The Roy Ashburn Kerfuffle & “Gay Rights”
Perhaps, the most predictable thing about Republican California state Sen. Roy Ashburn, arrested last week in Sacramento for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), confirming yesterday that he is gay is the chorus of left-wing gay activists telling us that closeted gay politicians “vote against LBGT rights to squash rumors about their sexual orientation.”
Granted there is some truth to this notion, but when you read the list of legislative proposals these activists describe as “rights,” you find the better part of them are not rights as the Founders defined them, but merely government regulations defining sexual orientation as a protected class. Certainly these activists are hoping that once out of the closet, Senator Ashburn will adopt their agenda hook, line and sinker lest he be branded self-hating. And soon when he votes their way and changes his party registration, they’ll be feting him for his courage.
Well, he would truly be courageous if once coming out, he said, “Yeah, I was short-sighted on some issues, but I still believe in freedom, so don’t support increasing the scope of state authority to ensure that no one, nowhere, no how treats a gay person in less than a politically correct manner.”
That said, I do hope he’ll change his views of the state’s domestic partnership program (he once opposed even that) and help lobby California Republican Representatives in Congress to join their colleagues in voting to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. But, there’s really not much else the government should be doing for gays. It should leave us alone, treat us as individuals (and not members of a particular class) before the law, neither burdened nor benefited because of our difference from the social norm.
Government should leave us to address our problems on our own and in the communities to which we belong and which we’ve chosen.
All that said, my heart goes out to Roy Ashburn the man–and to his family. It is unfortunate that he should have his private life made public. But, then again, he should have known better than to drive a car after drinking to excess.
Perhaps though his coming out will help change attitudes toward gay people, particularly among the social conservatives who make up a large portion of his jurisdiction. It is attitudes we still need to change not laws we need to enact.
66 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The Leftist attacks on Ashburn are ludicrous. The man represents one of the most Conservative districts and he simply supported his area as he is paid to do. He lived the lifestyle in private and didn’t bother anyone. If someone smokes cigars, are they obligated to support every tobacco bill or claim that smoking is healthy? Give me a break.
Ashburn has core, foundational values that reflect his constituents: namely that a child deserves both a mother AND a father; marriage is between a man and a woman; and open homosexuality is damaging to military unit cohesion. Roy had these views when he started in politics and he has them now. He is the one that has show consistency while the leftist homosexual militants continue to demand special recognition. Enough is enough! Leave the guy alone already.
Comment by Samuel — March 9, 2010 @ 2:27 am - March 9, 2010
So if the people of his district were for forcing GLBT people into therapy because they believe the junk science of the right would it be OK for him to vote that way. Or if they were for the execution of gays. Or if they felt that slavery should be reinstituted. And has is that mother and father think working with him banging guys while married a 4 children.
Comment by Tim W — March 9, 2010 @ 8:37 am - March 9, 2010
And yet I still believe this man needs to retire from politics and mind his own house rather than give his opinions one way or the other about gays. His self-loathing is evident even without a peek at his voting record and someone so bothered by who they are, let alone the web of lies he has to have spun to his family all these years, is not someone I want to listen to about the best approach to sexual orientation and the law.
Comment by John — March 9, 2010 @ 9:24 am - March 9, 2010
His excuse that he was “doing it for his constituents” is just hilarious. It shows just how pathetic the man is.
Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — March 9, 2010 @ 9:51 am - March 9, 2010
See, this is why I don’t see eye to eye with Mark W.
Mark’s also a firm beleiver in Junk Science after all. He can’t list any reason to shake his belief in Global Warming.
“And has is” huh?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 9, 2010 @ 9:56 am - March 9, 2010
oops,
to add. Mark should be the biggestbproponent of reparitive therapy, after all, if it’s ‘junk science’.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 9, 2010 @ 9:57 am - March 9, 2010
Why would your heart go out to his family? Why is being gay bad? Being discovered to be gay is like being discovered as a violin player–who cares? Why isn’t is a good thing? Or, being discovered to be gay is like being discovered to be a hunter–it’s true that some people find hunting disgusting, but that doesn’t make it wrong, or even a big deal. I think he and his family should be grateful that they have a chance to explore something God created as part of His plan for the human race.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 9, 2010 @ 10:15 am - March 9, 2010
Goodness, you give them too much credit. Even they would know that is unrealistic. Their motive is, I believe, simply to draw blood. I.e. throwing their weight around, getting symbolic revenge, etc.
Yeah. Destructive hyper-activists aside, he would seem to have made his own bed.
John, agreed.
Ash, because for a wife and 4 kids to have had to divorce (i.e. lose) him, and then further see him arrested for DUI and become the subject of public scandal, is painful. It’s called compassion. Look into it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 9, 2010 @ 10:29 am - March 9, 2010
Even more is that he undoubtedly lied to every single one of them for years about his sexual orientation, all while he was sleeping around with strangers. Now this is all embrassingly public to boot. I’m glad I never put some poor woman through that, let alone kids.
Comment by John — March 9, 2010 @ 11:11 am - March 9, 2010
Ash, would you rather we laughed and ridiculed his family, and say that they deserve this public scrutiny for being the wife and kids of a closeted gay politician? I seem to recall that we were required to have compassion for Elisabeth Edwards when it was revealed her husband was a lying cheating scumbag.
Comment by Sonicfrog — March 9, 2010 @ 11:27 am - March 9, 2010
[...] conservative blogger believes he should stick to his conservative agenda despite his [...]
Pingback by Doing a good job or being true to your conscience. « BBC World Have Your Say — March 9, 2010 @ 11:51 am - March 9, 2010
[...] The Roy Ashburn Kerfuffle & “Gay Rights” - GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by “Conservative California state senator comes out” and related posts « Most Popular News Stories — March 9, 2010 @ 12:16 pm - March 9, 2010
“Family Values” California state senator representing Kern County, Republican Roy Ashburn (guess how he votes on gay issues?), goes to a gay bar near the Capital, picks up a scantily clad buddy, gets drunk, drives and receives a DUI. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. They are good at “Follow the Leader”. They listen to their dullard leaders Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim that government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although most republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe they have a long way to go. I guess Ashburn is the first on the list “2010 Republican Summer of Love”. Remember last year list of “2009 Republican Summer of Love”: state assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), SC Board of Ed Chair, Kristin Maguire (AKA Bridget Keeney). Do I hear Tammy Wynette, “Stand By Your Man” playing in the background? I remember not so long ago that other Orange County song favorite, “Stand By Your Tan” (for Tan Nguyen). But that’s another Orange County fool.
Comment by Montana — March 9, 2010 @ 12:18 pm - March 9, 2010
Samuel, Roy Ashburn DID hurt people. He lied to his wife all those years. My heart doesn’t bleed for him. He made his bed and now has to lie in it.
Comment by Jim Michaud — March 9, 2010 @ 12:25 pm - March 9, 2010
So if the people of his district were for forcing GLBT people into therapy because they believe the junk science of the right would it be OK for him to vote that way. Or if they were for the execution of gays. Or if they felt that slavery should be reinstituted.
Of course.
Your problem, Tim, is that your entire Obama Party ideology is based on your belief that people are too stupid to make their own decisions and need the government to make it for them.
The hilariously-transparent part is that you quite obviously never expect to have to submit to these government decisions yourself. That’s why Obama and his entire Cabinet, as well as the Obama Party leadership like Charles Rangel, raise taxes on everyone else to “redistribute” wealth while not paying them themselves, and mock the electorate as “bitter” people who “cling to their guns and religion”.
You exacerbate the problem, Tim W, because you are attempting to use the government to make yourself feel better about your own inadequacies and insecurities.
Which also brings us to this point:
Ashburn has core, foundational values that reflect his constituents: namely that a child deserves both a mother AND a father; marriage is between a man and a woman; and open homosexuality is damaging to military unit cohesion.
That may be. However, clearly he never bothered to inform us that he had no intention of following them himself.
Is he self-loathing? I say quite the opposite; he’s a narcissist of epic proportions. What he advocates is well and good and I agree with it totally; however, why would he deliberately create a bad situation for his own wife, his own marriage, and his own children by this behavior?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 9, 2010 @ 12:27 pm - March 9, 2010
Montana…. Gee…. Where to start?
Hamilton was a Federalist, not a republican.
Comment by Sonicfrog — March 9, 2010 @ 12:47 pm - March 9, 2010
Except all the given examples you responded to here are flagrant violations of both the U.S. & California Constitutions, which as a state legislator he takes an oath to uphold both. Of course it doesn’t appear that his word is worth much anyways…
Comment by John — March 9, 2010 @ 1:19 pm - March 9, 2010
I think we should stop thinking it’s a big deal to find out someone is gay. It shouldn’t be a public scandal. It should be on the level of a man who likes to hunt marrying an animal rights activist and them both realizing that the marriage just couldn’t handle that. Why is it a horrible scandal? Why does it destroy a family? If he’s committed to a relationship with his kids, why can’t everyone just make the best of it? There is nothing bad about being gay. I hope his wife and kids want him to be happy.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 9, 2010 @ 1:23 pm - March 9, 2010
I agree with your post Dan. I was thinking the same thing.
But the media would rather shout hypocrite than do any sort of analysis on whether things like hate crime laws or increases in government control actually constitute “gay rights.”
And I actually give this man credit for coming out. Considering my latest NRA monthly mag is asking me to nominate Larry Craig to the NRA board of directors, I give men who can be honest about their sexuality and mistakes a lot of credit and respect.
Comment by Tim — March 9, 2010 @ 1:50 pm - March 9, 2010
Except all the given examples you responded to here are flagrant violations of both the U.S. & California Constitutions, which as a state legislator he takes an oath to uphold both.
Well, first, the state already has the right to force people into therapy, imprison them, and even execute them for their sexual predilections and behavior without it being unconstitutional, as we see in the laws surrounding pedophilia, incest, and rape.
Second, the state absolutely has the right to determine the conditions for marriage, as we see in the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain classes and groups of people from getting married.
Finally, the legislative branch doesn’t interpret constitutionality; the judiciary does. Furthermore, the power is given to the plebiscite and its representatives to amend the constitutions. If you wanted to reinstate slavery, it is perfectly within the right of the plebiscite and the legislature to do so by raising and executing a constitutional amendment — a right which is absolutely guaranteed within the constitution itself.
That is why I found the arguments against Proposition 8 so hilarious. Gays and lesbians were invoking a constitutional amendment to make the argument that the voters had no right to amend their own constitution.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 9, 2010 @ 1:51 pm - March 9, 2010
Beat ya to there, already. The pain for Ashburn’s family, again, comes from (1) the father was a liar, (2) the wife had to divorce him, (3) the father is a drunk driver, (4) now all of this is very public so the kids are likely being taunted at school. The same pain as if, say, Ashburn were a lesbian in a lesbian-headed nuclear family, then came out after a DUI arrest as having had years of secret heterosexual affairs.
What about him wanting his wife and kids to be happy? Do you think he could have at least quit politics, to avoid the publicity on his actions? Or not driven drunk?
Eariler, you made it sound like it’s all about the gay person’s journey of self-discovery and how wonderful and important that is. It isn’t. (Except to the gay person.) Same as if you had a closeted straight person going through a journey of self-discovery. Great, but it doesn’t excuse DUI nor dishonesty, nor fix the damage left in their wake. Who the hell should care about the straight person’s journey of self-discovery, after that? I wouldn’t.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 9, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - March 9, 2010
Well and succinctly said, Tim, in your second ¶.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 9, 2010 @ 2:00 pm - March 9, 2010
[...] The Roy Ashburn Kerfuffle & “Gay Rights” - GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by “Sen. Roy Ashburn: ‘I’m gay’” and related posts « Most Popular News Stories — March 9, 2010 @ 2:26 pm - March 9, 2010
NothDallasForty,
Wow you really have a hard on for me. I don’t whether to be flattered or frightened. My guess is the second since if you are a gay man (which I’m starting to really doubt) you are extremely scary. If you believe that the voters have a right to vote to execute gay etc. you have no grasp on the history of our country. How it is a Republic not a democracy. And on a personal note if you think of yourself as a sexual deviant on the same level as a pedophile than you are extremely self loathing. Such a shame. If you are the picture of a typical conservative than the gay conservative movement is sad. But seeing that your fellow conservatives don’t take you on there may be truth there.
Comment by Tim W — March 9, 2010 @ 2:52 pm - March 9, 2010
My guess is the second since if you are a gay man (which I’m starting to really doubt) you are extremely scary.
Not surprising. No different than the Obama Party that you worship insisting that people like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice aren’t really black.
To the minority hustlers that make up the Obama Party, it’s not just what you are, it’s what you believe that makes you a minority. If you don’t support leftist causes it doesn’t matter what your skin color is or your sexual attraction; you don’t qualify.
If you believe that the voters have a right to vote to execute gay etc. you have no grasp on the history of our country.
I have an excellent grasp on the history of our country. And what it shows is that, throughout it, despite not always making the best decisions initially, invariably the voters and their representatives come to good ones.
While rule by fiat may be a charming idea to you and your fellow ideologues who want what you want and don’t give a damn about what anyone else thinks, it’s not the way our system works. Our republican structure is a matter of convenience in which people elect representatives to cast votes for them, not a matter of voters being too stupid to make up their own minds and needing elites to make decisions for them. What you want is a “republic” in the same fashion in which Venezuela and China are — one where people are allowed to vote, but only in the fashion and in the way that their “betters” wish them to vote, subject to regular overrule by said “betters” when the results don’t go their way.
And of course, the attempted Alinskyesque shaming.
And on a personal note if you think of yourself as a sexual deviant on the same level as a pedophile than you are extremely self loathing. Such a shame. If you are the picture of a typical conservative than the gay conservative movement is sad. But seeing that your fellow conservatives don’t take you on there may be truth there.
First off, the gay community has already stated that sex with underage children is “common” among gay people and that age-of-consent laws are homophobic.
Second, the gay community has also stated that dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair to “show off” constitutes an “educational experience” and that anyone who disagrees is “close-minded”.
What that demonstrates is that, according to the gay community, if I don’t support pedophilia and think that sex with children abhorrent rather than being a normal thing for gays and lesbians, I’m self-loathing and homophobic. We can see that from the fact that you and your fellow “real gays” don’t take on these people, Tim W.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 9, 2010 @ 3:58 pm - March 9, 2010
“It is attitudes we still need to change not laws we need to enact.”
So…..how do you feel about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
And by the way, Dan Ashburn is a hypocrite. Allegedly, politicians seek office to serve the public and (at least when they start out), they try align their political beliefs with their personal ideas and values. No one forced or required him to run for office. In addition, he seems to have come out only because he “got caught” (for lack of a better term). At least he’s not trying to pull a Ted Haggard or Larry Haig. Yet, I still find it appalling that people who personally identify themselves gay / bisexual see nothing wrong with writing/supporting/voting for legislation that denies equal rights to everyone as they snicker privately because they consider themselves part of some kind of protected class.
Comment by Kevin — March 9, 2010 @ 5:49 pm - March 9, 2010
“Roy Ashburn should resign,” Randy Thomasson, president of the Christian-based SaveCalifornia.com, said in a statement released Tuesday. “His lying, cheating ways have boiled over and the public’s trust has been shattered.”
Ashburn’s sexuality came under close scrutiny after the Republican lawmaker was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving Wednesday morning in Sacramento. A local television station reported that an unidentified man was in the car with Ashburn, who had that night been at Faces, a popular gay bar. Openly gay West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon said Ashburn was a regular at gay nightspots throughout the city. After being freed on a $1,400 bond, Ashburn issued an apology, then went into seclusion.
On Monday, Ashburn came clean, telling conservative talk show host Inga Banks: “I am gay.”
“And so, those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long,” he added.
Following the arrest, many gay activists called the 55-year-old politician a hypocrite for his staunch record of opposing gay rights, which includes voting against gay marriage, rights for transgender people and recognition of Harvey Milk Day, in memory of San Francisco’s first openly gay politician.
Thomasson called Ashburn “dramatically out of step with his constituents” because he has “openly identified with the ‘LGBT’ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] lifestyle.”
“Demonstrating himself to be self-serving,” Thomasson added, “Ashburn has proven himself untrustworthy as a public servant.”
Ashburn, who is a father of four, divorced his wife in 2003. Nevertheless, Thomasson listed infidelity as another reason for calling for his resignation: “He vowed to be faithful to his wife, then broke his vows when he chose homosexuality over his marriage.”
And called Ashburn “mistaken” about being gay: “No one is truly ‘gay’ because the so-called ‘gay gene’ does not exist. What’s more, there are thousands of Americans who formerly engaged in homosexual behavior who have gotten help and have left their unnatural lifestyle behind.”
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=5401&MediaType=1&Category=26
Comment by rusty — March 9, 2010 @ 6:09 pm - March 9, 2010
“It is attitudes we still need to change not laws we need to enact.”
So…..how do you feel about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
Again, we see the problem here with the fascist and elitist tendencies of liberals.
According to Kevin, everyone in the United States was a vicious racist prior to their betters in Congress passing a law to force them to think correctly.
I would submit that the only reason the Civil Rights Act ever passed and stayed around was that the majority of people supported it, or at least didn’t care enough about it to demand its repeal.
This is rooted in the fact that the Obama Party teaches its pet minorities that nothing is ever their fault and that any negative reaction to their behavior is due to people being “-phobic” or “-ist”. Since their behavior is never wrong, in their fascist minds, it’s perfectly justified to use laws to force other people to do their bidding.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 9, 2010 @ 6:29 pm - March 9, 2010
I would submit that the only reason the Civil Rights Act ever passed and stayed around was that the majority of people supported it, or at least didn’t care enough about it to demand its repeal. NDT
I could also submit that in the near future a SSM ACT will be passed and will stay around because a majority of people will support it, or at least won’t care enought about it to demand its repeal. . .
Again, NDT why is it that gay conservatives are actively working for SSM, the repeal of DADT and other GLBT issues?
OH and by the way Miss Rita Beads, seems like you are channeling Randy Thomasson.
Comment by rusty — March 9, 2010 @ 7:03 pm - March 9, 2010
I could also submit that in the near future a SSM ACT will be passed and will stay around because a majority of people will support it, or at least won’t care enought about it to demand its repeal. . .
You certainly could, and it certainly is possible.
Again, NDT why is it that gay conservatives are actively working for SSM, the repeal of DADT and other GLBT issues?
Some. Not all. And they do so for their own reasons.
OH and by the way Miss Rita Beads, seems like you are channeling Randy Thomasson.
In regards to this?
“Demonstrating himself to be self-serving,” Thomasson added, “Ashburn has proven himself untrustworthy as a public servant.”
I fully and completely agree with that statement.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 9, 2010 @ 7:38 pm - March 9, 2010
Which supposed “gay rights” did he vote against?
Comment by American Elephant — March 9, 2010 @ 8:20 pm - March 9, 2010
Ash, please, Please, PLEASE show me where it’s written or said that God created homosexuality as part of His plan for mankind. And you can’t say the proof is that homosexuality exists. Pedophilia exists but I know you wouldn’t say that proves God created it as part of His plan for mankind.
Comment by Seane-Anna — March 9, 2010 @ 10:41 pm - March 9, 2010
“According to Kevin, everyone in the United States was a vicious racist prior to their betters in Congress passing a law to force them to think correctly.”
Seriously, do any posts you make in opposition to what someone said ever not include a completely ludicrous sentence like the one above? Not from what I’ve seen.
My point in making that statement was to point out the US constitution had 3 amendments to affirm the rights of all citizens after the Civil War. Even though they were in the Constitution, the Acts I mentioned had to be passed 100 years later to strengthen the equal rights of all citizens. If racism (most notably in the deep south and certainly not all of the US) had not continued, would those acts have been needed? Probaly not. And are those acts passed in the 60s still needed today? Well, if you take the comments of people like Tancredo at the Tea Party who suggested we should bring back literacy tests, then the answer is yes.
Comment by Kevin — March 9, 2010 @ 10:45 pm - March 9, 2010
Well, if you take the comments of people like Tancredo at the Tea Party who suggested we should bring back literacy tests, then the answer is yes.
Seriously, are you trying that one again?
The prospective citizen must have an ability to read, write, and speak ordinary English. This is determined by testing by an immigration examiner. The portion of the English language requirement dealing with understanding and the ability to speak the language is determined by the alien’s responses to questions asked by the immigration officer in the alien’s interview. The alien’s reading and writing proficiency is tested by written examination.
Now go ahead and state that that requirement is racist. Go ahead. I dare you. Then again, you were too cowardly to answer the last time you pulled this crap, so I’m not expecting you to answer this time, either.
In fact, I am FULLY supportive of those born here being required to take and pass the same examinations to receive the right to vote as those who wish to be naturalized.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 9, 2010 @ 10:57 pm - March 9, 2010
I believe that when Jesus discusses eunuchs and the fact that they were born that way, He is talking about gays. Here’s a link which presents the argument:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Eunuchs-Are-Gay.html
You will probably disagree with the argument. Let each be convinced in his own mind, as Paul suggests.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 9, 2010 @ 11:02 pm - March 9, 2010
OK, as a Californian, I am directly affected by Sen. Ashburn’s actions. What actions? No, not the fact that he was nailed driving drunk from a gay bar. With a man in the passenger seat. In a state-paid vehicle. No, when he was only one of three Republican senators to vote FOR increasing MY taxes! And, who is to say the reason he DID vote to raise MY taxes was not out of his fear of being outed? Are we to take Sen. Ashburn’s word for it? Nah, I do not think so. Oh, and the lame reason he says he voted against so-called gay “rights” legislation was because he was voting the views of the voters of his district is hi-larious! Hey, Ashburn! How about the fact the the same voters did not elect you to vote to RAISE THEIR TAXES!!! Sen. Ashburn is a charlatan and I believe that he should resign. Since he does not care about our tax dollars being wasted, I think that it would be a fitting way for Sen. Ashburn to go out!
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — March 10, 2010 @ 12:25 am - March 10, 2010
Again, I’m curious…which supposed “gay rights” did he vote against?
Comment by American Elephant — March 10, 2010 @ 2:47 am - March 10, 2010
Except 2 of your examples definitely involve the lack of consent, which the other does many times as well. Not comparable. The state has no competence under the Constitution to force gays into therapy, imprison them or execute them for being homosexual.
Really? Where can I find this in the Constitution? The state is under no mandate to offer marriage to folks, nor any benefits with such status. If it chooses to offer either it may not deny classes or groups of people equal access to civil marriage without very compelling reasons. Mere tradition isn’t included.
Nice of you to admit this, though I’ve seen you too often accuse the judiciary of doing otherwise when you dislike their rulings.
I do believe that you are confusing a state constitution like in California which allows amendment by popular vote and the US Constitution which has nothing like this. Furthermore, if by “right” you mean “power” than yes I would agree that if the procedures outlined under Article V were followed slavery could be reintroduced, Obama could be declared the Second Coming of Christ, or whatever you like save for reducing a state’s representation which is expressly forbidden. Of course such would be a betrayal of what this Republic has called inalienable rights and no doubt incite a bloody revolution to overthrow the newly-amended Constitution. At least Jefferson would be proud.
Once it was determined that Prop 8 was a valid amendment under the state constitution and not a revision, any such argument would indeed be futile in state court since the state constitution was changed by such amendment. However, state constitutions do not trump the liberties guaranteed in the US Constitution. Prop 8 violates not only the 14th Amendment but also the 9th. While Boies & Olson IMO will unfortunately be as successful when this reaches SCOTUS as the plaintiffs in the Plessy or Bowers decisions were, the foundation is being layed for a later reversal a la Brown or Lawrence.
Comment by John — March 10, 2010 @ 9:11 am - March 10, 2010
interesting John, I’m going to have to disagree with you on a couple of points.
As of the DSM III, Homosexuality was a mental disorder (302.0 I believe) and could be treated as such. There are organizations (NAMBLA being the most obvious, I’m unaware of a hetero organization) that would have pedophelia removed from the DSM IV as well. The key I think is being a ‘threat’ to society. While I’m not saying homosexuality or Polygamy (another consentual form) are ‘threats’ it’s not out of bounds for a society to declair it as such. Would I disagree? Certainly. fight civilly? yup, but it’s not something to be ruled out.
It’s my memory (cite unavailable, so I could be wrong) that the same guy who lead the fight to have homosexuality removed from the DSM came out in the 90′s (pun intended) and said that some self identified homosexuals can benefit from reparitive therapy and change their orientation. His subsequent vilification made no sense to me.
(aside: Why is it that you always hear of the married guy waking up one day and saying “I can’t deny who I am… I’m gay” and never the gay guy waking up and accepting he’s straight?)
As to the state being allowed to define marriage, heck yes they can. They can’t bar you and your partner from shacking up, drawing up civil contracts, etc. They can however set qualifications that have to be met to have government recognition. Just like you have to be 16 to be able to have a drivers’ license, or have decent vision for the same.
In the case of all 50 states, you have the same access to a marriage license I have. To marry one person of your choice (at a time) subject to the restrictions and requirements of the state of residence.
Is it discriminatory to not allow people born blind to drive? Or is MA being discriminatory in not allowing multiple marriage, or in requiring people to be eligible to be married in their home state to be married in MA? Yes it is. It’s also perfectly legal discrimination.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 10, 2010 @ 10:25 am - March 10, 2010
(aside: Why is it that you always hear of the married guy waking up one day and saying “I can’t deny who I am… I’m gay” and never the gay guy waking up and accepting he’s straight?)
Livewire, my hunch is that if homosexuality was accepted and encouraged while heterosexuality was shunned, including by members of their family, peers, churches, etc., it would happen much more the other way.
But it does happen every once in a while. Anne Heche comes to mind.
But your point is a good one. We clearly don’t want to encourage gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Comment by Pat — March 10, 2010 @ 10:48 am - March 10, 2010
Yes, when homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder such was indeed grounds for forced therapy, imprisonment, etc. I made no argument otherwise. With the removal of homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder such is not the case today which means that the barrier for gays enjoying fundamental liberties that all Americans have as guaranteed under the Constitution come into play. Hence why we have decisions like Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas recognizing this. Today it is not just a matter of re-classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in the DSM, for any movement to do such would require a very high burden of proof on the part of those advocating such which would undoubtedly be fought in court. This is precisely the point: there has been a significant shift in thinking which has enabled gays to make very credible arguments for protection of their liberties just as any American would. The burden of proof has moved from gays to the state or those who wish to deny equal access, equal protection or fundamental liberties on the basis of sexual orientation just like it has on race, gender, etc. Does this mean that the public is fully aware or supportive of this? No. Nor does this mean that the courts have been consistent in their rulings but this massive shift is in keeping with American beliefs on liberty and it very noticeable.
Undoubtedly. Yet even if such efforts were successful this wouldn’t remove what I see as an insurmountable problem for pedophiles: consent. Their rights end where someone else’s begins and children are incapable of giving consent in such circumstances under the law.
On what grounds? The state has to have a compelling reason that will pass constitutional muster in making such a move, especially if it wishes to declare a particular group a “threat to society”.
Indeed, although it is under no obligation to provide such an institution under the law. Yet as I’ve said when the state provides for something like marriage under the law it cannot exclude persons or groups of persons without very compelling reasons. Again, mere tradition isn’t sufficient.
Not true. If I marry my first cousin, for example, in one state where it’s legal it’s still recognized as a valid marriage under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution even in states where they do not perform such marriages. Such is not the case if I marry someone of the same sex in say Iowa and then move to Virginia. Besides now a violation of the 9th & 14th Amendments, this here is another violation of the US Constitution that DOMA cannot override.
Of course it is. Look up the word. Yet does the state have a very compelling reason why blind folks are denied driving licenses? I would think so. Such is up to the state to prove however.
It may very well be, yet as in all cases the burden is upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to prove and not the individuals seeking to exercise their liberties.
Comment by John — March 10, 2010 @ 11:16 am - March 10, 2010
Thank you Pat.
I also wonder how many truely bisexual people feel trapped in one role or the other. Guy wakes up and goes “Man, Bill really is hot, and the way he smiles at me… I must just like guys. Now how do I explain it to my wife?”
In my case, ex number two was bi. *shrug* I just accepted it and assumed she’d not cat around on me. oops…
Comment by The_Livewire — March 10, 2010 @ 11:16 am - March 10, 2010
John,
If you’re going to waive court cases around as the end of the arguement then Baker v Nelson settles the question as controlling precident. Me personally? I know courts get things wrong so I don’t take their rulings as absolute truth.
As to determining a ‘compelling reason’ yes, and that would be addressed in the legislation. Since I don’t see a compelling interest in forcing rehabilitive therapy on any consenting adult, I’m not of the need to find one to make the arguement. If I wanted to go into loony land, one could argue that the inability/unwillingness to engage in procreative copulation and substituting a riskier form of intercourse shows a lack of self preservation and presenting a risk to onesself and their partner. Loony yes, but it does show a ‘reason’, compelling is a matter of taste.
The ‘compelling’ reason for Kometsu was never removed either.
Actually the MA case is relevent, as that law was upheld.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 10, 2010 @ 11:30 am - March 10, 2010
Neither do I. Baker is indeed the controlling precedent right now, as Dred Scott, Plessy, or Bowers once were. SCOTUS hasn’t been endowed with infallibility and anyone thinking otherwise is living in a fool’s paradise IMO.
Perhaps but hardly one passing constitutional muster.
Ditto for Kelo. Yet as far as Korematsu goes, if any future government decides that this ruling gives them carte blanche to set up such racial internment camps again I doubt they’d find a receptive SCOTUS in overlooking several constitutional guarantees of civil liberties.
Comment by John — March 10, 2010 @ 12:01 pm - March 10, 2010
The state has no competence under the Constitution to force gays into therapy, imprison them or execute them for being homosexual.
Yes it does. It is simply a matter of a definition change.
Livewire put it nicely, John; you are confusing the fact that the state CAN with the fact that the vast majority of voters don’t see the need to do such a thing. The reason that is important is because, if you establish the legal precedent that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual preference are always a violation of “equal protection”, you’re up the creek when it comes to pedophiles, because the only thing that truly defines “consent” in this country for children are the laws that define it by age.
The courts are the last refuge of those who fail to make a compelling argument to the voters. What you don’t seem to realize is that, in our system, the voters are perfectly within their right to overrule the court.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2010 @ 12:09 pm - March 10, 2010
Again since it looks like liberals addressing the outlandish arguments on here that the conservatives on here feel the same. So gay conservatives are you on the same level as pedophiles because some smaller gay groups or individuals might feel it’s OK to dress their 2 year old twins. Do you really think that low of yourselves that you equate yourselves with pedophiles. Anyone? Anyone?
Comment by Tim W — March 10, 2010 @ 1:42 pm - March 10, 2010
Coming from Mark, with his support of people taking sexual advantage of subordants, that is an amusing charge indeed.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 10, 2010 @ 1:54 pm - March 10, 2010
Tim W, nice try.
Every one of the conservative commenters here that I know about has condemned in the strongest language those gays and lesbians who support, endorse, and facilitate sex with and the sexualization of underage children.
You and your fellow liberal commentors have not. Indeed, just now, when given the opportunity to condemn pedophile gays and lesbians, you spun away and tried to attack conservatives instead.
What that makes obvious is that you are not capable of criticizing gays who prey on and have sex with children. You aren’t even willing to condemn gays who advocate and promote sex with and sexualization of minors as an “educational experience”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - March 10, 2010
dang, meant Tim W in my post.
And lets not forget the other Tim was the one who didn’t have a problem with a 15 year old having sex with a much older man. And Levi admires the works of a child rapist.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 10, 2010 @ 2:48 pm - March 10, 2010
I think we are talking apples and oranges here. I’m speaking of what the Founders called inalienable rights and our liberties in general which is the framework of our Constitution. You seem to be ignoring that and speaking about what power the state can wield regardless. Um…I don’t disagree tha the state has power, which is why our system has checks and balances built into it. As our history has shown they do not always work and yes a majority of voters can impose their bigotries on a minority which isn’t corrected until years later. So yes the state can trample upon our liberties at any time since it has the guns. That was the greatest fear the Founders had which the Bill of Rights was intended to help prevent.
First of all, nice try slipping sexual PREFERENCE in there, NDT. I said no such thing. Instead I said sexual ORIENTATION. You can argue that pedophilia is the latter and not the former if you like, for purposes of this discussion I’ll even concede such. Yet do not forget what I have said: we have rights and liberties to do just about anything we want to do which the state has no power under the Constitution to interfere EXCEPT when it has a compelling reason to do so OR where our exercise of such may interfere with the rights and liberties of others.
And you base this on what, exactly? Some template of a stereotype you have formed about those who do not agree with you? You must be doing so because this certainly isn’t from anything I’ve said here. If we are talking at the national level, the only way voters may do what you say here is to elect enough legislators at the state and Federal level to amend the Constitution. Yet even then such will not occur until those legislators actually do such as outlined in Article V. Now if you mean at the California state level, yes the voters may do so by referendum which the state courts cannot overrule. Of course such action does not trump the US Constitution upon which basis the current lawsuits are based.
Comment by John — March 10, 2010 @ 3:15 pm - March 10, 2010
Excuse me Livewire but you have me mistaken for someone else. No man should be having sex with a 15 year old. It is pedophilia plain and simple and should be codemned. Groups like NAMBLA are absolutely revolting. I wholeheartedly codemn them and do not consider them part of the gay movement. And I don’t know of any major GLBT organization in the US that has expressed support for them either.
Comment by Tim W — March 10, 2010 @ 4:35 pm - March 10, 2010
I’m speaking of what the Founders called inalienable rights and our liberties in general which is the framework of our Constitution.
Unfortunately, nothing in either says that having sex with and marrying whatever you want is an “inalienable right”.
Yet do not forget what I have said: we have rights and liberties to do just about anything we want to do which the state has no power under the Constitution to interfere EXCEPT when it has a compelling reason to do so OR where our exercise of such may interfere with the rights and liberties of others.
And voters are perfectly within their right to stipulate what that compelling reason is and when the line is crossed into interference. They can do so by enacting changes in statutes or in fundamental law.
What you are saying, John, is that voters do not have the right to amend their own constitutions — a clearly enunciated, written, obvious right — because it causes you inconvenience.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2010 @ 12:53 am - March 11, 2010
And I don’t know of any major GLBT organization in the US that has expressed support for them either.
Apparently you don’t read much.
Funny, isn’t it, how gays like Tim W were all about having NAMBLA in the gay community for over a decade until the Republicans publicly shamed them by publicizing the fact? You’d think it would be hard for them to support, endorse, and keep in membership people they were disgusted by for ten years.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2010 @ 1:02 am - March 11, 2010
Tim W,
I was saying you *weren’t* the pedophile loving Tim.
I did get my W’s confused, between you and Mark W. For that I apologize. It is my intent to use people’s comments against them. Not other’s comments against them.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 8:02 am - March 11, 2010
John,
NDT is pulling other factors into the argument besides your own, but in this case, his essential point (and mine) is true. The Government does have the authority to regulate/deregulate certain things. Recongition of civil contracts being one of them. It is up to the vigilence of the people to make sure this isn’t used/abused.*
You feel that government recognition of Marriage is an inalienable right. I believe that the right is that you and your partner (or me and mine) may enter into binding contracts under the defined right to association. Government recongition and benefits of the contract isn’t a right or a guarentee.
My use of someone born blind and a drivers license was chosen for it’s nature. If someone is ‘born gay’ and the arguement is that they’re being discriminated on an innate trait, then the person born blind (sorry, I keep typing ‘born blond’ and having to fix it) is also being discriminated against. The people, through their state governement (wisely) decided to impose a vision test on the priviledge or a government recognized driver’s license. The people, through their state governments have decided to qualify access to a government recognized marriage the same way.
*offer void in a Democratic controlled House of Represenatives.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 8:42 am - March 11, 2010
Again NDT you distort the facts again. IGLA is an international group not a US group. Now again I said US group. Can you show me where a US major GLBT organization endorsed NAMBLA? Though by your logic you should be OK with it because you compared being gay with being a pedophile which somehow people like Livewire has either chosen to ignore or tactily considers himself the same.
Comment by Tim W — March 11, 2010 @ 9:21 am - March 11, 2010
Who said it has to? The overwhelming majority of our rights and liberties are not enumerated in the Constitution by design. The mistake you make here is precisely what concerned many of the Founders about the Bill of Rights which is why the 9th Amendment was added in.
Statutes cannot trump constitutional guarantees. Constitution 101 my friend. If enough wish to try and amend the Constitution to have it say whatever they like, they are free to follow the procedures outlined in Article V. Good luck with that approach though, 99.9% of the time it fails miserably which is exactly what the Founders intended.
Nope, nice strawmen you set up here though. I’m used to you doing this though so it doesn’t really bother me. Any more you’d like to bring in?
Comment by John — March 11, 2010 @ 9:35 am - March 11, 2010
Sorry John, I’m missing something.
What constitutional guarentee are you referring to?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 9:47 am - March 11, 2010
You’ll note that I never disputed this. Of course Government has such authority, yet is restrained by the Constitution as the Founders intended it to be. Government cannot deny equal access and equal protection for any program it creates or supplies benefits to without very compelling reason that must pass constitutional muster.
Indeed. As well as the courts.
No, I feel that marriage is an inalienable right and if the Government is going to be in the business of marriage it cannot deny to one group whatever benefits it chooses to give to another without a very compelling reason. Thus far I find the Government’s stated reasons regarding same-sex marriage to be without merit and a violation of the 9th & 14th Amendments as well as the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution. You’re in luck though, the courts are still in the Plessy or Bowers stage when it comes to recognizing this on the matter so it will probably take a few more decades before we see a Brown or Lawrence-type reversal.
It matters not whether a person was born blind or lost their sight at some point afterwards. Your argument here fails because the Government can easily make a compelling argument for denying such persons a license based upon public safety. Recall that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa.
First of all, it makes no difference whether homosexuality is innate, chosen, or something else. Constitutional rights and liberty remains the same regardless. Secondly, look up “discrimination”, “undue discrimination” and “compelling reason”. You’ll have your answer.
The former is justified since a compelling reason exists to exclude such persons from having a license, the latter seems to have no other reason other than prejudice or tradition which fails to pass constitutional muster. So no, without a compelling reason neither the Government nor a majority of the people have such a right under the Constitution.
Ha! No kidding.
Comment by John — March 11, 2010 @ 9:52 am - March 11, 2010
Ok John, this is where it falls down for me.
You have the exact same qualifications of marriage that I do. We are individuals, you can’t get more ‘minority’ than that. How is that discriminatory?
In arguing marriage is a right, as you define it, you can’t have any restrictions to marriage, at least none as I understand it.
P.S. Thank you for keeping this civil. I’m trying on my end, but I know full well as a Christian, even a Heritic “I’m not perfect, just forgiven.”
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 9:57 am - March 11, 2010
I’m not following what you’re saying here. How is what discriminatory? Barring same-sex couples?
Certainly you can, the Government just needs to have a compelling reason for putting such barriers in place. Off the top of my head, age is one factor which isn’t undue discrimination since consent is required.
Btw, whatever one thinks of the merits of this statement Virginia Governor McDonnell has something VERY interesting in his latest directive:
“Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Therefore, discrimination against enumerated classes of persons set forth in the Virginia Human Rights Act or discrimination against any class of persons without a rational basis is prohibited”
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/governor_urged_to_issue_anti-discrimination_bill/329477/
My, my there’s that 14th Amendment clause I’ve been bringing up – cited by a Republican governor no less.
Comment by John — March 11, 2010 @ 10:29 am - March 11, 2010
Heh, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. To me it’s not a civil rights if you can’t marry a guy, I can’t marry a guy and neither of us can marry a harem. (what sane man wants multiple women anyway?)
‘Compelling reason’ varies from place to place, and it falls to the people to determine that, IMNSHO.
This sums up some of my concerns with using the 14th as an all purpose club. I don’t like that states can regulate/ban firearms. But I don’t see that they’re restricted from them, assuming they want the consequences. I don’t want the 14th ammendment to be used to bludgeon the states, but I love my pistol.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 11:02 am - March 11, 2010
Perhaps so. I’ve posted this before, but this NRO column fits nicely into this discussion.
Comment by John — March 11, 2010 @ 11:46 am - March 11, 2010
Yes it does.
Though it’s interesting that what I get out of it is more the liberty than the regulation. You have the liberty to engage in a partnership, the government has the authority to regulate it. Recognigtion to me is part of regulation.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 12:41 pm - March 11, 2010
Except government cannot regulate without equal access and equal protection. That’s the whole point.
Comment by John — March 11, 2010 @ 5:04 pm - March 11, 2010
But who determines ‘equal access’ the people and the legislators.
I think we’re talking past each other at this point John. I respect your politeness and willingness to talk the issue over, but I don’t think either of us is going to budge from our view point.
Again, thank you for not turning it into a shouting match.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 12, 2010 @ 6:53 am - March 12, 2010