Elitism

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

On what grounds is marriage cherished in this limited manifestation? Religion? Perfectly illegitimate in a country with a tradition of secular government. Tradition? Slaveholding was a tradition in this country. All of those reasons to preserve marriage are arbitrary, vague, and baseless with regard to logic.

Marriage transcends nations, states, traditions and religions.  It is something that is part of the fabric of human life, and has been for all of recorded history.  A marriage has always been between a man and a woman.  There may have been variations on how many times a man or a woman may marry, but, to put it frankly, marriage *is* a union between a man and a woman.  Now, you can pass a law saying that "two people who agree to live together and share property and custody of their childern are married," but that doesn't make them married.  What the courts are trying to do is change what marriage is, and trying to make it something that it isn't.

While we have laws against gender discrimination, there are certain properties intrinsic to gender that cannot be changed, as they are part of natural law.  Only women can be mothers.  Only men can be fathers.  We can bring about gender equality, but we cannot change those things fundamental to gender.  To put it another way, gender separation is a natural distinction.  Racial or ethnic separations, however, are completely artificial and arbitrary.  Which brings us to...

And your democratic process argument is fatuous. Should Brown v. Board of Education should have been decided by local school districts, where people very much supported segregation, or was it correct as it happened?

For a number of reasons, this (and the other cases) is a bad analogy.  There is no Constitutional basis for Goodridge.  When the US ratified the 14th Amendment, they did not possibly conceive, nor did they ever intend, for it to apply to people wishing to marry their own gender.  Secondly, the plantiffs in Brown did not intend to change education into something it was not.  Finally, while both the right to equality in education and the right to marry are fundamental to human freedom, in the case of Goodrich, the restrictions on marriage apply *equally* to all individuals.  You are not permitted to marry your mother.  Just because you may *want* to marry your mother, and others don't want to marry their mothers, doesn't mean the State is violating your right to equal protection.

[migrendel]

I suppose I understand your predilection to think of marriage in one way, because people are creatures of habit. If whatever motivates you to think so prevents you, your religion, etc. from recognizing this type of marriage, all the power to you. But to insist that this be the currency of all communities and individuals, regardless of state, persuasion, or experience, is a peculiarly obnoxious strain of nosey parkerism. I could insist upon your idea of "Christian faithfulness in intimacy", which I see as a form of degrading sexual slavery closely cousined to rape, to be illegal, but out of respect for your views of love and intimacy, I choose not to contest that autonomy.

And to introduce Natural Law into the debate is terribly weak. These people tout how the natural order of things justifies the most injustices against women or what have you, but they shirk when one could say that a fidelity to how God created you obligates you to not get your hair cut, crawl around on all fours, and be naked. They pick and choose with their philosophical doctrines.

I also could not help to notice a poor case of Constitutional scholarship. I never claimed to believe in original intent, because I always believed that social change alters the meaning of the text. However, if you do profess allegiance to that doctrine, at least get your facts straight. Segregation was, at least in the cases of schools, tolerated. Segregated schools existed all throughout reconstruction, and were upheld by the Supreme Court, with even Justice Harlan supporting the decision. There were examples of segregation being declared unconstitutional, such as Hall v. DeCuir, but that was based on the Commerce Clause, not equal protection. When I look at the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Cruishank decision, and Plessy v. Ferguson, the meaning of the fourteenth amendment at inception becomes readily apparent.

I also see no reason to restrict marriage between consenting adults. I have enough respect for liberty to allow people their own decisions, and even turn their life into a train wreck if lacking in perspicaciousness.

[12th Doctor]

Did you read my earlier post, Migrendel?

[migrendel]

I did, thank you. If the last post confused you, it was a response to a particularly incompassionate post by Beef.

[12th Doctor]

I did, thank you. If the last post confused you, it was a response to a particularly incompassionate post by Beef.

Oh, yeah, I understand that.

[??????????]

I most certainly am NOT descended from royalty!  I am poor white trash and I worked very hard to get where I am.  I bitterly resent the suggestion that I am related to royalty.  The rest of you six billion elitists may be related to royalty, but I am not.  I will assume I am not related to any king or queen unless you can prove otherwise.

I am descended from royalty. But unless you read my family geneology you wouldn't know it.

Proud descendent of the Hapsburg Family!

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I suppose I understand your predilection to think of marriage in one way, because people are creatures of habit. If whatever motivates you to think so prevents you, your religion, etc. from recognizing this type of marriage, all the power to you. But to insist that this be the currency of all communities and individuals, regardless of state, persuasion, or experience,

I don't.  But I expect that the people, not the courts, should have the power to decide whether or not they wish to institute a radical rethinking of social institutions.  Marriage is more than a private contract between two individuals.  It is a contract between two individuals AND society.  Therefore it is more than a matter of individual liberty.

is a peculiarly obnoxious strain of nosey parkerism. I could insist upon your idea of "Christian faithfulness in intimacy", which I see as a form of degrading sexual slavery closely cousined to rape, to be illegal, but out of respect for your views of love and intimacy, I choose not to contest that autonomy.

First of all, yes, you just did.  Second of all, my idea of "Christian faithfulness in intimacy" is exactly that: "Christian."  If you aren't Christian, it doesn't apply to you, and at no point have I intimated that I intend for the government to become a morality nanny, so I'm not quite sure why it's material to this discussion.  Finally, if you honestly believe that loving, mutual exclusivity amounts to degrading sexual slavery, then you are obviously speaking from a worldview so radically skewed that it calls into question your reasoning on what constitutes human rights to begin with.  It is certainly far outside the norm of this country.

And to introduce Natural Law into the debate is terribly weak. These people tout how the natural order of things justifies the most injustices against women or what have you, but they shirk when one could say that a fidelity to how God created you obligates you to not get your hair cut, crawl around on all fours, and be naked. They pick and choose with their philosophical doctrines.

That some people misuse arguements from Nature Law does not take away from the obvious fact that there differences between men and women, and that marriage is and always has been a union between a man and a woman.

When I look at the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Cruishank decision, and Plessy v. Ferguson, the meaning of the fourteenth amendment at inception becomes readily apparent.

I did not go to law school, and I'm not a Constitution scholar, so I could be way off-base here.  But Plessy v. Ferguson, and its overturning in Brown, did not hinge on the intent of the 14th Amendment, but rather on whether equal protection could coexist along with segregation.  The Plessy ruling was not "the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend 'equal protection' to cover segregation."  It was that equal protection can be satisfied by "separate but equal."  The Brown ruling was "separate but equal" was not equal, therefore the equal protection clause was being violated.  Intent didn't enter into it.

But I don't even need to adhere to strict original intent.  My point is that extending the 14th Amendment to require that states allow same-sex marriage is a gross and absurd extention of the Constitution that no reasonable interpretation would allow.  And if the court can change the fundamental meaning of the Constitution, they might as well decree the Constituion from the bench.  And that was my point to begin with.

I also see no reason to restrict marriage between consenting adults.

See my comment about skewed worldviews above.

I have enough respect for liberty to allow people their own decisions, and even turn their life into a train wreck if lacking in perspicaciousness.

And I have enough respect for liberty that I believe society shouldn't be forced to recognize of condone such train wrecks.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I most certainly am NOT descended from royalty!  I am poor white trash and I worked very hard to get where I am.  I bitterly resent the suggestion that I am related to royalty.  The rest of you six billion elitists may be related to royalty, but I am not.  I will assume I am not related to any king or queen unless you can prove otherwise.

I am descended from royalty. But unless you read my family geneology you wouldn't know it.

Proud descendent of the Hapsburg Family!

Cool!  I hope you didn't inherit the hog-mouth?

[nclib]

There is no Constitutional basis for Goodridge.  When the US ratified the 14th Amendment, they did not possibly conceive, nor did they ever intend, for it to apply to people wishing to marry their own gender.  Secondly, the plantiffs in Brown did not intend to change education into something it was not.  Finally, while both the right to equality in education and the right to marry are fundamental to human freedom, in the case of Goodrich, the restrictions on marriage apply *equally* to all individuals.  You are not permitted to marry your mother.  Just because you may *want* to marry your mother, and others don't want to marry their mothers, doesn't mean the State is violating your right to equal protection.

When the Framers wrote the First Amendment, they did not possibly imagine the Internet would ever exist. Does that mean free speech shouldn't apply to the Internet?

The bottom line is that social change has always occured throughout human history and original intent and tradition cannot always be used as a legal defense.

[angus]

I most certainly am NOT descended from royalty!  I am poor white trash and I worked very hard to get where I am.  I bitterly resent the suggestion that I am related to royalty.  The rest of you six billion elitists may be related to royalty, but I am not.  I will assume I am not related to any king or queen unless you can prove otherwise.

I am descended from royalty. But unless you read my family geneology you wouldn't know it.

Proud descendent of the Hapsburg Family!

a little hapsburg goes a long way.  all over mexico in little towns and big ones you still see signs advertising "calidad alemania" and that scrawny eagle painted on auto garages.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I always believed that social change alters the meaning of the text.

This is the heart of what I'm talking about.  Yes, changes in society and technology require new interpretations of the law.  But if you allow that "social change alters the meaning" of the law, who is it who gets to decide how society has changed, and how the law has changed?  The courts?  And if the courts can decree at will that society has changed and the law has changed, what is to stop them from reinventing society and law at will?  It's a very short jump from declaring how society *has changed* to how society *should be*.  This is what the Massachusetts supreme court is doing, and it is judicial tyranny.  But don't take my word for it.  Here is the dissenting opinion of the court:

"What is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individual rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to Article 30." - J. Spina

"If judicial review is having the final say regarding the constitutionality of any issue, it in fact is writing law and usurping the role of the legislature. To give the General Court 180 days to do anything is a form of tyranny. " - Dissenting opinion, Goodrich vs. Dept. of Public Health

So I'm not exactly alone on this point.

[migrendel]

Judicial tyranny? You've been reading too much Phyllis Schlafly. Our state's constitution, and the federal one, do not specify what instances constitute discrimination. I daresay that gender discrimination, and by extension, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, are arbitrary reasons to deny someone the benefits of citizenship.

I also think you place little value on liberty, which is quite surprising from a self-proclaimed libertarian. If you truly did believe in liberty, you would not hesitate to answer this question. Who decides: the individual or the government? But you have taken a litany of positions that would replace the right to decide one's fate, the most intimate and personal choices of one's life, and replaced it with the miasma of authority, constantly hanging over an individual's life. That to me is as illiberal as it gets.

I also see the historical trend of the meaning of marriage as irrelevant. Many old ideas give way to changes in social perception, and marriage is on an ineluctable progression towards being a gender-neutral institution. You have the choice to stand on the side of the future, and accept that this age of self-awareness has given people the confidence to ask, even demand that they be treated as equals in our society, or you can stand on the side of the past, and exult the anachronism of traditional marriage in the era of civil rights, even as it crumbles before you.

I can only close by saying this. The law only functions if the loweliest among us, the powerless, can have their voices heard and have justice done on their behalf. Your standard would convert the courts into a barometer of the waxing and waning of social perceptions of liberty and equality. I know that sometimes the courts take stances that are ahead of their time, and are met with opposition from some among us who don't take kindly to extending rights, but ultimately prevail. I know that elitism really does reign supreme, because many have the temerity to deem their relationships morally superior, and limit those who are different, despite their love and sincerity, to a longing for a deeper union. But most importantly, I know that this has happened many times before. I know from that that we shall overcome this.

[migrendel]

In addition, Brown didn't overturn Plessy. That was Bolling v. Sharpe.

[The Dowager Mod]

Judicial tyranny? You've been reading too much Phyllis Schlafly. Our state's constitution, and the federal one, do not specify what instances constitute discrimination. I daresay that gender discrimination, and by extension, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, are arbitrary reasons to deny someone the benefits of citizenship.

I also think you place little value on liberty, which is quite surprising from a self-proclaimed libertarian. If you truly did believe in liberty, you would not hesitate to answer this question. Who decides: the individual or the government? But you have taken a litany of positions that would replace the right to decide one's fate, the most intimate and personal choices of one's life, and replaced it with the miasma of authority, constantly hanging over an individual's life. That to me is as illiberal as it gets.

I also see the historical trend of the meaning of marriage as irrelevant. Many old ideas give way to changes in social perception, and marriage is on an ineluctable progression towards being a gender-neutral institution. You have the choice to stand on the side of the future, and accept that this age of self-awareness has given people the confidence to ask, even demand that they be treated as equals in our society, or you can stand on the side of the past, and exult the anachronism of traditional marriage in the era of civil rights, even as it crumbles before you.

I can only close by saying this. The law only functions if the loweliest among us, the powerless, can have their voices heard and have justice done on their behalf. Your standard would convert the courts into a barometer of the waxing and waning of social perceptions of liberty and equality. I know that sometimes the courts take stances that are ahead of their time, and are met with opposition from some among us who don't take kindly to extending rights, but ultimately prevail. I know that elitism really does reign supreme, because many have the temerity to deem their relationships morally superior, and limit those who are different, despite their love and sincerity, to a longing for a deeper union. But most importantly, I know that this has happened many times before. I know from that that we shall overcome this.

i couldn't put it any better so i'll just say i agree 100%

[??????????]

I most certainly am NOT descended from royalty!  I am poor white trash and I worked very hard to get where I am.  I bitterly resent the suggestion that I am related to royalty.  The rest of you six billion elitists may be related to royalty, but I am not.  I will assume I am not related to any king or queen unless you can prove otherwise.

I am descended from royalty. But unless you read my family geneology you wouldn't know it.

Proud descendent of the Hapsburg Family!

Cool!  I hope you didn't inherit the hog-mouth?

Hog mouth? Explain?

[The Dowager Mod]

I most certainly am NOT descended from royalty!  I am poor white trash and I worked very hard to get where I am.  I bitterly resent the suggestion that I am related to royalty.  The rest of you six billion elitists may be related to royalty, but I am not.  I will assume I am not related to any king or queen unless you can prove otherwise.

I am descended from royalty. But unless you read my family geneology you wouldn't know it.

Proud descendent of the Hapsburg Family!

Cool!  I hope you didn't inherit the hog-mouth?

Hog mouth? Explain?

after much  inbreeding among themselves the spanish branch particularly ended up having some genetic problems including jaws so massive they couldn't close their mouths ie"hog mouth".

[??????????]

Nope, mine were of the Austrian/French Hapsburgs.