Tag: Same Sex Marriage

Silver Lining to the Rainbow Victory?

 

Illinoisreview.typepad.comPointing out that the Supreme Court found the right to gay marriage in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, Bob Owens of Baring Arms seems to have found a silver lining in last Friday’s Obergefell decision. The Court wrote:

“The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs…Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”

There are currently 36 states with “shall issue” firearm license schemes; i.e., one where anyone who meets certain objective criteria must be issued a license. By using the same rationale as the Court used on Friday, those holding valid concealed carry permits must be granted the same protection in places like D.C., Maryland, New Jersey and New York. After all, while the Court had to strain to find its rationale to overthrow 6,000 years of human history, the Second Amendment is right out there for all to see.

Is Polygamy Next?

 

shutterstock_124665844-2John Roberts seems to think so. From his dissent in Obergefell:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

He continues:

Why We Lost; What We Lost

 

ConstitutionYesterday’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges represents the culmination of a perfectly executed public relations campaign.

In a purely pragmatic sense, it’s difficult not to be impressed by what this activist-driven effort accomplished—I mean in real terms, not the unserious victory slogans of the campaign itself.

In no particular order, it:

A Bishop Gets it Right

 

From the statement by Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The Court is indeed wrong again.

SCOTUS Mandates Same Sex Marriage Nationally (UPDATED)

 

shutterstock_141934102From the the syllabus in Obergefell v. Hodges:

The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

More:

The Mainstreaming of Gun Rights

 

Screen Shot 2015-06-19 at 1.33.08 PMYou’ll be forgiven for not appreciating the extent to which gun-rights advocates have enjoyed success comparable to that of same-sex marriage and marijuana decriminalization advocates over the past decade.

With each mass shooting — most recently the racist massacre in Charleston – progressives show a mix of arrogance and disdain: arrogance aboout their own virtue and disdainful of Americans’ exceptional attitude toward guns. But everyone involved knows that when the gun grabbers’ moment in the sun passes, it’s the gun nuts who eventually carry the day.

And they always do.

Member Post

 

In a perhaps futile effort to honor Claire’s semi-official request (she is, after all, part of the “Powers that Be”) to not have every thread turn into an SSM discussion (is it “a SSM” or “an SSM”, whatever you know what i mean), I’m starting the Semi-official Politically Incorrect Same Sex Marriage thread. This is […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

This is an excerpt from a post I wrote this morning for Covenant, the weblog of The Living Church, for which I am an associate editor. I offer some thoughts prompted by the Episcopal Church’s 78th General Convention, which will meet in Salt Lake City on June 25-July 3. Here’s a sentence I spent most of my […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

I must congratulate the Supreme Court for employing a good webmaster!  This website has a bundle of amicus briefs pertaining to the big upcoming big same-sex marriage decision.  I count 149 briefs!  A few highlights: On the pro-SSM side, we have briefs from: The American Psychological Association; the Organization of American Historians; the American Sociological Association; Indiana […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

And I have mixed feelings about it.  On the one hand, the incident occasioned congratulations from several friends and family members.  On the other hand, I have been insulted and I feel a slight urge to respond.  Here’s the insulting paragraph: Heritage recently publicized the claims of “100 scholars” attacking marriage equality. Almost without exception, the “scholars” […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

William Saletan Thinks About The Definition of Marriage…

 

shutterstock_124665844…for about five seconds. But you know, that’s something.

Over at Slate, Saletan kindly explains to us why Justice Alito and Charles Krauthammer (in an old column still making the rounds) are wrong to suppose that the arguments made in favor of same-sex marriage might also be used to justify polygamous marriage. What it boils down to is that there are basic, natural facts about human beings that make monogamy stable and salutary in a way that polygamy just isn’t. Basically, the problem is jealousy. When we give our lives to another person, we want that person to be equally devoted to us. If we invite threes and fours to the altar (or county clerk’s office, or whatever), that’s just not going to work out as happily for anyone.

Let me pause for a moment to bang my head against the wall a few times. Letting the ear-ringing die down now. OK, I’m back.

Member Post

 

OK, I have seen lots of things said in the comments on the “Podcast From Hell”. Let me say up front, I thought the podcast was mostly reasonable, except for the use of the word “Loathsome”. But, in all those posts, I did not see anything from the folks on the podcast itself saying what […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Jim, David, and the Supreme Court

 

I have this uncle, let’s call him Jim. He and David lived together for decades. They shared expenses, kept each other company, and generally looked out for each other. They were, in many ways, like an old married couple. But when David died, Jim had no right to receive spousal survivor benefits because he was never married to David. Why did they never marry? Because they were gay? No: because they were brothers.

Why shouldn’t Jim and David have married? They were consenting adults. They had a long-term committed relationship.  Granted, there was no physical union, but so what? The idea that a marriage must be consummated by a sexual act is surely a relic of a bygone era.

Member Post

 

So Albert Mohler has used the term “erotic liberty” to describe the ongoing campaign to allow sex without moral limits to trump everything, including religious liberty. Fred Clark at Patheos comments: “Mohler is describing a group of people as less than human . . . .”  The term “erotic liberty” is a “dishonest, reductionist, hateful phrase.”  He […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Why I Vote Republican

 

I am not arguing that all of you should vote Republican.  I am (1) giving an explanation of why I do, and (2) asking those who don’t why they don’t.

The Explanation: I could put it this way: on life, marriage, religious liberty, the meaning of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, the national debt, health insurance, and economic growth I do not trust the Republicans to be correct; but on these things I do trust the Democrats to be wrong. As such, I vote for the least bad option in the generals, and I vote for the best option in the primaries.

Friedersdorf’s Challenge to SSM Supporters

 

1931_Frankenstein_img28Conor Friedersdorf has a long piece challenging Same-Sex Marriage proponents to answer whether they think the uproar over Memories Pizza is justified:

The question I’d ask those who want to use non-state means to punish mom-and-pop businesses that decline to cater gay weddings is what, exactly, their notion of a fair punishment is.. If their Yelp rating goes down by a star does the punishment fit the “crime”? Is there a financial loss at which social pressure goes from appropriate to too much? How about putting them out of business? Digital mobs insulting them and their children? Email and phone threats from anonymous Internet users? If you think that any of those go too far have you spoken up against the people using those tactics?

He adds this zinger at the end:

GOP 2016: Drop Anti-SSM Plank or Drop Party Platform Entirely?

 

platformAt Hot Air yesterday, Noah Rothman asked: “Will opposition to gay marriage disappear from the GOP’s party platform?” Rothman claims that only “vicious partisans” on either side of the aisle care about platforms. I don’t know about vicious, but he’s right to say the whole platform process is outdated.

In national election years, the candidate at the top of the ticket becomes the embodiment of the party platform. Who cares about the student government-like exercise of delegates voting on an official statement of principles? Its sole purpose has become putting a social issues face on the punching bag for media coverage. The prelude to convention coverage becomes a series of divisive stories about how Republicans continue to be out of touch with young voters and emerging trends (as defined by MSM reporters). I do so hate it when they’re right.

Rothman cites polls indicating that voter sentiment on same-sex marriage is trending away from the traditional view, even among Republicans in states like New Hampshire and South Carolina. Younger voters with strong views about personal freedom are clearly leading the charge. So why not cancel the scheduled media event of a party platform debate on SSM? Isn’t the convention mostly just a kick-off event for the fall campaign anyway? Won’t social issues be pushed enough by the liberal press without Republicans themselves initiating the blood-letting?

Member Post

 

I’ve been thinking about all the effort that is involved in a lawsuit. There is much money, time and effort that goes into bringing someone to court. Probably if you are going to sue someone, you have to steel yourself for putting all of your spare time for the next year, or two or three, […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.