Why the Tea Party Movement is Good For Gays
While I may quibble with Michael Barone about those “litmus tests” over the past twenty years, I agree with him about the “pivot” the Tea Party phenomenon could represent for the GOP:
The Republicans for the last two decades have been a party whose litmus tests have been cultural issues, especially abortion. The tea partiers have helped to change their focus to issues of government overreach and spending. That may be a helpful pivot, given the emergence of a millennial generation uncomfortable with crusading cultural conservatism.
In short, Tea Parties could help reshape the GOP in Ronald Reagan’s image, a party whose focus is reducing the size and scope of the federal government and championing freedom. And this focus on small government turns the party’s attention away from divisive social issues, making it easier for people from all walks of life, including gays, to rally to its defense – and help it stay on the offense against Democrats’ big government schemes.
Freedom is an idea which social conservative Christians as well as socially liberal gays can readily and warmly embrace.
The Barone piece, as is anything by that sage commentator, is well worth you time. So just read the whole thing!
61 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hmmmm. I wonder if this is just another salvo in the onging wat to turn conservatism into an anti-traditional values. Why is that people like Barone seem to have such a problem with “crusading cultural conservatism” but none at all with crusading cultural LIBERALISM?
Comment by Seane-Anna — March 14, 2010 @ 7:47 pm - March 14, 2010
“Freedom is an idea which social conservative Christians as well as socially liberal gays can readily and warmly embrace.” Unfortunately, I don’t think so, as socially liberal and even “conservative” gays, as well as socially liberal straights, are hell bent on putting social conservative Christians, and all other “socons”, out of business. Getting the GOP to turn its back on “divisive social issues” and redefine conservatism to mean only concern about the size and scope of government will leave the culture wide open to the cultural Left’s anti-traditionalist crusade. And I suspect that’s just the way many, maybe most, “conservative” gays want it.
Comment by Seane-Anna — March 14, 2010 @ 7:54 pm - March 14, 2010
“And this focus on small government turns the party’s attention away from divisive social issues, making it easier for people from all walks of life, including gays, to rally to its defense – and help it stay on the offense against Democrats’ big government schemes.”
Are you kidding me????
this is only true if you ignore the homo-hating at the tea party convention. – Rick Scarborough, Ray Moore etc.
It must be nice to live in your insular CA world. If you didn’t you probably wouldn’t try to link yourself to such haters like the tea partyers.
Comment by gillie — March 14, 2010 @ 8:04 pm - March 14, 2010
The best part of the tea party movement for gays is that we no longer have to go through the uncomfortable process of explaining what “teabagging” is.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 14, 2010 @ 8:14 pm - March 14, 2010
Funny how you never complain about Obama or Democrats focus on “divisive social issues” when they are talking about repealing DADT or approving gay marriage at the state level. Indeed, you defend them, even when the majority of residents of a state are opposed to gay marriage. In fact, I seem to remember you objecting when the people of a state (I think it was Maine?) wanted to overturn gay marriage via the initiative process. You decried that effort even though it was ultimately successful. Meaning a MAJORITY disapproved of YOUR divisive social policy — but that never seems to stop you.
Likewise, you have been championing Obama and Democrats efforts to repeal dont ask dont tell.
Only when someone opposes your favored social policy, or cares about a social issue that you do not, do you complain about “divisive social issues”. When it’s something you care about, you advocate for it.
See how that is disingenuous and hypocritical?
And I know Barone is also a social liberal, but one would think it would not be necessary to point out to him that people care more about the economy when the economy is bad, and care more about other things when the economy is good.
One would think that he would understand that that is precisely WHY social issues have had the traction they have in elections over the last generation — because, thanks to Republican leadership, the economy has done phenomenally well over the last 25 years.
Perhaps he thinks the economy is never going to recover, and so Republicans can cruise to victory on economic issues for the foreseeable future, but that would be shockingly naive coming from Barone. It would mean he fundamentally doesn’t GET what is going on.
It would mean that he doesn’t get how large the percentage of Americans has become that pays little to no income tax, or how large the pool of Americans has become that are dependent on government in one form or another.
It would mean that he doesn’t get that when the economy is good, how much HE pays in taxes doesn’t really matter that much to the majority of Americans who pay little to no income tax.
It would mean that he doesn’t get what Obama and the Democrats are doing. Which is trying to “use crisis” to drag the country as far to the left as possible as quickly as possible, get as many people dependent on government as possible, because they at least understand that Americans will be very reluctant to change the status quo, no matter what the status quo is, once the economy recovers.
It also means that he doesn’t understand that if a Republican congress gets elected, the uncertainty that has marked the Democrats reign and smothered the economy will vanish, and the economy will almost instantly start recovering — and that Obama and progressivism, not Republicans or conservatism, will get credit for it.
It means that he doesn’t understand that once that happens, once the majority of Americans who pay little to no income tax feel better, and consumer confidence returns, they aren’t going to really care very much about how much other people are paying in taxes. They are going to be relieved. They are going to be VERY wary of any kind of major change for a very long time — including tax cuts and other economic change that wont affect them much directly anyway. And yes, that even includes changing things back.
And most alarmingly it means he doesn’t understand how important social issues are to people, or how dependent on social conservatives the right actually is.
In short, it means Barone doesn’t get some very fundamental political realities!
The Reagan coalition is as essential as it ever was, and every time social liberals have tried to shift Republicans away from that winning coalition, we’ve gotten our asses kicked.
But, just like Democrats, they never stop trying no matter how many times they fail!
Comment by American Elephant — March 14, 2010 @ 9:23 pm - March 14, 2010
Yes, gillie’s all for queers for Palistine, but not for queers for freedom.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 14, 2010 @ 10:25 pm - March 14, 2010
It would be refreshing to have a functioning GOP without the varied local litmus tests and purity oaths. Our local county GOP committee…and political party power here in NJ lies at the county, not the state, level…has only one-standard; unquestioning pro-life. Nothing-else seems to matter and “feeding at the public trough” doesn’t bother most of them as long as you’re staunchly anti-abortion. They’ve frozen-out the small government, fiscally-responsible, small business-types entirely…
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 14, 2010 @ 10:28 pm - March 14, 2010
Ted,
I’m going to glom onto your point because it so perfectly illustrates what I have been saying…it is a horrendous MISTAKE for Republicans to think that fiscal conservatism is BY ITSELF a long-term winning strategy any more than social conservatism is by itself a winning strategy. Even in our own party you talk about entire counties controlled by people who dont care much about fiscal restraint and care only about social conservatism.
As I’ve been saying, its very hard for a majority of Americans to care about tax cuts or tax rates when a majority of Americans pay little to zero federal income tax. Most people arent ideological enough to turn down government largesse when they are struggling if they dont have to pay for it.
Reagan conservatism — the Reagan coalition: fiscal conservatives plus national security conservatives PLUS social conservatives — is the ONLY way Republicans have a lasting majority through good economic times and bad.
Its the REASON we have a coalition! If economic conservatism lead to victory on its own, Reagan and the Republicans wouldn’t have NEEDED a coalition in the first place! Nor would Republicans EVER lose power to Democrats, whom everyone recognizes are much bigger spenders.
If you want a county party that is more concerned with fiscal conservativism, I would suggest that rather than trying to wrest control from the pro-life crowd — which will only result in losing their support — that you find leadership that are both fiscally conservative AND pro-life — leaders you can ALL support, and convince them that it is better to have the support of fiscal conservatives and WIN elections than it is to retain a pro-life monopoly and LOSE them. And if the entire base were united around such leadership, who knows, you might just find Republicans winning in NJ even when the economy is good!
Comment by American Elephant — March 15, 2010 @ 12:23 am - March 15, 2010
Why should I support a pro-life choice contrary to my own views?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — March 15, 2010 @ 2:15 am - March 15, 2010
You shouldn’t. The pro-life Republicans who dont give a rats ass about fiscal conservatism should continue to dominate your county party and leave you with a party that represents NOTHING you like.
Did you think a county party apparatus in New Jersey was going to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Perhaps you oppose conservative judges? Because that is really the only way in which the pro-life movement can change policy — by getting judges appointed who think the Constitution means what it says — something I thought all Republicans supported.
But yes, why compromise to get some or most of what you want, when currently you have zero of what you want. Yes. Your way is much better. I see that now!
Comment by American Elephant — March 15, 2010 @ 3:47 am - March 15, 2010
It must be aweful to suffer chronic rectal-cranial inversion like you do. If you had the common sense God gave the shit fly, you wouldn’t circle the wagons around the blatantly “homo-hating” liberals.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 15, 2010 @ 4:21 am - March 15, 2010
gillie, I see you got your left-wing talking points. Yup, there are nuts in every political movement. And you focus on the extremists while ignoring the broader agenda of the Tea Parties–cutting government spending.
Kind of like watching a good movie and focusing on the one actress who blew her line–her one line in one scene. You deliberately blind yourself to the reality of the right so you can attack us and conservatives.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 15, 2010 @ 5:41 am - March 15, 2010
Of course if you’re talking about ‘nuts in every party’ at least the tea parties don’t have truthers,fans of truthers, and former terrorists as business partners and advisors to the President.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 15, 2010 @ 6:41 am - March 15, 2010
Do we? While I disagree strongly with Ted on abortion, on the issues I differ greatly with the social cons with both of us do indeed get some of what we want by not compromising. Well, when the Dems show a spine that is which even with a super-majority they seem to lack. Sometimes compromise IS a dirty word and I’ve grown wary of continuing the Faustian deal with the social cons. Of course we get screwed on other issues I care about, but either way that’s going to happen it just depends upon what I feel like getting screwed on at the moment.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 7:26 am - March 15, 2010
So? Get off your ass and do the hard work of trying to win hearts and minds to your beliefs – outside of government – instead of acting like the libs you criticize by using the power of Big Brother.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 7:29 am - March 15, 2010
John,
I’m sorry, I simply dont understand your point in #14. Could you rephrase yourself? (I was talking about the scenario Ted had laid out in his New Jersey county, and was using sarcasm btw).
And regarding this:
Seane-Anna not withstanding, where are social conservatives trying to use the power of government inappropriately? You compare them to liberals and Big Brother, but I dont see any evidence of social conservatives trying to do any such thing.
Contrary to the left’s histrionics and demagoguery (and contrary to the rare nutjobs like Seane Anna), we are not talking about a group that wants to outlaw homosexuality or control what you do in your bedroom. We are, at present, talking about a group that recognizes the vital role played by marriage and is opposed to redefining it from an institution that serves a purpose into just another entitlement.
On gay marriage they are arguing that the people, not the courts should define the purpose of marriage. I’d say that’s pretty fundamental separation of powers/10th amendment stuff.
And I’m not sure how you formulate military, immigration or 2nd amendment policy outside of government.
Abortion really boils down to who defines when life begins? 150 million different women coming up with 150 million different answers (irrespective of the fathers)? Or if government exists to protect the lives and human rights of its citizens, isnt it necessary to have a definition of when that life begins? And the social conservatives want only to restore the plain language of the Constitution on this issue, which clearly leaves such determination up to the states and to the people, not the courts.
Is it now an improper use of government to restore the supremacy of the Constitution?
Comment by American Elephant — March 15, 2010 @ 8:27 am - March 15, 2010
“And you focus on the extremists while ignoring the broader agenda of the Tea Parties–cutting government spending. ”
???
Extremists?
I am talking about what happened at the Tea Party CONVENTION. That is the grass rooots, base of conservate movement.
You costal elite conservatives spend too much time poo-poohing your base…
Comment by gillie — March 15, 2010 @ 9:01 am - March 15, 2010
Quite simply, when we do not feel like compromising with the social cons on their pet issues and Republicans lose as a result odds are that we still get some or most of what we want on these issues from the other side. Of course that’s only when the Dems decide they have a spine and the trade-off is getting screwed by the Dems on other issues. Either way we get screwed so its a practical decision on what you feel like getting screwed on at the moment.
Bullshit. Every major group on the Religious Right was all opposed to the Lawrence decision. I do not believe this fiction that all of a sudden now they have had a change of heart. Also, it’s not just about what happens in the bedroom but about being left alone and equal protection outside of it too.
Again I call bullshit. This is about denying equal access based upon religious and personal bias. I might see your point if domestic partnerships/civil unions were being offered by them as the substitute to resolve equal protection concerns, but that’s not what’s happening. Instead these groups are pushing for complete bans where they can get them. They are also fighting to prevent domestic partnerships/civil unions where they can as we saw in Washington state.
We are a republic, not a democracy. That’s no more convincing than the excuses offered by those who favored segregation making the same claim. We also have a 14th Amendment which guarantees fundamental rights that no majority is entitled to deny.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 9:22 am - March 15, 2010
17: Gillie, the so-called TEA Party Convention no more represented all of the TEA Party groups than GOProud represents all gay conservatives or Stonewall Democrats represents all gay liberals.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 9:24 am - March 15, 2010
And note how gillie plans to ignore that the head of the Democrat party is the one advised by truthers and communists and their admirers, as well as his association with terrorists.
Is it your turn to spew the talking points today whack-a-gillie?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 15, 2010 @ 9:35 am - March 15, 2010
oop,s let me C/P this here, since I put it in the wrong thread…
More seriously on the SoCon vs SoLib issue, John why wouldn’t you meet the SoCons halfway? I mean a correction of Roe v. Wade would result in it being a state issue. It wouldn’t make abortion disappear.
More importantly, would you agree that the government has no place funding art? So would you stand with SoCons on defunding the NEA? If the SoCons look at the repeal of DADT as worthwhile would you stand with them?
I don’t expect you or Senna-anna to agree on everything. Heck I know you and I don’t agree on everything, but I think AE has it right. A political party has to unify on where they show common ground, and worry about the rest later.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 15, 2010 @ 10:21 am - March 15, 2010
21: Since abortion involves inalienable rights, sure. Like a broken clock that’s correct twice a day, the soc-cons have their moments. As for funding of arts, it’s not a big issue for me but I’m not very keen on the idea at the national level mainly because this brings in 1st Amendment concerns. With regards to DADT, you might as well call the sky purple because they won’t. Take just about anything involving gays and you’ll find them on the wrong side. They’ve shown zero movement on anything involving gays. Then of course we get to evolution and their movement with regards to school textbooks recently.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 10:46 am - March 15, 2010
We also have a 14th Amendment which guarantees fundamental rights that no majority is entitled to deny.
“No majority”. As in none, zip, zero, zilch, not under any circumstances.
So now marriage is an explicit right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that NO majority under any circumstances may deny to anyone for any reason.
State that, John, and be intellectually honest. You believe that, in every instance, all laws restricting marriage that were enacted by a majority should be struck down under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - March 15, 2010
Unless you can show me the fine print to the 14th Amendment which makes such exceptions: yep.
You amuse me how you like to set up strawmen by subtley twisting what I say because you disagree with me. When you ask me for a response (again) to what I’ve said consistently about this matter, let me know. Since you set up this strawman burn it down yourself.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 12:23 pm - March 15, 2010
There are a lot of so-cons who are not for limited government in the slightest way. Huckabee comes to mind, he has all kinds of ideas on how to use the power of government to change/force people to act a certain way. For a long time certain so-cons types are happy to sacrifice fiscal & constitutional issues as long as they get their obsessions dealt with. They have been selling out fiscal conservatives for decades.
In Maine they obsessed over denying about 10 gay couples the right to marry while ignoring TABOR and several other referendum that would have improved the quality of life for all Maine residents.
I agree that abortion is not a federal issue and should be returned to the states. Ditto gay marriage. We need to decrease the amount of things that the Federal government meddles in not increase them.
Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — March 15, 2010 @ 1:24 pm - March 15, 2010
25: Same-sex marriage became a Federal issue when the Republicans pushed DOMA, a violation of the both the Equal Protection Clause and the Full Faith & Credit Clause, which enough Dems and then-President Clinton signed on to. Remove DOMA, honor the Full Faith & Credit Clause and most of the brouhaha would go away as this matter would indeed remain at the state level.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 1:50 pm - March 15, 2010
“small government” also involves “divisive social issues”. There’s no way of avoiding the social issues. If the GOP and conservative movement does not address them, the social conservatives will not be ignored. They will take the votes elsewhere!!! Or they will insist on their agenda. Simple as that.
Certainly, the priority is defeating Obamacare and addressing the fiscal mess, but after this is over, the social conservatives will be waiting for their moment.
Comment by anon2273892 — March 15, 2010 @ 2:22 pm - March 15, 2010
DOMA was pushed due to the possibility that judges will impose gay marriage.
Comment by anon2273892 — March 15, 2010 @ 2:23 pm - March 15, 2010
27: Social cons are free to leave in a huff whenever they like. They’ve had their “moment” for years now and frankly a lot of us believe their time is over.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - March 15, 2010
28: Trying to circumvent the judicial review process by unconstitutional acts of legislation is no excuse. If you want to exclude same-sex marriage by all means, start a new round with FMA and see how far you get.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 2:31 pm - March 15, 2010
Unless you can show me the fine print to the 14th Amendment which makes such exceptions: yep.
Therefore, since there is no “fine print” in the Fourteenth Amendment saying that this does not apply to plural, incestuous, underage, bestial, or other things that people request to marry, you are now stating that all of these forms of marriage must be legalized and that any ban on them is unconstitutional.
Or are you now going to reverse yourself, John, and state that marriages may be banned by majority vote, if it’s one that your religious and other beliefs don’t support? If so, what makes your beliefs superior, since you are stating that your sexual and relationship choices have no bearing on anyone else and thus cannot be regulated or managed by anyone else?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2010 @ 3:48 pm - March 15, 2010
I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I still dont get how this changes what I said, which is that the only way social conservatives in New Jersey can affect abortion policy is by supporting conservative judges, and that supporting “pro-life” candidates means little more than supporting conservative judges.
And you are getting what you want from Democrats on social policy? Are you serious???
Nor do I consider myself part of the “we” on most gay issues. The gay agenda is largely bad for the country. Nor is it a libertarian agenda. The conservative agenda is MUCH closer to a libertarian agenda than the gay agenda is.
Then back up your opinion. Show me where ANY Republicans ANYWHERE are even proposing outlawing homosexuality, let alone putting it on the ballot or attempting to make it law. Otherwise, I hate to say it, but you are just making unfounded accusations.
I can see why you believe that. A lot of social conservatives cant articulate their opposition to gay marriage well. But that doesn’t make your point correct. And it’s not.
marriage is the policy we have to deal with the natural consequences of heterosexuality. To argue that gays are being denied equal access to policy that exists to deal with heterosexuality is both weird and untrue. Gays have equal access to the institution, they just dont want to engage in the heterosexuality required, and instead want to change marriage from an institution that exists to deal with the natural consequences of heterosexuality into an entitlement program that IGNORES the unique and essential role heterosexuality (and mothers and fathers) plays in society.
John,
the Constitutional arguments for gay marriage have been made over and over and over and over again.
EVERY COURT IN THE COUNTRY HAS REJECTED THEM!
Every single court. Even the courts that have ruled in favor of gay marriage have done so on the basis of their STATE laws, not the US Constitution.
Moreover, the US Supreme Court has heard and REJECTED ALL the equal treatment arguments.
So yes, its true that we are a Republic, and not a Democracy. But that does not mean that the courts are the ultimate authority in our society. It means only that there are checks and balances on the majority, so that the majority cannot violate the basic human rights of the minority.
Those checks and balances have worked, and gays have LOST the argument that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. And thank God for that, because its a ridiculous, biologically insane argument to begin with!
Comment by American Elephant — March 15, 2010 @ 5:03 pm - March 15, 2010
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong on both counts here.
Same-sex marriage became a federal issue when activist liberals took deciding marriage policy out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the courts. Everything else followed that.
and again, the courts have all heard, and ALL rejected your Constitutional claims. Even the courts that have imposed gay marriage have done so based on state law, not the US Constitution.
Comment by American Elephant — March 15, 2010 @ 5:13 pm - March 15, 2010
I couldnt agree more, which is why I fervently oppose electing Nanny Huckabee to any office,
and why I support electing candidates who are fiscal, defense, AND social conservatives and oppose fiscal, defense, AND social moderates.
Comment by American Elephant — March 15, 2010 @ 5:18 pm - March 15, 2010
Going back to your usual erroneous examples that I’ve responded to ad nauseum, NDT? You still cannot get past the fact that 9th Amendment is quite explicit that not all of our rights are enumerated in the Constitution, nor were they intended to be. Hence why we have the 9th Amendment. Yet ok, let’s play again:
1. Plural marriages. The burden is upon the state to give compelling reasons why folks desiring plural marriages should have their rights abridged under the 1st & 14th Amendments. Religious or personal bias against such marriages is not enough.
2. Incestuous marriages. Same as #1.
3. Underage marriages. Same as #1. However, I would point out that minors are legally incapable of giving consent to any form of contractual arrangement, thus a compelling reason would seem to exist for the state.
4. Bestial marriages. Same as #3, with the obvious substitution of “animal” for “minors”.
5. “Other things that people request to marry”. Since this lacks any clarification as to your meaning I find it impossible to respond to. Inaminate objects perhaps? If so, see #3 with the obvious substitutions.
Show me where I ever made such a statement that in any of these cases rights may be “banned by majority vote”. I’ll clue you in: not once have I ever said such a thing. Furthermore, show me where the Constitution allows us to ban rights of persons or groups by majority vote because that’s definitely a violation of the 9th & 14th Amendments. Instead I have taken the exact position of the Founders which is of course entirely in line with the Constitution: in ALL cases the burden is upon the state to show compelling reason why rights should be denied to individuals or groups and it matters not what the issue is. We may disagree on what constitutes compelling reason in different cases but that’s a VERY different matter from what we have been discussing.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 5:46 pm - March 15, 2010
The State of New Jersey has no impact on abortion, same-sex marriage, teaching of evolution, etc? I think so. Abortion to me isn’t even a social issue to me even though it is popularly considered to be one, as I’ve said, since an inalienable right to life is at stake.
It depends upon what you talking about. With regards to “gay issues” not yet of course because they lack testicular fortitude and lie through their teeth. Up till now the most we have gotten from them are crumbs most people couldn’t give a squat about but they have been effective occasionally in blunting some of the nonsense the Religious Right would like to see passed into law.
My, sounds insidious. Stealing talking points from the Religious Right now? Refresh my memory what exactly the so-called “gay agenda” is in your view.
Of course such depends upon what you believe this so-called “gay agenda” actually is.
Outlaw homosexuality? You might as well talk about outlawing gravity. I was speaking of sodomy laws and one only has to give Google a try and they’ll find leaders from many of the very same Religious Right groups the GOP is still enamored with not only strongly opposing the Lawrence ruling, but some still calling for outlawing sodomy. I don’t store links NDT does and have no wish to do the work for you.
Why? Because you say so? Because tradition or religious opinion says so? Nope, not good enough and hardly a compelling reason for the state to deny rights under the 14th Amendment.
Government requirements on rights cannot be put into place simply because you desire them, or even if a majority do. A compelling reason must be given. You might as well say that a majority have the right to deny interracial marriage because of a requirement that married persons must be of the same race and the applicants wishing to engage in marriage decide otherwise. See the 14th Amendment.
When you involve the State in institutions the Constitution and the rights guaranteed by that document come into play which involve all persons. The State cannot and may not deny rights and freedoms to persons or groups of persons without a very compelling reason. If you do not wish to have that happen then get the State out of the marriage business.
the Constitutional arguments for gay marriage have been made over and over and over and over again.
Yes I would agree that such is the case at this time. I’ve also predicted more than once that the current Perry v. Schwarzenegger case will likely meet a fate similar to the Baker case of the early 1970s. Yet what I’ve also said more than once is that this is no different than when “EVERY COURT IN THE COUNTRY” rejected interracial marriage arguments or anti-segregation arguments grounded in the 14th Amendment guarantees of rights during the pre-Loving and pre-Brown eras. So what.
Oh I doubt that since they haven’t made any rulings since Baker in the early 1970s. But again, they’ll get to add Perry to this in a couple of years if my prediction holds and Justice Kennedy doesn’t pull a surprise.
I never said otherwise.
Since I’ve said that we seem to be living in the “Plessy era” when it comes to this matter, I find your assertion to be a groundless sign of the times and nothing more. IOW, gays have no more “lost” on this issue than blacks did after the Plessy ruling in the late 1800s, which of course Brown overturned decades later (on the very same grounds Plessy was ruled I might add). We have had our rights postponed and temporarily denied but the arguments and the fight continue.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 6:17 pm - March 15, 2010
The burden is upon the state to give compelling reasons why folks desiring plural marriages should have their rights abridged under the 1st & 14th Amendments.
But John, you have already stated that there are NO circumstances under which the 14th Amendment may be abridged by a majority.
“No majority”. As in none, zip, zero, zilch, not under any circumstances.
Unless you can show me the fine print to the 14th Amendment which makes such exceptions: yep.
Next:
However, I would point out that minors are legally incapable of giving consent to any form of contractual arrangement, thus a compelling reason would seem to exist for the state.
That is because of laws, passed by the majority, that state minors are legally incapable. Again, if you were applying things consistently, those laws, since they prevent minors from marrying, prevent people from marrying minors, and were passed by a majority, are unconstitutional under the 9th and 14th Amendments.
And finally:
You still cannot get past the fact that 9th Amendment is quite explicit that not all of our rights are enumerated in the Constitution, nor were they intended to be.
Which means that you can make ANYTHING a “right”.
So according to your logic, John, the Obama Party is correct when it states that people have a “right” to government-funded health care because it’s covered under the Ninth Amendment.
What this all boils down to, John, is that you have failed to convince the voters — no surprise, given how you rant and scream that religious people are “wingnuts”. Since you keep losing at the ballot box, you go running and screaming to the courts to force those mean voters to do exactly what you want.
Problem is, you can’t reconcile how you get the right to force your will on the voters on the basis of your sexual preferences when other people can’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - March 15, 2010
I said that there are no circumstances under the 14th Amendment where a majority, by which I assumed you meant the electorate, can deny rights under the 14th Amendment. I stand by that since the 14th Amendment gives us no such process. I also said that the State is restrained from abridging or denying rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment without compelling reason. Now if you want to slip into technicalities by referring to the electorate acting as the State (or rather in place of the state legislature) in cases of referendum, the same applies with regards to rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. of course no such mechanism exists for the electorate on the national level. What part of this are you failing to understand?
If you are referring to a majority in the legislature, than such a body of the State has given compelling reasons why minors cannot fully exercise their rights under the 14th Amendment due to the fact they are unable to given consent in any contractual arrangement.
Your argument is not with me but instead is with the Founders who authored the 9th Amendment. Feel free to work and have this amendment repealed if it bothers you so much.
Now that’s an argument I’m sure someone on the Left will attempt but they will of course do so failing to understand the basic maxim that their individual rights end where yours and mine begin.
You really do enjoy putting words in people’s mouths, don’t you NDT? Show me where I’ve ever said that religious people are wingnuts. No, I said such about social conservatives and some religious people. You just assumed for your own purposes that this meant every single person of religious faith. Wrong. If I’ve been sloppy anywhere it’s perhaps in not qualifying my remarks on social conservatives because truth be told I can no more say anything about ALL social cons than I could about anyone else. I actually had certain social con political groups in mind. So mea culpa for the lack of clarification on that one minor item. As for not convincing a majority of voters of my position, certainly such is the case at this time. It is unfortunate but I regard that as no different than black failing to convince a majority of voters in the pre-Brown era.
Nope, it’s called “due process” which the Constitution guarantees me and everyone else. You know, like those folks who just couldn’t seem to convince enough voters to stop denying their rights in say…segregation or anti-miscenegation laws and sought redress in the courts to prevail.
Comment by Average Gay Joe — March 15, 2010 @ 6:46 pm - March 15, 2010
Wait, I thought John WAS Average Gay Joe? Are they two different people? I’m confused. I like to know who I am talking to.
Comment by American Elephant — March 15, 2010 @ 7:35 pm - March 15, 2010
39: One and the same. Dang comments thingie likes to mix ‘em up at times just to sow confusion. Either that or Bruce is sitting back and having a laugh.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 7:45 pm - March 15, 2010
Now if you want to slip into technicalities by referring to the electorate acting as the State (or rather in place of the state legislature) in cases of referendum, the same applies with regards to rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.
No. The “State” and the electorate cannot be separated. The Constitution itself begins with “We the People”, making it clear that the electorate is the ultimate authority in our system of government. You seem to believe that the government itself is superior to the electorate and need not pay any attention to it.
If you are referring to a majority in the legislature, than such a body of the State has given compelling reasons why minors cannot fully exercise their rights under the 14th Amendment due to the fact they are unable to given consent in any contractual arrangement.
The reason minors are unable to give consent in any contractual arrangement is because of laws passed by the majority to deny them that “equal protection” — which, according to your logic, is again unconstitutional.
Your argument is not with me but instead is with the Founders who authored the 9th Amendment.
The Founders’ intent was not to conjure rights out of thin air, as you are advocating.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2010 @ 8:01 pm - March 15, 2010
Not my problem if reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Personally I think you do this deliberately but since I can’t read your mind, unlike your “uncanny ability” to do so, perhaps I should be more charitable. Naaaah, I’m feeling curmudgeonly and it’s a bit of a tradition in blog comments to assume the worst so in this case why fight it?
Nope, but I’m not surprised that you continue to insist otherwise. I’m used to this from you.
The Founders’ intent was not to conjure rights out of thin air, as you are advocating.
Indeed, nor was it their intent for us to abide by a sola scriptura mentality when it came to the Constitution and our rights. Instead, limits were placed upon the State and the burden of proof was shifted to the State in everything regarding our rights. Hence why all of our rights, inalienable or otherwise, are not enumerated in the Constitution as the 9th Amendment quite clearly states.
Comment by John — March 15, 2010 @ 8:12 pm - March 15, 2010
Very well put, sir.
I’ve made that exact point quite often with my many liberal (and gay friends), over and over again – pointing out my belief in small government.. one that stays out of my wallet, my house, and especially my (and their) bedroom.
I’ve yet to actually make any connection with any of them on that, though… apparently reason is lost with them.
Comment by Smite A. Hippie — March 16, 2010 @ 1:13 am - March 16, 2010
John, I hope you don’t think that a State license for anything – marriage, driving, professional practice, fishing or anything – is a *right*. It’s not, it’s a privilege legislated (i.e. created) by the State.
Some people (particularly leftists) have gotten fast and loose with the language and lost sight of that, but that doesn’t change the underlying fact, which is that fundamental genuine rights exist above and logically prior to the State and just laws / just States therefore merely recognize them; while State licenses, by contrast, are legislative creations and as such, are inherently discriminatory.
The People get to legislate the qualifications for license X. There is judicial review as regards possible infringements on (real) rights, on equal protection, etc., but clearly the qualifications must and will discriminate against somebody, or they would be meaningless. For example, the qualifications for a medical license discriminate against all those who have not been to medical school.
Courts have never held that governments can’t discriminate in setting the qualifications for licenses, they have simply stopped particularly irrelevant and invidious examples of discrimination, e.g. racial. If the discrimination is rational and relevant – e.g., you must actually be qualified in medicine to get the doctor’s license, or you must actually be a human couple to get the human married couple’s license – then it’s cool.
If you want to argue that the way marriage licensing discriminates against group X is unconstitutional, or a violation of Equal Protection, go right ahead. But please don’t pretend that the license as such is some sort of right.
No. If the People say “We want to create a licensing scheme for unmarried, unrelated human -couples- to easily become recognized as couples, having privileges and obligations that we are hereby packaging into that license”, the People can. Exluding related couples and/or non-couples (i.e. excluding plural situations) from it is not violating anybody’s actual *rights*. No more than excluding the medically unqualified from the medical license violate’s anyone’s rights. The burden either isn’t, or at least it shouldn’t be, on the State to show a compelling reason to exclude the medically unqualified from the medical license, non-couples from the couples’ license, etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2010 @ 3:21 am - March 16, 2010
P.S. To be clear, I support gay marriage licensing on policy grounds: it would benefit society. As does heterosexual marriage licensing. (Not treating the marriage license as any sort of right, for anybody – not even for heterosexuals.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2010 @ 3:24 am - March 16, 2010
Of course not. I’ve argued, and continue to do so, that the State cannot require such licenses to engage in an activity and then block equal access to such licenses without a very compelling reason. Hence the 14th Amendment argument rightly championed by such conservatives as Ted Olson.
Comment by John — March 16, 2010 @ 7:53 am - March 16, 2010
“Very”? What would “very” mean, in this context?
Again, the whole point of a licensing scheme is precisely to block access for those who don’t meet the qualifications for the license. To be clear: anyone can apply for the license… and be rejected, i.e. discriminated against, when it’s clear that they don’t meet the qualifications. The question for the courts to review is whether said discrimination rises to the level of being “invidious” (the word they used in the _Loving_ decision).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2010 @ 11:44 am - March 16, 2010
Instead, limits were placed upon the State and the burden of proof was shifted to the State in everything regarding our rights. Hence why all of our rights, inalienable or otherwise, are not enumerated in the Constitution as the 9th Amendment quite clearly states.
So here’s an argument.
– The state gives premium parking passes to disabled individuals, which provides them with a clear benefit.
– By both statutory and case law, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of disability.
– Preventing me from having a premium parking pass because I am not disabled is a violation of equal protection and denies me privileges and benefits given to others simply because of my lack of a disability.
– Even though premium parking is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that I have constitutional rights outside the Constitution, one of which could certainly be privileged parking.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2010 @ 12:06 pm - March 16, 2010
–adverb
[...] 2.(used as an intensive emphasizing superlatives or stressing identity or oppositeness): the very best thing; in the very same place as before.
You may wish to re-read what you wrote here because you just answered your own question.
Comment by John — March 16, 2010 @ 12:21 pm - March 16, 2010
48: Poor argument, but feel free to file suit and assert your rights.
Comment by John — March 16, 2010 @ 12:22 pm - March 16, 2010
#49 – Meaningless blather. I will take that as a concession of the argument.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2010 @ 12:32 pm - March 16, 2010
P.S. Just to leave no stone unturned, I will leave with this final effort at making things clear for you John:
- Unless you can explain to me, in the context of judicial review, the difference between a “compelling” reason for discrimination and a “very compelling” reason, such that the latter would be OK for a State to do and the former not OK… then your use of the adverb “very” was silly.
- You say “the State cannot require such licenses to engage in an activity and then block equal access to such licenses without a very [sic] compelling reason.” By contrast, I say “the whole point of a licensing scheme is precisely to block access [to something]… The question for the courts to review is whether [that kind of] discrimination rises to the level of being ‘invidious’”. Here’s a hint: the two statement are at variance. They’re saying two different things. Only one is correct (and it’s mine).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2010 @ 12:42 pm - March 16, 2010
Poor argument, but feel free to file suit and assert your rights.
Now watch and see how John flip-flops and decides it’s a good argument.
– The state gives marriage licenses to male-female couples, which provides them with a clear benefit.
– By both statutory and case law, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.
– Preventing me from having a marriage license because I and my chosen sexual partners are not of a certain gender or a couple is a violation of equal protection and denies me privileges and benefits given to others simply because of my gender or my choice to have relationships with multiple individuals.
– Even though the right to a marriage license is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that I have constitutional rights outside the Constitution, one of which could certainly be marriage licenses.
So the entire gay-sex marriage movement is based on the structure of that “poor argument”, John.
The simpler and more consistent answer is the one I give. Parking privileges are not a “right”. Marriage licenses are not a “right”. You can try to warp “equal protection” to demand them, but that then requires that EVERYONE receive them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2010 @ 12:45 pm - March 16, 2010
… which would then be the poor argument. NDT, exactly.
People who treat a State marriage license as a “right” do not understand the institution of State licensing. It’s unfortunate that certain Court decisions on State licensing, doubtless under the influence of Left ideology, have used the language of “rights” at times. But, betraying their own well-justified uncertainty about it, courts have by no means used that lagnuage consistently. Even the _Loving_ decision speaks of a “freedom”, “liberty” or “choice” to marry more often than it speaks of a “right” to marry. That is why one of the marriage gay marriage groups named itself Freedom to Marry (rather than Right to Marry).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2010 @ 1:14 pm - March 16, 2010
51: Likewise, I’m sure.
Comment by John — March 16, 2010 @ 1:55 pm - March 16, 2010
Oh please, surely you jest with this inane BS? Strike the word “very” if you like because other than its use as an adverb I never used the word as distinguishing a difference with the term “compelling reason”. Do you have other grammatical gnats you’d care to strain as the centerpiece of your argument?
*Sigh*… You really do wish to major in the minors. Tell you what, if you really want to see my arguments outlined completely feel free to take a gander at this filing by Olson/Boies because it should seem quite familiar, only of course given their expertise much superior to what I’ve articulated. Pay special attention to pp. 261-285.
Comment by John — March 16, 2010 @ 3:01 pm - March 16, 2010
No need to flip or flop, NDT, because your argument still remains a poor one. Your analogy is flawed in its premise.
Comment by John — March 16, 2010 @ 3:06 pm - March 16, 2010
Pay special attention to pp. 261-285.
Indeed.
A State cannot confer separate and unequal rights on socially disfavored groups because excluding a disfavored group from the rights enjoyed by all other members of society brands the disfavored group with an indelible mark of inferiority and that stigmatic harm is itself a judicially cognizable and remediable injury.
So being branded with a mark of inferiority is sufficient reason for pedophiles to be granted marriage rights.
And it gets even better.
Neither tradition nor moral disapproval is a sufficient basis for a State to impair a person’s constitutionally protected right to marry.
So the fact that there is a significant amount of tradition and moral disapproval against having sex with and marrying underage children is irrelevant and does not abrogate the absolute constitutional “right” to marry.
You realize when you look at this filing just how loopy these people are. They are willing to literally undermine anything and everything to get gay-sex marriage, no matter what happens after the fact.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2010 @ 5:41 pm - March 16, 2010
When you can overcome the hurdle of a minor being unable to freely give consent in either case, perhaps you’ll have a point NDT. Yet please, don’t let me stop you from parroting the asinine talking points of the Religious Right which are intended solely to stir bullshit, not because they any semblance to real substance.
Comment by John — March 17, 2010 @ 8:22 am - March 17, 2010
When you can overcome the hurdle of a minor being unable to freely give consent in either case, perhaps you’ll have a point NDT.
That’s easy. Change the age-of-consent laws — which should be unconstitutional anyway by your logic, since they were passed by a majority to restrict the rights of other citizens.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 17, 2010 @ 5:32 pm - March 17, 2010
If you are an LGBT person who identifies with the Tea Party, I would like to speak with you. I am currently working on an article for a print publication that wants to know more about the LGBT community’s involvement in the Tea Party. If you would like to share your views us, please e-mail gayteaparty@gmail.com.
Comment by Gay Tea Party — March 26, 2010 @ 3:11 pm - March 26, 2010