Join Ricochet or renew and get 1 yearof National Review/Digital as a bonus!
Whatever you may think about marriage--of any variety--you'll definitely get a more intelligent discussion of it on Ricochet than at the 2012 College Convention in Concord.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Yes, the Constitution does say something about it. ...
So the states can decide if they would like to enact a law. Conversely, the Ninth Amendment leaves the question wide open about the "rights not enumerated" in the Constitution. · Jan 6 at 9:07am
That's not a definition of marriage. Nor can the Constition give states powers that don't legitimately belong to government in the first place. States couldn't decide by voting on it, for instance, that there are not two sexes. Or that a person shall be deemed a person at one year of age.
Since until recently, the definition of marriage has not been in dispute, there was no need to address it at the level of the Constitition. Now that activists are calling it into question and trying to render it subject to positive law, I think a Constitutional amendment is called for.
Marriage serves two public goods. First, it encourages the creation of stable family environments in which to raise children. Second, it encourages stable, monogamous, mutually-reliant relationships between two adults.* Though this second benefit complements the first, it also works independently among couples who don't have minor children.
Third, it unites the two halves (male and female) of the human whole into a communion of mutual respect and mutual support, wherein the excellences of both are cherished and can thrive.
Fourth, it unites generations, cultivating respect and care for the elderly.
SSM does neither of those.
Tommy, you can't get a Constitutional Amendment without first convincing huge majorities to agree with you. An Amendment doesn't come by Presidential fiat. It comes through democratic process.
Tommy, you can't get a Constitutional Amendment without first convincing huge majorities to agree with you. An Amendment doesn't come by Presidential fiat. It comes through democratic process. · Jan 6 at 10:29am
Edited on Jan 06 at 10:30 am
Do you expect me to tear up my copy of Federalst Paper #10, as you have yours?
Tommy De Seno
Do you expect me to tear up my copy of Federalst Paper #10, as you have yours? · Jan 6 at 10:33am
Edited on Jan 06 at 10:34 am
Give me an argument, not hyperbole.
Were advocates of the 14th Amendment cowardly?
SSM does neither of those.
It surely does not unite the two sexes, that cannot be argued. In this way, it is defective from the perspective of the ideal. But there are many marriages in practice that fall very far short of the ideal. Catholic teaching on the subject respects approximations of the ideal--for example, an infertile couple is also defective from the perspective of the ideal. Catholic teaching does not hold the same for a SSM situation, but I do not see why the state cannot adopt a secularized version of this argument.
I'm not sure why it can't unite generations--surely the couple can take care of their parents as they age, and if they adopt, they can certainly take care of the adopted child. A same-sex household is not superior, in my estimation, to the best situation: a loving mother and loving father who love one another and live with the means to raise their children in peace and abundance. But it is very much superior to the facelessness, poverty, and social-problem ridden state-run foster care agencies.
Give me an argument, not hyperbole.
Your wish is my command (which appears to be a restatement of the underpinnings of your arguments against others marrying). After I do, I hope you will respond to my comment #60.
The same man who drafted the religion clauses to the First Amendment drafted Federalist Paper #10. In it he argues that the Federal society of Americans will be so large and therefore have so many factions that none would be able to impose their religious views on the rest, even when they hold a majority.
The Constitution was intended to act as a shield not just against government, Katievs, but also against you, who wishes to turn the document from shield to sword, from a protector of freedom to a tyranny of majority.Rick Santorum would have done well in an Athenian Democracy. His insistence upon having his way is antithetical to Constitutional Republicanism.
katievs, one point about your assumption re: definitions, another point about how we appear as hypocrites, and one last one about how shallowly we defend marriage.
Since until recently, the definition of marriage has not been in dispute, there was no need to address it at the level of the Constitition. Now that activists are calling it into question and trying to render it subject to positive law, I think a Constitutional amendment is called for. · Jan 6 at 10:21am
Question for @Claire: Do the editors decide when postings start to flag that it's time to gin up another gay marriage debate? This thread will have 100+ comments by dinnertime.
Dude, you know your Magisterium (so to speak). Kudos. Too many Catholics read the Church's teachings and see them only as Law, but miss the forgiving Gospel within.
"Straight or gay" is the only part of the definition of civil marriage that's really in dispute any more. Like it or not, civil marriage has degraded to little more than friends with benefits.
This does not comport with my experience. I think folks still view marriage as a large step, and among the group that can be most self-selecting about marriage (upper middle class folks and above with at least a 4 year college education and a decent-paying job), marriage still has a great deal of integrity and social value. It also has social capital: couples of this group who are married and have kids tend to associate much more closely with one another. A divorce among this group is still something of a scandal in the local community.
That is not the case universally, but I think it is an exaggeration to say it has deteriorated to nothing more than friends with benefits.
And actually, I think most supporters gay supporters of gay marriage think that the institution still has integrity too: it is one of the reasons they cite, when asked, for wanting to be joined by it.
"Dude, you know your Magisterium (so to speak). Kudos."
I blame the Jesuits. They educated me. :)
Common law tradition for marriage was Coverture. A wife became a husband's chattel, and she lost the right to even enter contracts on her own.
I presume none on Ricochet lament the American break with English Common Law in that regard.
The best way to tell if a person is really a Conservative (or Liberal, or other label) is by the fidelity one shows to his philosophy, particularly when the result of following it leads him to an uncomfortable place.
There are other relevant common law issues regarding marriage other than coverture, and the implications you talk about were not necessarily in force in the historical American past, Massachusetts law in the Puritan period did not take this view.
Also, one is not a hypocrite for recognizing that the replacement of the common law tradition, with progressive legal theories may not be the best path to make a case for consistency in unfolding a libertarian philosophy of limited government.
Yes! And to illustrate that point with action, I would like to see one state legislature re-define a discovery of a pregnancy as a birth. That way, the embryo-child is constitutionally protected by the 14th amendment. And when the Left raises h*ll over it, our side will just point out that their side re-defined marriage.
Only if you're eager to surrender.
There are other relevant common law issues regarding marriage other than coverture, and the implications you talk about were not necessarily in force in the historical American past...
Let's try this two ways - one we accept that you are right, and one where we accept you are wrong.
If you are right you make my point, don't you? We did not take all of English Common Law, so your slavishness to it is baseless.
If you are wrong (which you are) you make my point even stronger. Until the middle of the 19th century, Coverture was so widely part of American marriage that states began passing Women's Property Acts to repeal it. We Americans rejected the English common law. Again, why do you enslave yourself to it?
To say that gays must strictly adhere to English Common Law, while straight folks must not, makes for quite a good case that you have an equal protection problem as well.
...Federalist Paper #10... that none would be able to impose their religious views on the rest, even when they hold a majority.
Edited on Jan 06 at 10:52 am
But he had no problem allowing state churches operating in the various states, these were not struck down by courts, but died a natural death in their respective states.
This is my problem with the libertarian arguments, they are often ahistorical, and/or they ignore how those with their hands on the constitution actually governed, the guys that created it and defended it in The Federalist often went in a very different direction when it suited them politically. We live in a world of real people, not perfectly consistent political or economic philosophies, so the Federalist papers are very nice, but they aren't the whole story.
There were also the local legal and cultural traditions that you would not like, and yet the founders did not see a need to crush them under the federal constitution in order to protect individual liberty, blue laws, state censorship, voting regulations based on property, anti-blasphemy laws, etc.; so why should you have the right to do so later, you are infringing.
But he had no problem allowing state churches operating in the various states...
Yes he did. He tried for laws banning them but did not get them passed.
Madison it seems would agree with my contention that Fascism spooned out by a Governor or Majority Vote is no more flavorful than when fed by a President or dictator.
Ah, the ol' S of J...my dad went to BC so I know it well.
However, my mom insisted on the Benedictines for us, and Lord knows I needed work and prayer!
Crow's Nest: "Dude, you know your Magisterium (so to speak). Kudos."
I blame the Jesuits. They educated me. :) · Jan 6 at 11:04am
Become a Member for $3.67 a month.
You must be a Member to subscribe to this podcast. Please Join or Sign In.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In