I’m happy to say that I first learned about this column while reading the latest issue of Log Cabin’s “Inclusion Wins” newsletter. I’m only sorry I didn’t see it sooner!
No Need To Deface US Constitution Over Gay Marriage – Charles Krauthammer
The Constitution was never intended to set social policy. Its purpose is to establish the rules of governance and secure for the individual citizen rights against the power of the state. It defaces the Constitution to turn it into a super-legislative policy document.
In the short run, judicial arrogance is to be fought democratically with the means still available. Rewording and repassing the constitutional amendment in Georgia, for example. Appealing the Nebraska decision right up to the Supreme Court, which, given its current composition, is extremely likely to terminate with prejudice this outrageous example of judicial interposition.
Do not misunderstand, Krauthammer is no fan of gay marriage at all. But he strongly believes that this is a clear issue about Federalism working and not being railroaded by a Constitutional amendment. Fight it out at the state level. Hoorah!
By the way, if Peggy Noonan is Dan’s “Athena”, Charles is my… um…. male equivalent to Athena. 🙂 [Apollo, perhaps? suggests Dan who also loves Krauthammer.]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I enjoy his commentary and insight on “Special Report” on FOX. Krauthammer reliably has the most level headed and thought out things to say.
If only he didn’t remind me of “Droopy Dog”. 🙂
Good to see that he get it…
Perhaps urging states to replace the issuing of marriage licences with civil union contracts, might be an easier task?
Sorta apropos, reminded me that evilrightistnazi David Horowitz 😉 asserts that he offered to start a national campaign with Andrew Sullivan to press for civil unions for gays, an offer Andrew rejected.
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15822)
If that had been the strategy, rather than judicially instituted gay marriage, I wonder if there’d be this issue with a constitutional amendment in the first place.
Krauthammer is such a tremendous writer and I love the way he lays this case out.
Apollo?
None of the male Greek gods were noted as exceptional scholars, but how about using Hephaestus instead? He and Athena were often intertwined, especially in the area of government and politics.
He is saying exactly what Andrew Sullivan has been saying since the Amendment was first introduced.
No doubt he is soon destined to be burnt at the stake for not unequivocally supporting President Bush.
Krauthammer is an arrogant cripple. Anyone who is against gay marriage is a bigot, plain and simple.
rightiswrong… an arrogant cripple is it? Seems like your intolerance for diversity of opinion would land you in the bigot crowd. I think you and Gramps should go into partnership and start a new political party: Bigots United. Or should it be Bigots Untied?
Bruce, nice catch on CK’s position. I heard him say something similar in an interview recently and I liked it then, as well as now.
#3 jerry — June 23, 2006 @ 11:13 am – June 23, 2006
Perhaps urging states to replace the issuing of marriage licences with civil union contracts, might be an easier task?
This has been suggested more than a few times. It isn’t going to happen any time soon, so it really isn’t worth the time or effort getting exercised about.
BTW, it would not be an easier task to push for civil unions instead of marriage. Remember Vermont? After the VT legislature, in response to a decision from the VT supreme court, opted for civil unions instead of same-sex marriage or a constitutional amendment (either of which they could have done), only a few months later in the next election, the anti-gay wingnuts–including the RCCi (the Roman Catholic Church, Inc. hierarchy)– attacked the (mostly Dem) state legislators who had voted in favor of CUs and achieved a majority Republican legislature in at least one if not both houses. “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger was also involved. The irony is that, even after all that, the VT legislature did not repeal CUs.
The point is that CUs are no panacea. And it is questionable whether the MA Supreme Judicial Court would have done what they did in the Goodridge case were it not for the CT court’s decision and VT’s subsequent experience with CUs. Moreover, it is highly doubtful that the CT legislature would have done what they did were it not for what VT and MA did.
#7 – I thought burning at the stake was something that they did to witches like you, Gramma.
Regards,
Peter H.
If Krauthammer isn’t an anti-gay bigot, he most certainly does leave more than a bit to be desired from an analysis standpoint. All one need read to recognize it is his column Pandora and Polygamy. Apparently, Krauthammer is unable to consider the real legal issue regarding state recognition of same-sex marriage (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes opposite sex marriage: what is at least a rational basis for the distinction? From what little I’ve read from his bloviations, I’m not surprised.
His dragging in polygamy into the discussion was a “slippery slope” red-herring, as was described at Don’t Do Unto Others: The difference between gay marriage and polygamy. Moreover, apparently Krauthammer is unaware of the fact that the US Supreme Court has already addressed polygamy, in the context of a federal statute against polygamy in the Utah Territory. (Note for Matt: since Utah at the time was a territory, the federal government had plenary powers there.) REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The court correctly addressed Reynolds’s “free exercise” of religion claim, and finished with what can only be characterized as an address to an “equal protection/due process” assertion by the polygamist Reynolds: “Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.” Sounds like it pretty much conforms to what was in the Slate article.
Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds, and the points raised in the Slate article, those who might advocate for state recognition of polygamous relationships have a long row to hoe. It’s surprising (not really) that Krauthammer does not recognize that. And it is surprising (not really) that Krauthammer is unable to recognize that there are no similar reasons for the state to discriminate against same-sex couples.
The daily paper I read doesn’t carry Charles Krauthammer’s syndicated column but I usually enjoy his observations on Fox News. And I agree that his argument that the federal amendment goes against federalism is a strong one.
Krauthammer, however, undermines his credibility by using faulty research in the column cited by Bruce (GP). He refers to a federal judge’s ruling against the Nebraska amendment as “…this outrageous example of judicial interposition.” The truth is that the amendment’s definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman (the first sentence) was never an issue in the court case. The judge ruled against the second sentence (that also banned recognition of domestic partnerships, civil unions and all other same sex relationships) because it stripped gays of their standing in any legislative process (such as seeking housing and employment laws).
Krauthammer says in the column that all Georgia has to do is reword its amendment and put it on the ballot again. The same thing is true in Nebraska. If the religious denomination most responsible for getting the amendment on the ballot in 2000 (and which put up most of the money to fund the campaign) is sincere that all it wants to do is “protect” “traditional marriage” it could have done that by putting the first sentence of the amendment back on the ballot this November. But it was never just interested in banning same-sex marriage.
All this gay marriage thing; I’ll tell a story that I remember as a kid and I think about it more now. My paternal grandparents were “married” by a justice o’ the peace back in 1941. Why? Because they were teachers, and laws at that time stated that women could not teach if married. Well, they drove into the next county (this is in Minnesota), got hitched, and went back to their jobs before the first bell ring. When June came they moved out of there and came to MI. where it was OK for a married woman to teach.
I say all this beacause they were MARRIED for 50 years….not “Civil Unioned”. My father and stepmother were MARRIED in a non-denominational chuch because as a result of my parent’s (dad & mom) divorce, they couldn’t get married in a Catholic church. Yet they were MARRIED. If I was straight and wanted to get married to a Jewish girl, we couldn’t get married in a Temple or a Catholic chuch…whatever Vegas chapel we did get married in we would still be considered MARRIED!
Again, all this said is to tell my viewpoint that marriage, jumping the broom…whatever; is and always has been a sort of individual, yet legal(not always Holy, sometimes quite practical) commitment. That isn’t so bad now is it?
Considering that the editor of the WSJ recently called anyone in a same-sex relationship the same as sleeping with a snake, I still am astounded that anyone supports a government that would – if given a bit of leeway – put him or her into a concentration camp complete with a pink triangle.
I am of no party affiliation, but folks, equate it to this: Hillary R. Clinton could cut the penis of a gay man off, filmed LIVE on Fox news, and the conservatives would still not vote for her.
In the same way, no matter how much you all fawn over the current administration – THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO ACCEPT YOU OR ACKNOWLEDGE YOU – unless you closet yourself and let them use you as ‘party talk’ amongst the social circles….you are just great fodder for derision and gossip.
How about a balanced third party – one that doesn’t spend to the hilt, but one that stays out of people’s bedrooms?
Why schill for someone who would exterminate you in the name of their Jeezus?
” I still am astounded that anyone supports a government that would – if given a bit of leeway – put him or her into a concentration camp complete with a pink triangle.”
jas, I have heard that argument for the last 20 years, and if anyone can truly prove that such a “conspiracy theory” is in fact based in reality, I will buy them a new car of their choice. Maybe someone leaked such a subversive plan to the NYT! Go write to them and find out!
It’s moonbats like you with the tinfoil hats that give mainstream gays and lesbians a bad name.
And just to make your head explode…it was the National Socialist party in Germany that invented the KZ (German vernacular for concentration camp – just ask raj if you don’t believe me). Get it? NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. People who believed in SOCIALISM – the common ownership and distribution of goods as directed by the state.
True German conservatives both feared and hated the National Socialist (aka Nazi) party, and for some stupid moonbat reason, you leftwing nutjobs are confusing National Socialists with conservatives in this country.
Note – it is 2006, and I HAVE YET TO HAVE A NUMBER TATTOOED ON MY FOREARM. Get a fucking grip.
Regards,
Peter H.
16 Peter Hughes — June 25, 2006 @ 3:50 pm – June 25, 2006
And just to make your head explode…it was the National Socialist party in Germany that invented the KZ (German vernacular for concentration camp – just ask raj if you don’t believe me).
KZ was indeed the abbreviation for “KonzentrationsZentrum”–“concentration camp”–but the British had used “Konzentrationszentren” (concentration camps) long before the Nazis came along. The British used them in South Africa during the Boer war 1899-1902, and they were probably used long before then by the British and others. The Nazis did not invent the KZ.
Wow, Peter Hughes, got a huge lot of anger there don’t you? I try to have a conversation, also letting everyone know I am not on a political agenda, and you immediately use “names” like moonbat, tin foil, etc. I guess that is why this site has the reputation it has…I have heard that anyone with a dissent gets called names…and you sure proved that.
So much for a productive conversation. What a childish, angry person you are. That closet getting a little tight, or stuffy?
#16 Peter Hughes — June 25, 2006 @ 3:50 pm – June 25, 2006 (again)
NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. People who believed in SOCIALISM – the common ownership and distribution of goods as directed by the state.
Actually, although the Nazi party originally had socialist leanings, as it developed after Hitler became leader, it became largely fascist, following the model of the Fascist party in Italy. Hitler was not one of its founding members–he joined the party some time after it was founded. The Nazi’s founders had developed a 25-point socialist plan, but after Hitler became the party’s leader, he basically ignored it.
It would be a mistake to allow yourself to be fooled by the party’s name. More than a few entities are named one thing and practice another.
raj – Yes, there have been other cases in which camps were set up to keep people herded away from the mainstream of society – like American Indian reservations, Jewish ghettoes in Europe and even gulags during the Russian revolution. But to my knowledge, NONE of them willfully engaged in euthanizing or decimating an entire population through violent means.
It was the Nazis who pursued the “Endlosung” or “Final Solution” and it was Hitler who used the word “Vernichtung” to describe the annihilation of the Jews. And also, I am NOT fooled nor misled by the name “National Socialist.” Any society that sets up a Center for Racial Purity as organized by the STATE is conforming to socialism as puristically defined.
jas (Geez, it’s almost like “raj” spelled backwards! Curious…) – If you took the time to know me, you would realize that I am not bitter, silly nor childish. Just a realist. One who is happy with who he is.
And for you to knowingly spew out the same venom and misinformation that appears both in lefty and in gay blogs without considering its merits shows exactly how taken in by the left-wing HRC/ACT-UP agenda to demonize anyone who dares take a side versus your own. Again, I ask you – if you can prove that there is a “gay concentration camp” or know of someone who was incarcerated there, please do so and I will buy you a car of your choice. To quote Inserted Anal Nozzle – put up or shut up.
Regards,
Peter H.
#20 Peter Hughes — June 26, 2006 @ 5:42 pm – June 26, 2006
jas (Geez, it’s almost like “raj” spelled backwards! Curious…)
No, not curious. “raj” are my initials, and I have used that, or a variant of that (raj49, rajmgk) on every web site that I have posted over the last almost decade.
Yes, there have been other cases in which camps were set up to keep people herded away from the mainstream of society – like American Indian reservations, Jewish ghettoes in Europe and even gulags during the Russian revolution. But to my knowledge, NONE of them willfully engaged in euthanizing or decimating an entire population through violent means.
It was the Nazis who pursued the “Endlosung” or “Final Solution” and it was Hitler who used the word “Vernichtung” to describe the annihilation of the Jews.
You are confusing two things: Konzentrationszentren and Vernichtungslager. The Nazis’ first KZ was set up in 1933 in Dachau after they gained power, and many more were set up in the next years . The VL (Vernichtungslager) were set up following the Wannsee conference in 1942 at which the Nazis determined their “Endloesung”–their “final solution” to what they perceived to be their “Jewish problem.” Many of the VLs were associated with or part of KZs, which may lead to the confusion.
BTW, Nazi solders were killing Jews in their “occupied territories, primarily in the USSR, before the Wannsee conference, but those killings were not part of either KZ or VL.
From the US Holocaust Memorial Museum web site The Wannsee Conference and the “Final Solution”
Regarding
And for you to knowingly spew out the same venom and misinformation that appears both in lefty and in gay blogs without considering its merits shows exactly how taken in by the left-wing HRC/ACT-UP agenda to demonize anyone who dares take a side versus your own.
I have no idea what you are referring to. If you want to take issue with a comment, you might want to make reference to the comment you are referring to. The mere fact that I pointed out to you that you erred about Nazis having “invented” KZs, and that you erred in referring to the Nazis as “socialists” suggests that you have no idea what you are referring to.
and
Again, I ask you – if you can prove that there is a “gay concentration camp” or know of someone who was incarcerated there, please do so and I will buy you a car of your choice.
I guess it escaped your notice that I did not even contend that there was a “gay concentration camp.” I was responding to your challenge to me regarding Nazis having invented KZs. You’re making no sense whatsoever.
Peter H, I thought jas –not raj baby– had some good points to make about demonstrating the net effect of being an apolitical Gay who hates GOPers. First, conspiracies like the Bush Administration is going to put us in a concentration camp are best if you first get the paranoid delusional thing hyped up to mach3 speed, Second, if it looks like that kind of statement might make you appear a slight, tad, wee bit partisan… declare you’re not. Declare you’re apolitical.
Third, after ankle biting and inflaming others, try to sound reasonable –aka, I only wanted to chat, I only want to explore the varied differences of opinion, I only want to learn. LOL.
I think you pegged jas for what he is: he doesn’t like being so transparent. He now has a new dimension of victimhood to trumpet: scorned by the Right.
And I think raj has a reading comprehension problem that any 1-L student could help him sort out. Raj baby? The comments in Peter’s piece were directed to jas… and the whole “I’ve always been known as…” thing sounded a little defensive, guy. I mean, of all people here, YOU have a frickin’ trainload of things to be defensive about… but not the parallel of your initials to another whacko’s comments.
Raj baby, you have got to get out and breathe more. Honest.
#22 Michigan-Matt — June 27, 2006 @ 1:43 pm – June 27, 2006
I’m sure that Peter Hughes can speak for himself and let us know whether he was implying that “jas” was “raj” posting under a different handle. If he wasn’t implying that, why did he try to make the correspondence?
raj, get a grip. All I was doing was pointing out a few things that struck me as rather interesting:
1. the similarity of three lower-case initials in both your posts
2. the fact that “jas” is one letter removed from a backwards version of “raj”
3. the fact that both of you are not exactly what we consider “conservative”
I never once said “gee, I think raj and jas are the same.” I merely said it was CURIOUS how the three above were linked.
I just put some items together and created a shoe. If you want to put it on and loudly announce that it fits, that’s your problem.
Regards,
Peter H.
#24 Peter Hughes — June 27, 2006 @ 6:06 pm – June 27, 2006
With this explanation, as far as I’m concerned, the issue is closed, and I shall have no further comment on it unless it is raised again.