Calling Richard Epstein and John Yoo, or, if the Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage, How Should We Respond?

 

shutterstock_103670531Constitutional scholar Robert P. George, writing in First Things:

Dred Scott v. Sandford was the infamous case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, usurping the constitutional authority of the people acting through their elected representatives in Congress, purported to deny the power of the United States to prohibit slavery in the federal territories. It is very much worth recalling that Dred Scott was not just a case about slavery. It was a case about the scope and limits of judicial power. It was a case in which judges, lacking any warrant in the text, structure, logic, or historical understanding of the Constitution, attempted to impose their own favored resolution of a morally charged debate about public policy on the entire nation.

The Supreme Court did it again in 1905 in the case of Lochner v. New York (invalidating a worker protection statute enacted by the state legislature), and then several more times in the Warren Court era, culminating in Roe v. Wade—the Dred Scott decision of our own time. Now we face the prospect of yet another Dred Scott-type decision—this time on the question of marriage. I say that, not because same-sex relationships are the moral equivalent of slavery—they are not—but because five justices seem to be signaling that they will once again legislate from the bench by imposing, without constitutional warrant, their own beliefs about the nature and proper definition of marriage on the entire country.

If that happens, the Republican Party, the Republican Congress, and a future Republican President should regard and treat the decision just as the Republican Party, the Republican Congress, and the Republican President—Abraham Lincoln—regarded and treated the Dred Scott decision. They should, in other words, treat it as an anti-constitutional and illegitimate ruling in which the judiciary has attempted to usurp the authority of the people and their elected representatives.

An unconstitutional and illegitimate ruling.

That sounds about right to me. Richard Epstein? John Yoo? How does it sound to you?

Published in Law, Marriage
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 92 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    • #61
  2. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole.  How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    • #62
  3. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Jeffery Shepherd:

    So when polygamy becomes permitted and a man takes four wives, what do the other three men do?

    This?

    They look like a very happy throuple.

    They do look happy. So do these. And an honest gay marriage advocate has to admit that limiting a marriage to two is far more arbitrary than requiring at least one man and one woman. Really there’s no limit to the preposterous mockery of marriage that can be imagined. But one thing at a time.

    Those were the same guys JoJo. And this honest gay marriage advocate doesn’t have to admit anything. I don’t know what yardstick you use to measure relative arbitrariness, but I’ve never seen such an instrument. I happen to think two, in our social, cultural and legal context, is going to be very hard to break out of, whereas I think opening up marriage to same sex couples has been quite simple, and quite painless for all except what Mencken called the “puritans” — those haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

    This reasoning is so very odd to me.

    Polygamy has a much longer history and has been accepted in more cultures than gay marriage, which the day before yesterday (the early 90’s) was not even supported by a majority of homosexuals.

    It is like saying that the most distinguishing characteristic of a car is that it has four wheels and not 3 or 6 or any other number. The distinguishing characteristic of a car is that it is designed to move people from point A to point B.

    The main argument that the anti-SSM crowd is using nowadays is that the purpose of marriage is about state and religiously sanctioned procreation and child rearing. For that purpose, polygamy is much more suited than SSM.

    • #63
  4. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    If there is anything that “conservatives” should agree on, it is that major changes to important social institutions should not be adopted based on short-term trends in public opinion.  OK, there is something that “conservatives” should agree on even more: that major changes to important social institutions should not be imposed by unelected judges who feel empowered by short-term trends in public opinion.

    This is one of the major reason for the system of checks and balances in both the federal Constitution, and the constitutions of the states.

    Let’s all try to remember that, just 7 years ago in 2008:

    1. The Presidential candidates of both parties opposed SSM;
    2. It was hard to find any major political figure who supported SSM;
    3. The voters of California — California, for crying out loud — passed a referendum banning SSM, which had been imposed on the state by judicial decision;
    4. SSM was the law in only one state, Massachussetts, joined by Connecticut in October 2008.  In both instances, it was imposed by judicial decision.

    There has been short-term public support for all sorts of ideas, some good, many bad.  Eugenics once seemed to be the wave of the future.  There was widespread public support for banning the teaching of Darwin’s theory.  The government prosecuted socialists during WWI and interned thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII.  In the 60s, there was talk of imposing a national minimum income by judicial fiat under the due process clause, and political talk of the same concept via the “negative income tax.”

    It is a totalitarian, leftist tactic to enshrine policy preferences in constitutional law whenever they achieve a temporary majority on the Supreme Court.  Frankly, I find it appalling that the leftists have 4 Supreme Court votes in the bag on this one, as I think that the Constitutional argument is absurdly weak from an originalist perspective, which ought to be the typical (if not exclusive) “conservative” method of constitutional interpretation.

    • #64
  5. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew  red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue.  Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue.  That’s denial of freedom of thought.  Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    • #65
  6. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.

    But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think?  I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything.  In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it.  I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.

    • #66
  7. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.

    But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think? I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything. In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it. I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.

    You’re not a good judge in this case.

    • #67
  8. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.

    But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think? I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything. In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it. I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/22/new-mexico-court-christian-photographer-cannot-refuse-gay-marriage-ceremony-next-stop-u-s-supreme-court/

    Why don’t you ask Elane Huguenin for her thoughts on the subject?

    • #68
  9. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Umbra Fractus:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.

    But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think? I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything. In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it. I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/22/new-mexico-court-christian-photographer-cannot-refuse-gay-marriage-ceremony-next-stop-u-s-supreme-court/

    Why don’t you ask Elane Huguenin for her thoughts on the subject?

    Gee thanks.  There’s a new one.  I would never have heard of her if you hadn’t brought her up.  Unless they have legally redefined the word “photograph” to mean “think,” however, I don’t see your point.

    • #69
  10. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.

    But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think? I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything. In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it. I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.

    You’re not a good judge in this case.

    Neither are you.

    • #70
  11. user_2505 Contributor
    user_2505
    @GaryMcVey

    Cato, you’re up against the endless persecution complex of the anti-SSM crowd, and their utter conviction that it’s back to the catacombs because they lost this one.

    SoCons, carry on. Think what you like, say what you like. Just don’t kid yourselves about the reality: you’re sitting alone in a stadium hours after the game was played. The moon is rising and the sweepers are coming in to clean the place for the next game. Time to head home.

    • #71
  12. Fredösphere Inactive
    Fredösphere
    @Fredosphere

    Johnny Dubya:

    : Among the countries on the leading edge to adopt gay marriage are the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway. Johnny, can you describe a scenario that is even remotely plausible where any of those countries still have gay marriage 25 years from now?

    You mean after the Islamic Revolution?

    , was that your point? If so, then I’m not sure what the Islamization of Europe (another inevitability, in my mind) has to do with the question of whether the Republican party should damage its future prospects, perhaps irreparably, by opposing SSM.

    Yes. More broadly, I had two points. First, sometimes the ratchet turns backwards after all. Second, isn’t it a bit suggestive that so many countries accept SSM at the same moment they stop investing in the future via making babies? Decadence will often manifest in multiple ways, and decay is is own kind of change, leading to other changes, mostly undesirable.

    • #72
  13. user_2505 Contributor
    user_2505
    @GaryMcVey

    Fredosphere, do the math. There were as many gays in the world before SSM as now. They have an infinitesmal effect on the birth rate, and in any case, as SoCons point out tirelessly, they didn’t reporduce in the old days and don’t reproduce now, so how does SSM have anything whatever to do with a dropping birth rate?

    • #73
  14. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Johnny Dubya:

    Similarly, “gay marriage” is inevitable. Anyone who believes otherwise is kidding himself. To oppose it is to ensure that, once SSM is the law of the land, the Republican party will be bashed forever and always for having maintained a “reactionary” stance toward it.

    Heck, the party of Jim Crow still bashes the party of Lincoln with charges of racism! What do you think will happen if we oppose SSM? Like it or not, it is the Civil Rights movement of our day. If the Republican party chooses to be on the wrong side of history, the damage may never be undone.

    Hasn’t that ship already sailed?  Republicans will already go down in history as the party that fought tooth-and-nail against SSM, and the history books will tell of another glorious victory over the evil forces of conservatism.  No doubt there will one day be a reboot of Inherit the Wind with the subject of the trial changed from evolution to SSM.

    Besides as you say the GOP is routinely accused of racism, sexism, and xenophobia regardless of the facts.  I’m confident we’ll still be routinely branded homophobic 20 years from now no matter what position we take on SSM.

    • #74
  15. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Bob W:The court will not be able to mandate nationwide SSM while at the same time enunciating a “limiting principle” which would prevent its decision from also requiring recognition of polygamy, three way gay marriage, polyamory, gay marriage between siblings etc.

    Just wait until these guys move to the U.S. and hire a good lawyer.

    gay-threeway-ap-640x480

    • #75
  16. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Mike Rapkoch:I’m not Yoo or Epstein, but it does occur to me that one way for the states to respond is to quit issuing marriage licences completely. What is the court going to do then? The argument for equal rights then evaporates because the states would be treating everyone the same.

    There are a host of problems with this, the most serious being that this opens the door to nationalizing marriage. That would be a very bad thing. Still, the states could get around the decision this way. They would also be thumbing their noses at the Court, and sending the signal that Court law making is unacceptable.

    I’m not in favor of the government getting out of marriage. I still believe we need some acknowledgment of marriage as ontologically prior to government. But the states should not be licensing marriage as that suggests the state is the source of marriage. Finding ways to tell the court to go stuff itself could not only save marriage’ it would limit the Courts power to enforce it’s idiocy in other areas as well.

    Wouldn’t marriage be nationalized by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of homosexual marriage a la abortion?

    • #76
  17. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Robert McReynolds:

    Mike Rapkoch:I’m not Yoo or Epstein, but it does occur to me that one way for the states to respond is to quit issuing marriage licences completely. What is the court going to do then? The argument for equal rights then evaporates because the states would be treating everyone the same.

    There are a host of problems with this, the most serious being that this opens the door to nationalizing marriage. That would be a very bad thing. Still, the states could get around the decision this way. They would also be thumbing their noses at the Court, and sending the signal that Court law making is unacceptable.

    I’m not in favor of the government getting out of marriage. I still believe we need some acknowledgment of marriage as ontologically prior to government. But the states should not be licensing marriage as that suggests the state is the source of marriage. Finding ways to tell the court to go stuff itself could not only save marriage’ it would limit the Courts power to enforce it’s idiocy in other areas as well.

    Wouldn’t marriage be nationalized by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of homosexual marriage a la abortion?

    It would simply have the effect of requiring that all states allow SSM.  It’s actually just a less complicated issue than abortion — with its trimesters and the various medical issues that are still subject to state regulation etc.  It’s almost certain that this will be relatively clean, and not interfere with state marriage law beyond mandating that it extend to same sex couples.

    • #77
  18. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Any attempt by the states to reclaim their rightful role in our system of government must first be prefaced by their reclaiming the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government.  The governors who would take the path of Prof. George better be prepared to construct state militias that are under their sole authority, and they must be willing to fight as one instead of separate entities.  The Federal government led by a Leftist culture in DC will not relent when it comes to their social agenda being denied.  On a very serious level, these governors will have to have armies willing to kill other Americans.

    • #78
  19. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:

    Mike Rapkoch:I’m not Yoo or Epstein, but it does occur to me that one way for the states to respond is to quit issuing marriage licences completely. What is the court going to do then? The argument for equal rights then evaporates because the states would be treating everyone the same.

    There are a host of problems with this, the most serious being that this opens the door to nationalizing marriage. That would be a very bad thing. Still, the states could get around the decision this way. They would also be thumbing their noses at the Court, and sending the signal that Court law making is unacceptable.

    I’m not in favor of the government getting out of marriage. I still believe we need some acknowledgment of marriage as ontologically prior to government. But the states should not be licensing marriage as that suggests the state is the source of marriage. Finding ways to tell the court to go stuff itself could not only save marriage’ it would limit the Courts power to enforce it’s idiocy in other areas as well.

    Wouldn’t marriage be nationalized by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of homosexual marriage a la abortion?

    It would simply have the effect of requiring that all states allow SSM. It’s actually just a less complicated issue than abortion — with its trimesters and the various medical issues that are still subject to state regulation etc. It’s almost certain that this will be relatively clean, and not interfere with state marriage law beyond mandating that it extend to same sex couples.

    Right I see your point, but would this not negate the states’ ability to define who does and does not get to have a state issued marriage license and thus, nationalize it?  In other words would a pro-homosexual marriage ruling necessitate the eventual issuing of federal marriage licenses?

    • #79
  20. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Gary McVey:Fredosphere, do the math. There were as many gays in the world before SSM as now. They have an infinitesmal effect on the birth rate, and in any case, as SoCons point out tirelessly, they didn’t reporduce in the old days and don’t reproduce now, so how does SSM have anything whatever to do with a dropping birth rate?

    Gary hold on to your socks and pull:  I totally agree with this.  European countries that have legalized homosexual marriage had dismal birth rates prior to SSM.  Italy is a great example of this with their Total Fertility Rate somewhere in around 1.1 child per couple.  Mark Steyn has pointed out that in Italy there are more grandparents now than there are grandchildren.  Japan is another such country with similar demographic woes.  SSM has absolutely nothing to do with falling birthrates.

    • #80
  21. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Robert McReynolds:

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:

    Mike Rapkoch:I’m not Yoo or Epstein, but it does occur to me that one way for the states to respond is to quit issuing marriage licences completely. What is the court going to do then? The argument for equal rights then evaporates because the states would be treating everyone the same.

    There are a host of problems with this, the most serious being that this opens the door to nationalizing marriage. That would be a very bad thing. Still, the states could get around the decision this way. They would also be thumbing their noses at the Court, and sending the signal that Court law making is unacceptable.

    I’m not in favor of the government getting out of marriage. I still believe we need some acknowledgment of marriage as ontologically prior to government. But the states should not be licensing marriage as that suggests the state is the source of marriage. Finding ways to tell the court to go stuff itself could not only save marriage’ it would limit the Courts power to enforce it’s idiocy in other areas as well.

    Wouldn’t marriage be nationalized by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of homosexual marriage a la abortion?

    It would simply have the effect of requiring that all states allow SSM. It’s actually just a less complicated issue than abortion — with its trimesters and the various medical issues that are still subject to state regulation etc. It’s almost certain that this will be relatively clean, and not interfere with state marriage law beyond mandating that it extend to same sex couples.

    Right I see your point, but would this not negate the states’ ability to define who does and does not get to have a state issued marriage license and thus, nationalize it? In other words would a pro-homosexual marriage ruling necessitate the eventual issuing of federal marriage licenses?

    No.  Almost certainly not.  The expected ruling will simply require that states issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on the same basis they issue them to opposite sex couples.  I mean, nothing is impossible at some point, but there’s no reason for a federal license, and no likelihood of one, in the foreseeable future.

    • #81
  22. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Robert McReynolds:Any attempt by the states to reclaim their rightful role in our system of government must first be prefaced by their reclaiming the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government. The governors who would take the path of Prof. George better be prepared to construct state militias that are under their sole authority, and they must be willing to fight as one instead of separate entities. The Federal government led by a Leftist culture in DC will not relent when it comes to their social agenda being denied. On a very serious level, these governors will have to have armies willing to kill other Americans.

    Um, ok.  There’s a pleasant thought to go to sleep on.  Isn’t repealing the 17th amendment both more likely and less drastic than — let’s face it — civil war?

    • #82
  23. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:

    Mike Rapkoch:I’m not Yoo or Epstein, but it does occur to me that one way for the states to respond is to quit issuing marriage licences completely. What is the court going to do then? The argument for equal rights then evaporates because the states would be treating everyone the same.

    There are a host of problems with this, the most serious being that this opens the door to nationalizing marriage. That would be a very bad thing. Still, the states could get around the decision this way. They would also be thumbing their noses at the Court, and sending the signal that Court law making is unacceptable.

    I’m not in favor of the government getting out of marriage. I still believe we need some acknowledgment of marriage as ontologically prior to government. But the states should not be licensing marriage as that suggests the state is the source of marriage. Finding ways to tell the court to go stuff itself could not only save marriage’ it would limit the Courts power to enforce it’s idiocy in other areas as well.

    Wouldn’t marriage be nationalized by virtue of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of homosexual marriage a la abortion?

    It would simply have the effect of requiring that all states allow SSM. It’s actually just a less complicated issue than abortion — with its trimesters and the various medical issues that are still subject to state regulation etc. It’s almost certain that this will be relatively clean, and not interfere with state marriage law beyond mandating that it extend to same sex couples.

    Right I see your point, but would this not negate the states’ ability to define who does and does not get to have a state issued marriage license and thus, nationalize it? In other words would a pro-homosexual marriage ruling necessitate the eventual issuing of federal marriage licenses?

    No. Almost certainly not. The expected ruling will simply require that states issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on the same basis they issue them to opposite sex couples. I mean, nothing is impossible at some point, but there’s no reason for a federal license, and no likelihood of one, in the foreseeable future.

    That sounds reasonable enough.  Thanks for the explanation.

    • #83
  24. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:Any attempt by the states to reclaim their rightful role in our system of government must first be prefaced by their reclaiming the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government. The governors who would take the path of Prof. George better be prepared to construct state militias that are under their sole authority, and they must be willing to fight as one instead of separate entities. The Federal government led by a Leftist culture in DC will not relent when it comes to their social agenda being denied. On a very serious level, these governors will have to have armies willing to kill other Americans.

    Um, ok. There’s a pleasant thought to go to sleep on. Isn’t repealing the 17th amendment both more likely and less drastic than — let’s face it — civil war?

    I hate to put it in such drastic terms but we are talking reality here.  The reality is this: marriage, in terms of government involvement, has traditionally been a state issue.  As per the 9th and 10th amendments, this would be perfectly fine in our system of government.  If Prof. George’s desire to see a SCOTUS ruling ignored by the states is to become reality, these states will have to be able to fend off an eventual use of military force by the DC establishment to impose the ruling.  Therefore, they will need to raise their own state armies.  There are three things I see as GOING to happen in this scenario painted by PRob:  1)  SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of homosexual marriage  2)  DC WILL impose this ruling on resisting states 3) that means military style deployments by federal forces into state municipalities.  All I am saying is that if states are going to take this to its logical conclusion under these circumstances, they better be prepared to defend themselves.

    • #84
  25. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Robert McReynolds:

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:Any attempt by the states to reclaim their rightful role in our system of government must first be prefaced by their reclaiming the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government. The governors who would take the path of Prof. George better be prepared to construct state militias that are under their sole authority, and they must be willing to fight as one instead of separate entities. The Federal government led by a Leftist culture in DC will not relent when it comes to their social agenda being denied. On a very serious level, these governors will have to have armies willing to kill other Americans.

    Um, ok. There’s a pleasant thought to go to sleep on. Isn’t repealing the 17th amendment both more likely and less drastic than — let’s face it — civil war?

    I hate to put it in such drastic terms but we are talking reality here. The reality is this: marriage, in terms of government involvement, has traditionally been a state issue. As per the 9th and 10th amendments, this would be perfectly fine in our system of government. If Prof. George’s desire to see a SCOTUS ruling ignored by the states is to become reality, these states will have to be able to fend off an eventual use of military force by the DC establishment to impose the ruling. Therefore, they will need to raise their own state armies. There are three things I see as GOING to happen in this scenario painted by PRob: 1) SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of homosexual marriage 2) DC WILL impose this ruling on resisting states 3) that means military style deployments by federal forces into state municipalities. All I am saying is that if states are going to take this to its logical conclusion under these circumstances, they better be prepared to defend themselves.

    Fair enough if you’re playing out a thought experiment.  I personally don’t expect it to come to that.

    • #85
  26. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @RobertMcReynolds

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:

    Cato Rand:

    Robert McReynolds:Any attempt by the states to reclaim their rightful role in our system of government must first be prefaced by their reclaiming the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government. The governors who would take the path of Prof. George better be prepared to construct state militias that are under their sole authority, and they must be willing to fight as one instead of separate entities. The Federal government led by a Leftist culture in DC will not relent when it comes to their social agenda being denied. On a very serious level, these governors will have to have armies willing to kill other Americans.

    Um, ok. There’s a pleasant thought to go to sleep on. Isn’t repealing the 17th amendment both more likely and less drastic than — let’s face it — civil war?

    I hate to put it in such drastic terms but we are talking reality here. The reality is this: marriage, in terms of government involvement, has traditionally been a state issue. As per the 9th and 10th amendments, this would be perfectly fine in our system of government. If Prof. George’s desire to see a SCOTUS ruling ignored by the states is to become reality, these states will have to be able to fend off an eventual use of military force by the DC establishment to impose the ruling. Therefore, they will need to raise their own state armies. There are three things I see as GOING to happen in this scenario painted by PRob: 1) SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of homosexual marriage 2) DC WILL impose this ruling on resisting states 3) that means military style deployments by federal forces into state municipalities. All I am saying is that if states are going to take this to its logical conclusion under these circumstances, they better be prepared to defend themselves.

    Fair enough if you’re playing out a thought experiment. I personally don’t expect it to come to that.

    I’ll do you one better:  I HOPE it doesn’t come to that.  Americans are funny people.  They are the nicest people on the planet until they feel painted into a corner.  I fear at some point enough Americans are going to feel that way and start fighting one way or another.

    • #86
  27. Fredösphere Inactive
    Fredösphere
    @Fredosphere

    Gary McVey:Fredosphere, do the math. There were as many gays in the world before SSM as now. They have an infinitesmal effect on the birth rate, and in any case, as SoCons point out tirelessly, they didn’t reporduce in the old days and don’t reproduce now, so how does SSM have anything whatever to do with a dropping birth rate?

    It stems from attitudes which decouple sex and child rearing. A society which looses interest in children will simultaneously change its attitude about gay relationships–and to be fair, they’re being logically consistent by doing so–and will, perversely, lose its ability to make the resulting cultural change an enduring one.

    • #87
  28. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Robert McReynolds:

    Gary McVey:Fredosphere, do the math. There were as many gays in the world before SSM as now. They have an infinitesmal effect on the birth rate, and in any case, as SoCons point out tirelessly, they didn’t reporduce in the old days and don’t reproduce now, so how does SSM have anything whatever to do with a dropping birth rate?

    Gary hold on to your socks and pull: I totally agree with this. European countries that have legalized homosexual marriage had dismal birth rates prior to SSM. Italy is a great example of this with their Total Fertility Rate somewhere in around 1.1 child per couple. Mark Steyn has pointed out that in Italy there are more grandparents now than there are grandchildren. Japan is another such country with similar demographic woes. SSM has absolutely nothing to do with falling birthrates.

    I disagree.  They are plainly connected, but one does not cause the other.  Rather, SSM and falling birthrates both result from the same underlying cause, which is the rise of the modern leftist/secular humanist/atheistic materialist/moral relativist world view.

    It is frustrating that we don’t even have a good, non-Orwellian name for this world view.  In the US, its gone from “Progressive” to “Liberal” and now back to “Progressive,” though this world view is generally antithetical to both progress and liberty.  Indeed, we didn’t even have a good word to describe the deceptiveness of this doctrine until Orwell, who was initially a devotee, recognized it and illustrated it so compellingly in 1984.

    • #88
  29. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Cato Rand:

    Umbra Fractus:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.

    But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think? I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything. In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it. I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/22/new-mexico-court-christian-photographer-cannot-refuse-gay-marriage-ceremony-next-stop-u-s-supreme-court/

    Why don’t you ask Elane Huguenin for her thoughts on the subject?

    Gee thanks. There’s a new one. I would never have heard of her if you hadn’t brought her up. Unless they have legally redefined the word “photograph” to mean “think,” however, I don’t see your point.

    Oh, sorry. You’re right. She’s allowed to think what she wants, she’s just not allowed to express that belief or act on it without losing her business. Totally different.

    • #89
  30. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Umbra Fractus:

    Cato Rand:

    Umbra Fractus:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:

    Cato Rand:

    Jojo:But this is a “hill to die on”, I think, because what is at stake is freedom of thought.

    That’s it, right there.

    I have real trouble understanding that claim as anything other than hyperventilating hyperbole. How, exactly, does allowing me to get married deny you freedom of thought?

    Try to imagine that red was legally declared to be the same color as blue, and everyone knew red was a different color but, legally, they were both blue and you had to call them both blue. Schoolchildren were reprimanded if their parents had taught them red was a different color than blue. That’s denial of freedom of thought. Being forced to live every day as if something you know is a lie, is true.

    Well first, I just won’t have that problem, because what you insist is a lie, I think is the truth.

    But putting that aside, when exactly did Big Brother drag you into Room 101 and start forcing you to think things you don’t think? I just don’t buy the claim that anybody’s being forced to think anything. In fact it’s more than I don’t buy it. I know full well it’s — to use my charitable term — hyperbole — to be more frank — BS.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/08/22/new-mexico-court-christian-photographer-cannot-refuse-gay-marriage-ceremony-next-stop-u-s-supreme-court/

    Why don’t you ask Elane Huguenin for her thoughts on the subject?

    Gee thanks. There’s a new one. I would never have heard of her if you hadn’t brought her up. Unless they have legally redefined the word “photograph” to mean “think,” however, I don’t see your point.

    Oh, sorry. You’re right. She’s allowed to think what she wants, she’s just not allowed to express that belief or act on it without losing her business. Totally different.

    Look, I’m not defending what happened to her, but I’m sick of the hyperbole.  She wasn’t prohibited from expressing her belief either.  She was required to provide the service she’s in the business to provide without discrimination.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.