Tag: Same Sex Marriage

Member Post

 

SoCons (and perhaps some Libertarians wary of huge social changes taking place very quickly at the federal–nay, civilizational–level): Have you ever been talking (perhaps on Facebook) about some potential negative effects of same-sex marriage and been accused of committing the slippery slope fallacy?  Then read on! The slippery slope argument form is not always fallacious. Preview Open

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.

Peter Robinson and the Constitutional Complexities of Gay Marriage

 

Peter Robinson’s post yesterday cites Robert George’s passionate attack on claims for the constitutionality of gay marriage, wherein George argues that this weighty issue should be decided analytically at the wholesale level. He looks at what he, and many others, think to be bad decisions by an activist Supreme Court and urges that Republicans, both in and out of government, should treat the decision “as an anti-constitutional and illegitimate ruling in which the judiciary has attempted to usurp the authority of the people and their elected representatives.”

This is a very radical claim and the effort to upset the doctrine of judicial supremacy, far from being confined to this decision, could easily be extended to any other ruling that is subject to extensive political disputation. Professor George seeks to make this argument by analogizing the situation with gay marriage to earlier cases. Here’s the relevant section that Peter quoted:

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.

Why Marriage in America Is Wrong

 

Marriage equality has become a sticking point for many Americans, primarily from the conservative side of the spectrum. As we get closer to the point where SCOTUS could arguably settle the dispute, I have been thinking about why we have ended up with the entire argument in the first place.

The basis of the marriage equity camp’s argument is the 14th Amendment, while those opposed tend to argue on the basis of the First Amendment (even though we haven’t really gotten to the point where lawsuits are being filed to force religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriage.) Ben Carson ended up in a minor situation with the Southern Poverty Law Center over the fact that he publicly stated that gay rights organizations should not be able to define marriage. Sadly, I can’t bring myself to agree with him, at least not in the context of state recognition of marriage.

Cake Wars!

 

shutterstock_236291065So… this is apparently happening:

Two legal rivals that duke out religious freedom cases are in unusual positions after a Denver bakery refused to make a cake decorated with the words “God hates gays” and an “X” over two men holding hands.

The case involves Azucar Bakery owner Marjorie Silva, who told KUSA-TV that making such a cake would be “just very discriminatory and hateful.” In response, Bill Jack, a Christian, complained he was the victim of religious discrimination. Colorado officials have since launched a formal investigation.

Member Post

 

I’m nervous about this.  Why?  Because while under the Federal Constitution, it seems clear that the regulation of marriage is the domain of the states (save for issues of out-of-state recognition via the Full Faith and Credit clause), there has been a slew of Federal court decisions over the last year or two invalidating state laws that […]

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.

Three (Preliminary) Cheers for the 6th Circuit!

 

As you may have heard, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This is in stark contrast to other state and federal courts rulings since U.S. v. Windsor that invalidated state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a heterosexual union.

I’m not qualified to offer a legal analysis of the ruling — for what (very) little it’s worth, it strikes me as very sensible on first skim — but politically this is excellent news for the entire country. I say that as someone who supports extending marriage to homosexual couples.

Member Post

 

I would like to move the debate into a new area, one where we compare the unintended consequences of each side. If we do this, we can consider which side’s unintended consequences are more harmful to the idea of “limited government.” Wouldn’t it be interesting to consider the debate in this new way? I think […]

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

 

OK guys, I think I finally understand the root of the difference between libertarians and socons on marriage (at least the libs and socons here on Rico). Tell me what you think. I’m going state what I perceive to be your position. I make an error, I know you will correct me in the comments. […]

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.

Fight Against Gay Marriage Running Out of Legal Avenues

 

shutterstock_159118949The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to leave undisturbed cases striking down gay marriage bans in five states should be no surprise, though it does put the lie to the Court’s gay marriage decisions two terms ago.

In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for himself and four liberal Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) spent most of its time praising federalism and admitting that marriage and family law remained under the control of the states. It then briefly — and without much explanation — found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act could only come from irrational hatred of gays. DOMA’s refusal to grant gay marriages the same federal benefits as heterosexual marriages, the Justices claimed, violated the principle that all laws must have some rational basis. Presumably the Court did not find all bans on gay marriage throughout the nation unconstitutional because of the unprecedented nature of the issue, which had not yet been fully discussed and ventilated in the lower courts.

The decision is no surprise because there is no split in the lower courts. Every federal appeals court to face the issue has found bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional under the same logic as Windsor, which itself did not strike down any state marriage laws. The Justices are unlikely to take the case until a circuit court upholds a state ban on gay marriage. Why should the Court do so when it can rely on the lower court judges to do its work?

Member Post

 

On Gil’s recent SSM thread, near the tail end of the comments, he said this: On this thread at least, it seems the most intense argument isn’t even about SSM. It’s about how you support children of blended or single-parent families without normalizing behavior that we don’t really want to be normalizing, for example dads walking away. Preview […]

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 don’t understand. Since they believe that SSM is good for the family structure, I can’t understand why they don’t want to trade childhoods with me. You see, it’s very easy for me to imagine my childhood under the SSM regime. I wasn’t raised in a same sex household, but SSM impacts the family structure […]

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

 

“The problem for Republicans is that they won on partial-birth abortion — it is now a federal crime — and haven’t found a similar issue where the public is on their side. “Compounding the problem is that many Republicans don’t understand that they need to find such an issue. They don’t grasp that not talking […]

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.

Memo to Judge Posner: Tradition Proves A Lot

 

shutterstock_162913184A couple weeks ago, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down statutes in Indiana and Wisconsin that limited marriage to one man and one woman. It’s pretty much “same stuff, different day,” and I’m not much interested in substance of the decision. The way things are going, national same-sex marriage is all but inevitable, though it’s troubling that the issue should be resolved in federal court. As I read the Constitution, this is an archetypal issue for the states, but that’s probably a losing cause (at least in the short term) now that unelected judges with a clear agenda have asserted their powers as Philosopher Kings.

However, the Court did a great deal more than just overturn the collective wisdom of the electorate in Indiana and Wisconsin. The Court basically eliminated “tradition” as a restraint on power and, by extension, engaged in a preemptive strike against those who think the past is a road map to the present and the future. I’d go so far as to say that the Court has initiated a war against humanity.

Liberals, and some libertarians, are gaga over the rough treatment the court gave to the Assistant Attorney General who argued for the restriction. Columnist Steve Chapman laughed it up in a column at Reason, but this really isn’t a laughing matter.

Member Post

 

“Same sex marriage fundamentally changes the relationship of the citizen to the state.” Douglas Farrow I think libertarians and other limited government proponents will find this argument by Douglas Farrow interesting. He wrote a book called Nation of Bastards that I highly recommend. It was very influential in changing my thinking on this issue. (Some […]

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.

In Defense of Two In Marriage

 

In many debates about same-sex marriage, traditionalists argue that marriage cannot be rationally defended as a relationship between two people once it is opened to same-sex couples. Those who favor state recognition of SSM — among whose number I count myself — generally blow off this objection, but provide little reason for their dismissal, let alone attempt a refutation.

I’d like to correct that omission and offer an argument for why civil marriage can and should remain restricted to couples, regardless of whether one favors or opposes SSM. I believe traditionalists are right to worry about legally-recognized polygamy and share their opposition to it. However, I believe that position can be more easily defended than is generally assumed. In short, I think this is an important battle that we can win.