Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases are being argued by opponents on the basis of a supposed absolute right to marriage contained somewhere in the constitution of the US.
This is quite different from a challenge that could have been made on basis of the "normality" of such marriages.
If the argument that people have a right to marry whom they please without government interference is successful, it would seem inevitable that laws banning polygamy will be challenged.
What is the social benefit derived from laws against polygamy? As a libertarian constitutionalist I do not understand the laws against polygamy as being other than derived from Judeo-Christian tradition. pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?_r=0
Sir, if you'd asked me which way I swung when we both were in uniform, I'd have given you a truly memorable answer, prefaced w/the phrase, "With all due respect...".
Posted by: Ben | 28 March 2013 at 07:45 PM
You are wrong, I have not only heard of such cases, I even know of such cases. I don't think it is a matter of religion I think it is a matter of gender. I would never imply women do not sexually abuse, but I would say men are abusers much more often, regardless of religion.
Posted by: Nancy K | 28 March 2013 at 08:24 PM
...& that due to their prophet becoming an apostate...?
Most interesting practices...
Posted by: YT | 29 March 2013 at 12:05 AM
Ked is simply doing the liberal song and dance of inventing 'rights' out of whole cloth where there were none before.
I am coming to the conclusion that the only answer we have if we wish to save any vestige of what made us great is secession from the insanity of the coastal elites and the glittering Imperial Capital they have made for themselves.
Posted by: Tyler | 29 March 2013 at 12:42 AM
So what you're sayin is male sexuality has a tendency to run rampant? They're tried doing hetero hook up apps - the problem is the women won't sign up because there is a distinct difference between male and female sexuality.
So if the benefits of a two person household are so overwhelming, why doesn't the government incentivize it by doing something about the AMAZING rate of black illegitimacy instead of throwing more money at the problem? In fact, why don't we let people out of prison so we don't create the 'inequality' you're wringing your hands about over there.
The truth is that homosexuals are a tiny (1-3%) of the population, the ones that want to marry even less, and the ones that have kids even smaller. There is no right to marriage in the Constitution, and they can marry whoever they want as long as its someone of the opposite sex. They have a choice to be gay, and by that choice they can't marry another man. What they want is the sanctification of their choice, dressed up with a lot of cultural marxist/frankfurt school bullshit and double speak.
Posted by: Tyler | 29 March 2013 at 11:22 AM
I was talking more about how the media treats the Church versus Jews, not that it doesn't happen.
Posted by: Tyler | 29 March 2013 at 10:20 PM
Tyler, you've rattled on about the evils of male sexuality: bathhouses, Grindr, modern hookup culture, etc... I've heard that rant before, done better, often from lesbians. Lesbians are endlessly annoyed by testosterone.
Then you said that not many gays want to get married. I guess I'd agree about young gay guys. It's pretty clear you don't know many 30+ gay guys or any lesbians if you really claim that most of them don't want to get married or have kids.
Arguing in favor of gay marriage is "cultural marxism"? Me, I'd never call a service member or former service member, a "marxist", except to his face.
Posted by: Ben | 30 March 2013 at 12:59 AM
I endorse a review & reflection upon this essay from '85. in particular, I like the paraphrase of Madison,"...in a republic, where the greatest dangers to liberty arose not from government but from the people themselves..."
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/jamesmadison.pdf
My choice of phrase may have been weak. "enumerated rights as they reflect upon minorities rights" would be better put. In any case, it is all "political" (to me, in a good way), not perfect or immutable (if "inalienable & endowed by..."). I can appreciate that what is no longer alien can be of great consternation to some (even many), but it isn't (for me, anyway, no matter how one might imprint their bias upon my broad ideological influences) the end of the American Experiment.
& Happy Easter!
Posted by: ked | 30 March 2013 at 01:45 PM
ahhhh, yes... & there are many kinds of ducks & duck behaviors...
"Mallards have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds, in some cases, as high as 19% of all pairs in a population."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour
Posted by: ked | 30 March 2013 at 01:54 PM
The evils of hedonistic male sexuality, which is the issue here due to its tendency to self destruct. Female hypergamy and its growing acceptance among wider society is another issue entirely.
I don't care how many of them want to get married, to be honest, just like I'm not going to care when the polygamists or the pedophiles demand that we upturn millenia of tradition of what functional marriage is just to suit the perversion du jour.
Cultural marxists engage in relativism in order to break down the family, which is what this is in spades, and I call it as it is.
If you've got a problem with that, old man, let me know next time you're in Arizona, and I'll tell you to your face. If you've still got a problem with that, you're going to need more than a passive aggressive attitude to deal with what follows.
Posted by: Tyler | 30 March 2013 at 09:32 PM
Rape is also found in most animal species, as is child killing.
Do you really want to take this inane logic train to its destination? Unsurprisingly, comparing humans to animals is another Frankfurt School tactic.
Posted by: Tyler | 30 March 2013 at 09:33 PM
Point to me where there is a right to marriage. I'm waiting.
Posted by: Tyler | 30 March 2013 at 09:35 PM
Tyler, no, that is what you like to think I want. enjoy your imagination.
Posted by: ked | 01 April 2013 at 10:40 AM
you introduced the duck angle.
I don"t suggest human (or even primate) behavior is like other animals. but there are ranges of behavior, not all evil or even a free-will choice. To reference only the worst & conflate it w/ whatever one happens to find personally offensive is pretty weak... kinda like viewing existence through a prism of Marxist/Communism reaction.
I am not one for ideology (or reasoning from heart-felt conclusions, or theological comfort), but informed pragmatism in an imperfect, uncertain & dynamic world.
Posted by: ked | 01 April 2013 at 10:51 AM
"... and secure the Blessings of Liberty..." in the Preamble, though one might debate whether marriage (of any style) supports the connection or not... but that wholly political creation, the SC, gets to weigh that, dont they?
Posted by: ked | 01 April 2013 at 10:56 AM
Are you really being that obtuse in pretending to have never heard the old saw of "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.."?
Your moral relativism (as shown by pretending all behavior can be viewed through a prism) is shining through, no matter how much you claim that you're only 'after the truth', when you deny that the there is a higher per capita incidence of mental disease, STDs, and suicide among homosexuals. Bullshit you're after the truth - you're here to spread an agenda cloaked in a false aspect.
There are definitely intrinsically good acts, and intrinsically evil ones, much like there are acts that are intrinsically linked to Cultural Marxism, like your postings, for example.
Posted by: Tyler | 01 April 2013 at 01:55 PM
Still waiting for that "right to marriage", not an INCREDIBLY shady fast loose playing with words.
Your inane response is about what I expected, since the 14th Amendment is somehow being used to justify this current insanity.
Posted by: Tyler | 01 April 2013 at 01:57 PM
Okay so they're not throwing people in jail in the UK for 'racism', and Canada doesn't have a "Human Rights Commission" that hauls comedians in front of a tribunal for jokes about lesbians.
That is what you want. Enjoy the hell you're making for yourself.
Posted by: Tyler | 01 April 2013 at 01:58 PM
if only all Constitutional scholars were as schooled as you... well, well past time to Stop the Inanity.
Posted by: ked | 01 April 2013 at 04:21 PM
I'd rather be a relativist than have you determine truth, that's for certain.
Posted by: ked | 01 April 2013 at 04:23 PM
To a relativist/post-modernist, there is no 'truth', so the distinction would be moot.
Posted by: Tyler | 01 April 2013 at 06:35 PM
So basically there is no 'right to marriage'?
Posted by: Tyler | 01 April 2013 at 06:35 PM
Over 70% of people under 30 support gay marriage and think their gay friends ought to be able to marry and share the benefits marriage provides for child rearing, visiting each other in the hospital, inheriting from one another, etc.... I'm fine with you calling me and the 70% of America that actually knows a few gays, "cultural marxists". When the other side's got nothing except calling you 'nazi' or 'marxist', you know you're winning.
Posted by: Ben | 02 April 2013 at 12:17 AM
that's only Tyler's Truth.
Posted by: ked | 02 April 2013 at 10:08 AM
No, I've got the facts and morals on my side.
You've got a pretty weak ad populum/appeal to emotion fallacy that ignores the massive downsides to homosexuality due to the concerted efforts of the cultural marxists and their media enablers.
Like the Colonel said, you must have been a lot of fun in Reservist SF.
Posted by: Tyler | 03 April 2013 at 10:01 AM