While such arguments exist only to generate fear, it makes me also wonder: should some court out there decide for specious reasoning like “hey we let the gays in so we gotta let everybody in right?” to allow polygamous marriage, do you not believe a Constitutional remedy exists? Wouldn’t an amendment against polygamy and incest fly pretty quickly?
It’s just a question. Overturning the exclusion of an entire class of human being from marriage has nothing to do with mere preferences like polygamy, and if we all agree to stick to objectivity here, then we can join forces to keep it that way:)
Mr Brown asked:
Being divorced is a simple legal status, but homosexual activists have sued, successfully in many cases, to have their orientation become a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.
Why would you want to? To say that we could all join forces to exclude polygamous marriages pretty much justifies people banding together to ban homosexual marriages. If society can say that one form of relationship should not be favored under the law — which is what marriage is under the law — and another not favored means that you cannot argue if a 52% majority in your adopted home state passes something like Proposition 8.
Ms. Dana,
I think you make some good points. Yes, when it is broken down the way you explained I can see the confusion and uncertainty people have about pushing the envelope. The problem here, is that you have millions of people fighting for a cause to have their personal freedom to love who they want and express this in a legal, healthy, and socially accepted way. When you have millions of people fighting for polygamy marriage rights and fighting for fathers who want to marry their daughters… then we’ll talk.
But that’s just it, Phoe: it isn’t discrimination based on gender. Adam can still marry Eve. The fact that he might prefer to marry Steve is his problem.
i, What is the definition of “discrimination based on gender”, Dana?
ii, What is the difference between Steve and Eve, Dana?
iii, Are you familiar with Loving v Virginia, Dana?
Mr J tells the exact truth:
Even without same-sex marriage, homosexual couples have the “personal freedom to love who they want and express this in a legal, healthy, and socially tolerated way.” One could even argue that in those states with civil unions laws, the have the “personal freedom to love who they want and express this in a legal, healthy, and socially accepted way.”
It is in no way illegal for homosexual couples to reside together, or to do anything they wish in their personal lives, as long as everyone involved is over the age of consent and actually consents. As far as health is concerned, the status of the relationship under the law has nothing to do with physical health. Really, the push for same-sex marriage is a push to get the state to say that homosexual relationships are just as good as heterosexual ones.
Really, the push for same-sex marriage is a push to get the state to say that homosexual relationships are just as good as heterosexual ones.
Gee, Dana, I thought it was about your religious freedom.
Are you defining that freedom as “the state has to follow the rules of my religion” now? You do know there are religious denominations that marry gays, right?
What about their freedom, Dana? Why does the State have to fo,llow the rules of your religion?
Of course, Dana, we can choose what types of relationships to classify as marriages. We have many parameters that are justifiably set…but excluding gays isn’t one of them.
The slippery slope argument is just a way of avoiding the actual issue itself. You know very well we’ve been over this before, and I’ve explained myself in painful detail. Just because I believe homosexuals should not be excluded does not mean that I just believe polygamous marriage must be allowed. No matter, Dana, how often you repeat that I must.
The more objectivity allowed regarding homosexuality, and the less (selective) legislating from the Bible, the greater the difficulty in presenting a rational case against gay marriage.
And it should be common sense that homosexual relationships are dramatically better than heterosexual relationships…if you’re a homosexual. Obviously I feel that heterosexual relationships are way awesomer because I’m heterosexual, but on the other hand, I do happen to understand that other people ain’t made the same as me.
And that’s the ultimate problem: you’re not content with living in America the land of the free, where your values and freedoms have to live side-by-side with the values of others.
I just watched the short documentary on HBO about Ted Haggard. It’s mostly him talking, and not entirely unsympathetic. The man struggles. He doesn’t believe homosexuality is right, so he tries to suppress his desire to slurp on some man-meat. And if that’s what he wants to do, then he can go do that. But it’s ultimately a question for him to resolve for himself.
The state, being one that should do its best to treat competing religious beliefs equally, must recognize that many heterosexual Christians believe gay marriage is just fine and dandy under the eyes of God, and so religious objections should be immediately neutralized. And what’s left after that? Some babble about “the children!” that isn’t relevant or particularly well-supported.