Gay Patriot Header Image

So, are we big 10th Amendment People now?

So, as I’ve said before, I’m mostly agnostic on gay marriage (I believe the entire institution should be left to personal/familial/community/religious devices and the government should remove itself entirely from the argument lock-stock-and-barrel). That said, you can’t be gay—well, or even straight it seems—in the United States today, according to the media, and not be completely and obsessively consumed by the issue (and, natch, your opinion can only be “FOR!”).

And since SCOTUS is hearing it this week, I suppose I might as well poke a stick into the monkey cage:

If we’re supposed to oppose DOMA on states’ rights grounds, should we then oppose the effort to overturn Prop 8?

Discuss.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HHQ

UPDATE
Excellent point made (and I don’t just say this because I have several captions vying for his “Best of” category) by VtheK from the comments:

This country would be so much better off if people cared as much about fiscal responsibility and economic growth as they do about giving same sex couples a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to legitimize their coupling.

Speaking of which, I think the time has come to push for polygamy. If gender doesn’t [matter], what’s so damned magical about the number 2?

(As for the first part, I have made this exact point many times myself, and I have much more to say about Viking’s second point, which perhaps I will anon…)

Share

35 Comments

  1. A good question, Nick.

    The first half of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is as follows:

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

    But, as it turns out, they don’t. Drivers’ licenses, hunting licenses, concealed-carry permits, powers of attorney — there are all sorts of “public acts” and “records” that states don’t recognize reciprocally.

    Moreover, there are all sorts of things that the states do that the Federal government does NOT recognize reciprocally.

    Which then leads us to the second half:

    And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    In short, Congress is in charge of setting up the structure and definitions under which these acts are recognized.

    Hence, DOMA is perfectly constitutional. It does not prevent the states from voluntarily recognizing each others’ marriages; it merely states that they will not be compelled by the Federal government to do so. And, since the Federal government sets the rules and definitions of what state “acts, records, and proceedings” are recognized, it may with perfect right define those as it sees fit.

    In short, Massachusetts can pass whatever marriage laws it wants; however, no other state or the Federal government is compelled to recognize them.The other states may with perfect right CHOOSE to recognize Massachusetts marriages, or not; the Federal government may with perfect right CHOOSE to recognize Massachusetts marriages as equivalent for Federal purposes.

    And they have not.

    The stupidity of the anti-DOMA arguments is very simply this; if the Federal government has no power to set the limits of what is and isn’t a marriage and has to abide by whatever the states kick up, the first state to legalize plural marriage (I would guess Michigan) will then impose that on the entire Federal government.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2013 @ 9:26 pm - March 25, 2013

  2. This country would be so much better off if people cared as much about fiscal responsibility and economic growth as they do about giving same sex couples a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to legitimize their coupling.

    Speaking of which, I think the time has come to push for polygamy. If gender doesn’t number, what’s so damned magical about the number 2?

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 9:30 pm - March 25, 2013

  3. I think your caption was a shoo-in for best of even without the delicious flattery.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 9:53 pm - March 25, 2013

  4. what’s so damned magical about the number 2?

    It’s math.

    Suppose your goal is to create a host of little mutual-welfare societies, within the larger society, and wherein the people of the little society are tightly bonded, looking out for each other and putting each other first. Suppose you also value equality. What is the maximum number of people that can be in each little society?

    If Frank is at the center of one of these little societies that also includes Mary, Jane and Alexandra, they can all put him first, but he, by definition, can’t put all of them first. Because “putting someone first” implies ONE person. You can only put ONE person first; the next most important person by definition comes second; the third next important one comes third by definition; etc.

    So, if Frank puts Mary first, then by definition he can’t also put Jane and Alexandra first. Now we have a little society of inequality: Jane and Alexandra both put Frank first, but he does NOT put them first.

    If the little society is to be a little society of equality, then it cannot possibly have more than 2 people, both of whom put each other first; or, equivalently, both of whom make the sacrifice, for the other’s sake, of giving up all others.

    That is what is magical about the number 2. And that is, at the same time, what is *not* magical about the genders involved. Frank and Joe, -if in fact they are willing and able to put each other first-, would then do as good a job (or better) of putting each other first as Frank and Mary would.

    If you want to bring kids into the discussion, fine, and that’s a different discussion. Here, I am just providing an answer to the immediate question you asked, “What’s so damned magical about the number 2?” Question answered.

    Polygamy might be OK, if you wanted a culture where marriages are little societies of inequality (someone being served by the subordination of others). I don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 9:57 pm - March 25, 2013

  5. Ah, V: How I hope you’re thinking of this classic ;-)

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 25, 2013 @ 10:04 pm - March 25, 2013

  6. Jeff (and how I love respectfully disagreeing with my fellow bloggers—and not for the purpose of being disagreeable, so I hope you don’t find me so), why, prey tell, should the government be involved in any of the relationships you mention whatsoever if not to overstep its bounds and intrude unnecessarily (and I say, unconstitutionally) into the lives of Frank, Mary, Jane, Alexandra, and Joe? (Not that it’s my business, btw, but you pose that Frank as a very busy guy!)

    (Not to give away the gist my alluded-to forthcoming post, but how about What if Frank were just a single dude?)

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 25, 2013 @ 10:11 pm - March 25, 2013

  7. To answer your question, you’re supposed to oppose DOMA because it’s unconstitutional. It’s not even a question of state rights, when there are direct federal benefits to applying for and receiving a state-issued marriage license. It discriminates against a group of people by stripping away their ability to have their marriage seen as legal in the eyes of federal law. If the forefathers wanted to codify heterosexual marriage as the only marriage for legal privileges, than they would have done so had it been important enough. To illustrate, Utah, of all states, abolished the practice of polygamy in 1890.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 25, 2013 @ 10:24 pm - March 25, 2013

  8. Nick: Fair question. It gets into a public policy question, namely: Should government be doing anything to encourage these little 2-person mutual-welfare societies?

    People can disagree on it. Some say no. I say yes.

    First, these little, committed 2-person mutual-welfare societies – Oh heck, let’s just call them “marriages” – are what a lot of people are going to do anyway, and stuff like jealousy and conflict can be mitigated somewhat, if they are formalized by law and the larger society. (Some people in the jungle will still want to be married, but it is easier to be married in civilization, and with a lot of other people doing it, and being encouraged to do it.)

    Second, it’s a great way for people to live… great for the 2 people, and for society. For example, if one of the partners is unemployed, or sick, or having an emergency, there does not have to be a government program (cough) to help them; the partner is expected to be, and often will be, the person’s first line of defense and help. The widespread, government-sponsored practice of marriage aids the causes of both social stability and personal freedom at the same time, helping to avoid what would otherwise be a societal need to house people communally in Obamadorms.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 10:24 pm - March 25, 2013

  9. (which, by the way, is why some cultural leftists hate marriage; the Utopia that they envision would have us all in Obamadorms)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 10:28 pm - March 25, 2013

  10. Jeff, where your argument falls apart is that the gay marriage debate has nothing to do with optimal social arrangements and their benefit to society; the whole debate is about forcing the state to recognize relationships because the people in those relationships demand that they be recognized. (“What business does the state have refusing to recognize our love?” they whine.)

    That being the case, polygamists have the same right to demand that the state kowtow to their demands as well.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 10:33 pm - March 25, 2013

  11. Jeff fair enough (a perfect example of why I prefer to disagree with conservatives rather than Leftists being that we can respectfully agree with each other):

    Fundamentally, we simply disagree from a root source: I don’t believe government should be doing anything to encourage nor discourage our personal behavior other than stealing/killing/etc.

    Would that I advocated for such an interventionist role of the government in our lives, I’d be full-throatedly in favor of gay marriage. As it is, I’m only in half-throated support such that when it comes up, my only response in favor is simply that if we’re to improperly intervene as a State, we should do so equally (in support of which, I support Viking’s hypothetical argument).

    However, fundamentally, we must disagree from the outset: You approve of an outsized governmental role in influencing our personal relationships (a position I find abhorrent) which naturally leads to the fair and perfectly arguable argument in favor of gay marriage, whereas I believe that the privileges and immunities are being stretched well beyond any meaningful limits so as to make our individuation from that of the Leviathan of the Federal Government itself meaningless were we to abdicate such a personal thing as our own private and intimate relationships to the whims of the (democratic, mind you!) State.

    Whew…maybe I should just write a whole post on that after all!

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 25, 2013 @ 10:42 pm - March 25, 2013

  12. V – Sadly, yes.

    The Gay Left’s version of gay marriage is to fight for the cultural trophy and the 1,034 benefits, without bothering to understand or honor the considerations that I’ve laid out. Dan has posted on that deficiency, a bunch.

    And yes, in a free society, polygamists have the “right to demand” X, Y and Z.

    But that doesn’t mean we have to give it to them. And, it doesn’t mean that I don’t know *my* reasons (the conservative-ish reasons) for favoring gay marriage, whilst still limiting the number of people to 2, or telling the polygamists to go to hell.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 10:42 pm - March 25, 2013

  13. That just seems arbitrary to me, Jeff. We’re just going to redefine marriage to benefit one group of people and not another? Just because one group stamped their feet louder than another group?

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 10:46 pm - March 25, 2013

  14. Nick: Write that post… you may convince me one day, with a theoretical argument, that the State should not be in the business of licensing marriage or any other relationships.

    In the meantime, though, stuff like reducing government spending or repealing Obamacare is more important to me than getting government out of marriage licensing. I’ve never known a time when government wasn’t involved in marriage licensing. But I *have* known a time when government didn’t have the power to compel people into commercial relationships. If we just got rid of government’s new (under Obama) power to compel people into commercial relationships, I’d be thrilled.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 10:46 pm - March 25, 2013

  15. We’re just going to redefine marriage to benefit one group of people and not another? Just because one group stamped their feet louder than another group?

    No. Rather, we are going to leave marriage as a 2-person institution, because a 2-person institution is the only thing it can be – if it is still to embody equality among the participants. It’s not people stamping their feet, it’s logic.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 10:47 pm - March 25, 2013

  16. Well, imagine the mess if women’s right to vote or slavery were kept to the 10th Amendment — then we’d have some states where women vote, some not. Some with slavery, some without. Maybe some states with child labor, some without. Some with Asian exclusion laws, some without. Look, I like the 10th, but you know, certain issues are just too fundamental to not have a federal imprimatur — or we may as well dissolve the union back to maybe at most the articles of confederation — for defense only and nothing else, for the ultimate in 10th Amend.

    Meanwhile, under the 10th approach, a gay couple in Massachusetts who would move to Texas would be essentially “demarried” – not even divorced, no legal nothing — just poof! — and then they are still married in MA — for no divorce is done — and they are unmarried in TX — almost like Schrodinger’s Cat, yes?

    Unless we are now to accede to some idea that gay folks should stay in some states, but not move to others, affecting negatively our well founded right to move to other states.

    As for the full faith and credit clause — indeed, every state recognizes the marriages of every other, which is why when hetero couples move from MA to TX they don’t have to get remarried, they stay married — even if their marriage is now under TX law, and not MA law. Hetero’s MA license is just as good in TX as a TX one is. Why should we be any different? Merely to assuage the troubles of those who still can’t deal?

    As for driver’s licenses — even that is good from state to state — except if you do move they ask you get a local one – but married couples don’t go get a local marriage license — their original state one is good enough. So an MA couple with MA married licenses drives to TX — and they’re DL’s are good — but their marriage is non-existent. I would think the state of marriage a bit more important than driving.

    I also note that our opponents have no such 10th Amend. qualms, but wish a one size fit’s all approach of blanket prohibition — up to and including a bill of attainder like disappearance of current marriages.

    The current cases ,though are not going to end the debate, nor will gay marriage pop up like spring mushrooms in every state — it’s still going to take a state by state battle — and we’ll win anyway — for we don’t really use politics in a traditional way, but appeal to families first.

    We really are just a little bit too different for standard 10th Amendment concerns.

    Comment by Jim Hlavac — March 25, 2013 @ 10:51 pm - March 25, 2013

  17. JH: Interesting point, but recall that racial exclusions would still be forbidden under the 14th.

    V: Here’s a question you might answer. Why is it “easier” (in the sense of more logical, more principled, etc.) to tell the polygamists to go to hell and preserve 2-person marriage… if the 2 people are restricted to gender-opposite? Said another way: What makes the logical argument for keeping 2-person marriage (and there must be one, right? I’ve tried to sketch one) collapse, the second that same-gender couples are allowed in?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 11:05 pm - March 25, 2013

  18. Simple, once you redefine marriage to accommodate the desires of one group of people – under the theory that the failure of the state to officially recognize their desires constitutes unequal treatment under the law – how can you tell any other group of consenting adults that the state is free to discriminate against them, and the fulfillment of their desires.

    How is your two-person marriage in any way diminished by someone else who wants to have four wives?

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 11:25 pm - March 25, 2013

  19. Well, imagine the mess if women’s right to vote or slavery were kept to the 10th Amendment — then we’d have some states where women vote, some not. Some with slavery, some without.

    The right of women to vote was codified by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the requisite two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by the required number of state legislatures (at that time, 36).

    The abolishment of slavery was codified by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the requisite two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by the required number of state legislatures (at that time, 27).

    This “mess” was resolved by amending the Constitution, following the required process and in full accordance with the law.

    So your demand for imposing it by judicial fiat falls completely flat.

    And then we have Cinesnatch’s usual incoherent ranting.

    It discriminates against a group of people by stripping away their ability to have their marriage seen as legal in the eyes of federal law.

    Followed by:

    To illustrate, Utah, of all states, abolished the practice of polygamy in 1890.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 25, 2013 @ 10:24 pm – March 25, 2013

    Unfortunately for that argument, Utah was compelled by the Federal government to ban polygamy or be denied statehood; furthermore, during the same period, the Federal government passed numerous laws, such as the Edmunds and Edmunds-Tucker Act, strictly defining marriage, stating that marriages that did not meet the Federal requirement were illegal, and providing for imprisonment of individuals who contracted marriages that did not meet the Federal requirement.

    All of these laws were ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

    So Cinesnatch according to your argument, the Federal ban on polygamy is illegal, and the Federal government should have been forced to accept Utah’s polygamy law.

    Now, either be consistent, or acknowledge that your logic fails.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2013 @ 11:37 pm - March 25, 2013

  20. How is your two-person marriage in any way diminished by someone else who wants to have four wives?

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2013 @ 11:25 pm – March 25, 2013

    Nicely done, V.

    The argument of the gay marriage supporters is that anyone’s marriage to anyone else does not affect yours and has no societal impact whatsoever.

    Which means that there really is no societal reason to bar ANY type of marriage to anything as long as you claim to “love” it.

    And meanwhile, I would simply post this:

    Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)

    The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2013 @ 11:41 pm - March 25, 2013

  21. once you redefine marriage to accommodate the desires of one group of people – under the theory that the failure of the state to officially recognize their desires constitutes unequal treatment under the law – how can you tell any other group of consenting adults that the state is free to discriminate against them

    That seems like an argument that there *isn’t* a logical basis for 2-person marriage. “Two-person marriage is tradition; once you violate tradition for one set of people, you can’t say no to the next set of people demanding to violate tradition.” Those are my words not yours, but I offer them as the gist of your argument, and I have to say, I’m not on board with it, because I see logical (not only traditional) reasons for two-person marriage.

    How is your two-person marriage in any way diminished by someone else who wants to have four wives?

    As I said, it violates the equality of the partners. It might be OK, if you wanted a culture where marriages are little societies of inequality (someone being the center of others’ attention, who are *not* the center of his attention). I don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 11:48 pm - March 25, 2013

  22. V: Here’s a question you might answer. Why is it “easier” (in the sense of more logical, more principled, etc.) to tell the polygamists to go to hell and preserve 2-person marriage… if the 2 people are restricted to gender-opposite? Said another way: What makes the logical argument for keeping 2-person marriage (and there must be one, right? I’ve tried to sketch one) collapse, the second that same-gender couples are allowed in?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 11:05 pm – March 25, 2013

    The basic issue is, at its core, whether or not the government has power to regulate what it recognizes as marriage.

    Loving v. Virginia points out that the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution — Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth – explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, which was the basis of miscegenation laws. This is why, just a few years later, the Court dismissed for lack of a substantial Federal question Baker v. Nelson; there is no amendment stating that the Federal government cannot discriminate on the basis of gender in marriage, and there are numerous reasons why it would wish to do so.

    The issue is, ILC, this notion that government should be required to recognize marriage on the basis of “love” and that any restriction on this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads as follows:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The current reading is that marriage is outside the realm of the Equal Protection Clause and is subject to the determination of the Federal and state governments unless explicitly contradicted by another Amendment, as happened in Loving.

    The interpretation that the Obama Party and the gay-sex liberal movement want is stated by Cinesnatch:

    It’s not even a question of state rights, when there are direct federal benefits to applying for and receiving a state-issued marriage license. It discriminates against a group of people by stripping away their ability to have their marriage seen as legal in the eyes of federal law.

    Thus, by this reading, marriage to whatever sexually attracts you is an automatic right that has to be guaranteed to everyone, and if you deny marriage to anyone under any circumstance, you are in violation of the law.

    This is where polygamy comes into play. Since this makes of marriage an absolute Constitutional right that cannot be denied, laws against polygamy, child marriage, incest, and any other types of restrictions “discriminates against a group of people by stripping away their ability to have their marriage seen as legal in the eyes of federal law” and harms them by denying them benefits.

    The easier and far more defensible answer is to assert that there is no automatic right to marriage, that the definition of what constitutes marriage is the prerogative of the Federal and state governments, and that it is perfectly in the power of the government and in compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment to include some groups and exclude others. That then neatly turns back to the Congress and the various state legislatures the powers encompassed by the Tenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and empowers them to decide what relationships will and won’t receive sanction by typical due process, without the Damoclean sword of court orders hanging over them.

    Which is why the bigot gays don’t want it. They know they won’t and can’t win by legislation, so they want the Supreme Court to trump everyone else and create an imaginary right, just like it did for Roe.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 25, 2013 @ 11:58 pm - March 25, 2013

  23. As I said, it violates the equality of the partners. It might be OK, if you wanted a culture where marriages are little societies of inequality (someone being the center of others’ attention, who are *not* the center of his attention). I don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2013 @ 11:48 pm – March 25, 2013

    But you see, ILC, that’s none of your business.

    The argument for gay marriage is that, if someone wants to marry someone else for whatever reason, yours is not the right to object because their change in status doesn’t affect you.

    Therefore, your argument against polygamy is similarly nulled; you may not want to enter into an arrangement that you see as a violation of equality, but you have no right to prevent others from doing it because, as your precedent has established, other peoples’ relationships and marriage arrangements have no effect on your own.

    As I just said, the main issue is that making of marriage a fundamental right makes it nearly impossible to deny anyone. The reason the gay-sex liberals are pushing this is because they want their trophy now, consequences be damned, and they truly haven’t thought through the consequences — which also makes them useful cats-paws for the ACLU, who is pushing plural marriage, the left, which hates marriage and wants it destroyed, and the antireligious bigots, who want the Supreme Court to assert a precedent to allow them to suppress religious liberty completely and initiate official discrimination against churches and public expression of religious beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 26, 2013 @ 12:03 am - March 26, 2013

  24. The argument for gay marriage is that, if someone wants to marry someone else for whatever reason, yours is not the right to object because their change in status doesn’t affect you.

    Not *my* argument. The Gay Left’s argument for gay marriage, is not mine. See previous comments.

    the main issue is that making of marriage a fundamental right makes it nearly impossible to deny anyone

    Agreed – which is precisely why *I do not* treat a State marriage license as a fundamental right; only as a public policy issue.

    that’s none of your business

    We’re talking about public policy here. So it’s the business of the voters (including me). Also, to the extent that polygamy catches on in a society, it may increase other kinds of social stress. Competition among straight males for wives, is tougher. I haven’t proven, but I do wonder, if that has anything to do with the backward condition of Middle Eastern societies. Long story short, I’m convinced that arguments in favor of 2 person marriage (or against polygamy) remain valid logically, and that it is right to argue for them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2013 @ 12:10 am - March 26, 2013

  25. The basic issue is, at its core, whether or not the government has power to regulate what it recognizes as marriage.

    I think it does.

    The current reading is that marriage is outside the realm of the Equal Protection Clause and is subject to the determination of the Federal and state governments unless explicitly contradicted by another Amendment, as happened in Loving.

    I’m fine with that reading. As I’ve said before: State licensing schemes exist precisely to create discrimination – saying that some are recognized to do this, and others aren’t. A State LICENSE to a State-recognized marriage, as such, is not a fundamental right. It’s a public policy question. I think that restricting it to 2 unrelated (and otherwise unmarried) adults, is good policy. I think that keeping same-sex couples out of it, is not good policy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2013 @ 12:15 am - March 26, 2013

  26. As for driver’s licenses — even that is good from state to state — except if you do move they ask you get a local one – but married couples don’t go get a local marriage license — their original state one is good enough. So an MA couple with MA married licenses drives to TX — and they’re DL’s are good — but their marriage is non-existent.

    Driver licenses [at least the non-commercial variety] are generally held reciprcocal primarily for matters of convenience, even though violations are generally governed by the Driver License Compact (save for the non-member states of GA, WI, MA, MI & TN).

    I would suspect that the reason there is no broad-based statutory honor agreement dates to the time when it was difficult to determine if a non-resident license was valid or not without the type of investigation which would occur upon application for a resident license. Now, with every-LEO access to the NCIC database instantaneously, it can easily be determined if someone holds a valid driver license or not.

    I would think the state of marriage a bit more important than driving.

    Perhaps to you—and the racous cacophony of “marriage equality” advocates—but if I’m driving, particularly in a state not of my residence or familiarity, I want to be reasonably assured that fellow drivers on the highways and byways along with me have attained some sort of bar of knowledge of traffic rules and safety. I could not care less what their marital status is or if they have some sort of legal validation to prove it.

    Comment by RSG — March 26, 2013 @ 3:32 am - March 26, 2013

  27. I think that restricting it to 2 unrelated (and otherwise unmarried) adults, is good policy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2013 @ 12:15 am – March 26, 2013

    So then you’d be okay with New York & Tennessee allowing Eleanor Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt to become Mr & Mrs Roosevelt, and yet with, say, Kansas or Iowa not allowing them to do so, as per your conditions?

    Comment by RSG — March 26, 2013 @ 3:41 am - March 26, 2013

  28. RSG and NDT…. well-made points all. It’s unfortunate that Jeff is a bigoted h8r who wants polyamorous people to be miserable and discriminated against because the state won’t recognize their special kind of love. [;-)]

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2013 @ 5:54 am - March 26, 2013

  29. [For the slow of mind {Vince, rusty, et c} my previous comment was not a slam on ILC, but snark directed at the foolish way social policy is made in this country. Which is not by rationally debating the pros and cons but by smearing one side of the debate as bigots, h8rs, and racists.]

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2013 @ 6:11 am - March 26, 2013

  30. Jeff,

    Re: Partners, how does it diminish the (consentual) partners.

    To use my happy Hermitage for example, the girls are (respectively) bi and lesbian. If I consentually entered a relationship with my bisexual roomate, with the knowlege and consent of the lesbian one, how are any of us diminished or mistreated? WOuld not our union be as worthy of recognition as their union?

    And I do know a couple poly families that hum along nicely. Hells, they’ve outlived my two marriages.

    (Aside, I finally got through to the girls about how I can support Ohio’s right to pass a DOMa and yet support their partnership.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 26, 2013 @ 7:47 am - March 26, 2013

  31. Maybe Jeff just h8s polyamorous and bisexual teenagers and wants them to commit suicide

    /sarc

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2013 @ 8:25 am - March 26, 2013

  32. “I know for a fact that as it relates to gay marriage and other social issues there is growing divergence of opinion on this. When we talk about it, we ought to talk about it with a different tone — and we ought to talk about it recognizing that there is more than one point of view, and we should talk about it in a way that is not judgmental. If we can get to that point where people who have diverging points of view and express them in a civil way, the conservative coalition can stay intact.” – Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

    Comment by rusty — March 26, 2013 @ 9:12 am - March 26, 2013

  33. Sorry, rusty; everyone here knows you never practice anything of the sort.

    If your attempt is to prove that conservatives have higher standards, you’re absolutely correct; you and your Obama Party really are nothing more than gutter trash, as we see from your Dan Savage and your Michaelangelo Signorile who want people dead and tell them to kill themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 26, 2013 @ 10:31 am - March 26, 2013

  34. The fact that the federal government has laws and policies based on legal marriage (i.e. the federal tax codes), then it is very much a federal issue.

    Also, what state in the union (at least in the modern age) ever denied recognizing a marriage license from another state? It’s interesting that conservatives want to hold the 2nd amendment as something that’s written in stone, but the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is something to be ignored and only used by “activist” judges.

    By the way, I listened to today’s statements at the Supreme Court. Cooper sounded like an idiot every time he was asked a question about denying legal marriage for same sex couples. Funniest of all was the damage it would do to traditional marriage – he first that said “that was in the future”, when asked what would happen in the future, he said no. When asked about what damage has occurred in states that currently allow same sex marriage, he said that was just an experiment whose full effects aren’t yet known. Overall, he sounded as if his attitude was “yeah, you’re right, I got nothing here for you.

    Comment by Kevin — March 26, 2013 @ 10:53 pm - March 26, 2013

  35. Also, what state in the union (at least in the modern age) ever denied recognizing a marriage license from another state? It’s interesting that conservatives want to hold the 2nd amendment as something that’s written in stone, but the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is something to be ignored and only used by “activist” judges.

    Read the history of Utah, in which numerous Federal laws and court decisions not only defined marriage for the rest of the country, but punished Utah for daring to define it differently.

    By the way, I listened to today’s statements at the Supreme Court. Cooper sounded like an idiot every time he was asked a question about denying legal marriage for same sex couples.

    And when you decide you want to marry a ten-year-old, you’re going to whine and cry that anyone who argues against that sounds like an idiot too.

    No one thinks you’re an objective observer. You’re just a desperate bigot who is driven by a need to take revenge on religious beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 5:33 pm - March 27, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.