 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Why Can't Reporters Get the Surplus Number Right? | Main | Target: Al Jazeera » May 20, 2004Gay Marriage Will Make Christianity IllegalI have wanted to write about "gay marriage," but haven't been sure how to write what I wanted to say. Today, via Donald Sensing, I found someone else already said it. Lexington Green, one of the contributors to the excellent Chicago Boyz blog, has written a very strong statement against so-called "gay marriage," calling it an attack on Christianity. Here's the link to the whole thing, which includes a few bits of strong language guaranteed to offend my mother. You still ought to read it - Green is right on target. "Gay marriage" is being rammed down our throats via undemocratic means, and represents an attack on Christianity, on your right to teach certain moral values to your children, and on the very democratic foundation of our country. Here's an excerpt... ...by calling a homosexual union marriage, and making it a Constitutional right, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and soon many like-minded courts around the country, are more or less intentionally making Christianity illegal. Repeat: Christianity is being made illegal. The teaching that homosexuality is a sin is embedded in Christianity. It is in the Pauline letters. There is no getting around it. I have heard the counter-arguments, and they don't cut any ice. The Christian teaching against homosexuality is organic, it was part and parcel of the attack on the pagan society of the Roman Empire and it is fundamental to the Christian conception of marriage and sexuality. So, again, if gay marriage is a Constitutional right, then anyone preaching the moral teaching of Christianity is committing a hate crime or otherwise attacking the exercise of a Constitutional right. I object to this as a Christian, obviously.As do I. Green predicts public school teachers soon will be required to teach that the struggle for gay marriage is akin the the Civil Rights struggle in American history - meaning those who oppose gay marriage, i.e., conservative Christians - will be portrayed as being on the wrong side of the issue. Green predicts this may lead to a mass exodus from the public schools of the children of conservative Christians. I hope he's wrong about the first, but right about the second. My children will be taught that, as an American and as a Christian, they are to hate the sin but love the sinner and treat all people - Christian or not, gay or straight, moral or immoral, with love and grace. But they also will be taught the divine and unchanging truth - that homosexuality is a sin and that "gay marriage" runs counter to the will of God. And they'll be taught to object any time a government-funded teacher tries to teach them otherwise. It's worth noting that in Canada, it is already illegal to speak out publicly against homosexuality, meaning it is now a criminal act - a hate crime - in Canada to declare a Biblical truth. In effect, Christianity is now regulated in Canada, with only a government-approved version allowed. Posted in Social Issues
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
Seriously, that is weak. And abortion outlawed Christianity too. As did liquor licenses, removing commandments in Alabama or anything else a group of Christians might find offensive. Posted by: SayUncle at May 20, 2004 11:03 AMGluttony is a sin according to Christianity. This is quite clear in the Bible. McDonalds sells fattening food, in large sizes and advertises this fact. Thus, McDonalds is anti-Christian. Since the government allows McDonalds to operate and build new restaurants, Christianity is de facto illegal in communities where McDonalds have been allowed to locate. SayUncle, Mike Silverman: Unlike homosexual persons, abortion providers and McDonald's are not part of a protected class, or a possibly soon to be protected class. It is not illegal to say that abortion is murder or that eating too much food at McDonald's is committing the sin of gluttony. Neither of these criticisms are currently or look to be in the future considered as hate crimes. Not so for criticism of homosexual behaviour. The issue here is not legalization of the behaviour/act at hand, but rather the criminalization of criticism of it by means of hate crimes legislation. Posted by: Hal Duston at May 20, 2004 12:40 PMAbortion providers are protected by the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act. Fast food is protected (at least in TN) from frivolous lawsuits. And if you think that criticism of homosexual behavior is treated under the law as a hate crime, I'd like to see some evidence. To my knowledge, the KKK still criticizes based on race/sexual orientation/religion under first amendment protections. And if there is an effort to criminalize the criticism, then that is wrong. The claim that such an act will outlaw Christianity is asinine. Regulation of drugs, cruelty to animal laws, and murder laws haven't outlawed religions that may practice or encourage those acts. Posted by: SayUncle at May 20, 2004 01:06 PMIt's already happened in Canada, SayUncle. It is now "hate speech" to preach/protest homosexuality in public. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it. Here is the Link. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 20, 2004 01:13 PMI don't live in Canada. I'm worried about this country. Posted by: SayUncle at May 20, 2004 01:23 PMBill I don't even need to read the story... The premise of your lead in to it is so silly that I don't want to know what that other person said. Posted by: a. at May 20, 2004 01:35 PMWill it make all Christianity illegal, or just certain denominations? Will the UCC or MCC still be allowed? They're pretty down with the gays. What about Islam? Buddhism? Illegal too? If I'm a practicing Christian but I'm also gay, can I still be prosecuted for Christianity? What if I'm only bi-curious? Will it be a felony or just a misdemeanor charge? Sorry, this is so overwhelming. Do you have a copy of the legislation handy? Posted by: Chris Wage at May 20, 2004 02:40 PMThis just goes to show you how much extreme right wing ideologues hate the idea of a free and open American society. Anyone who thinks that gays being able to marry makes Christianity illegal should move somewhere eles... because people like that have more in common with the Taliban than with Thomas Jefferson... By the way - the Bible forbids Christians from charging interest to others. But I dont see any of you guys trying to get an amendment banning Visa... Posted by: a. at May 20, 2004 02:51 PMThis just goes to show you how much extreme right wing ideologues hate the idea of a free and open American society. Anyone who thinks that gays being able to marry makes Christianity illegal should move somewhere eles... because people like that have more in common with the Taliban than with Thomas Jefferson... For someone who implies that he favors "a free and open American society," the person who wrote the above comments seems rather intolerant of people who disagree with him. His nastiness in dismissing them is typical of many outspoken gay-marriage proponents, and may be a reason why many opponents prefer to keep their mouths shut. It's also good reason to be concerned about the imposition of legal rules that might reasonably lead to the criminalizing of some types of speech. The slippery slope runs from having five judges decide for all of America that gay marriage is legal, to having judges order a pro-gay marriage content be inserted into the public school curriculum (so as to not discriminate), and then to defining speech against gay marriage as "hate speech." It has happened elsewhere, and will happen here. Of course gay marriage doesn't make Christianity as a whole illegal, but it will lead to laws against speaking out against gay marriage - in effect criminalizing my expressing a portion of my Christian religious beliefs. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 20, 2004 04:19 PMAs a gay, atheistic American, I have to say that I agree with Bill on this one. Nobody's saying (I believe) that gays and Christians are mutually exclusive in America—that by allowing homosexuals to exist in peace dooms this country. Nobody's saying that it's the Christian duty to lynch gays or herd interior decorators onto trains. What Bill's saying is that he still demands his right to free practice of religion, including the tenets that say homosexuality is a sin. The Constitution prevents the government from infringing that freedom. But will making gay marriage legal make it illegal to continue speaking out against it? I don't think so. I mean, check out http://www.nomarriage.com for an example of a site along analogous lines that miraculously is not being shut down by the feds. Bill, I wholeheartedly support your right to teach your kids that homosexuality is a sin. I'd hope you and they would realize that I'm not a bad guy, even if I *am* going to hell. And I empathize with your dismay at seeing gay marriage made into de facto law, court by court. If I were in your shoes, I'd be furious that such a central part of what I saw as American life was being cheapened by opening up its membership to a whole new, weird class of people. I realize it looks like another wedge driven into the cracks running through our society. Look at it this way, though: Maybe this will help strengthen marriage. Maybe it will make people take "marriage" more seriously, if they see it as something that some people are willing to fight for. Yeah, it's a hollow consolation prize of an argument. But it might help. To see how the legalization (by judicial fiat, no less, not even via democracy) of gay marriage will lead to criminalization of Christianity, consider this: A Christian landlord in the gay-marriage future refuses to rent an apartment home to a "married" couple of lesbians on the grounds that their lifestyle is immoral and he can not be a party to enabling that immorality. The law doesn't criminalize his belief, or even his right to tell others of his belief. But it WILL force him to rent the apartment to the lesbian "married" couple because of anti-discrimination laws and the court recognition of the legality of gay "marriage." Thus, he will be forbidden legally to excersise his faith as he sees fit. Meanwhile, his children at the public school will be taught that it is "hate speech" to say homosexuality is a sin. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 20, 2004 04:28 PMDo you realize that "slippery slope" is, in fact, an actual logical fallacy? If you're going to employ them, you would be best served to not actually use the phrase "slippery slope". Just a suggestion. Posted by: Chris Wage at May 20, 2004 04:29 PMI just can't get worked up about this. Allowing gays to marry will NOT make Christianity illegal. A gay couple getting married in Massachusetts will not make it any harder for me to worship or believe what I want to believe. Gay marriage will not lead to the end of the world. My sister really put it well over at my blog when she wrote "Opening Pandora's Box." And since she's a better writer than I... I'll let her do the talking for me. Posted by: CJ at May 20, 2004 04:30 PMOne more thing - a big part of the article I linked to was an objection to the undemocratic way this is being forced on us, despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not favor it. Because of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, the action of 5 judges in Massachussets to legalize gay marriage (even though the people of Mass voted to ban gay marriage) will be forced on the people of Tennessee, Texas, California, and the rest of the nation. It is a horrible way to alter what has been civlization's basic understanding and definititon of marriage for thousands of years. And, for the record, I tend to agree with Hobbs on most issues. Gay marriage is just one of those issues that I can't get worked up about... Posted by: CJ at May 20, 2004 04:33 PMThe question is, though—is this the first time there'd be a conflict between US law and Christianity? Or between US law and the practice of any other religion? There's an ongoing battle to decide whether religious practice trumps public policy. LGF just covered the DoJ's decision to allow Muslim headscarves in public schools. Right now Islam has more sway than Christianity does in policymaking questions (because we're all terrified of offending someone with a suicide belt, as if this would somehow help). But where does precedent lead us? Precedent is what the "slippery slope" argument is all about. Once precedent is established, all hell can break loose. It's happened before. What Jewish laws are trumped currently by US public policy? What Muslim ones? What Buddhist ones? This can't be the first time a Christian tenet has conflicted with state or federal law. By the way, no one is proposing to take away any rights from gays. They have never had the right to declare their unions a marriage. They do have the same rights all American adults have - to marry one person of the opposite gender. An amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not deny gays rights or take away rights, it merely recognizes what has been the way it is for thousands of years. Alternately, I'd like to see the "state" get out of the marriage business entirely. But that's not likely. So, as the gay activists press for judges to legislate from the bench, I and others will avail ourselves of our democratic rights to try to elect candidates who will pass an amendment that defines marriage the way civilization has defined it for thousands of years - one man, one woman. The real irony is, if gays had merely asked for "civil union" legislation to allow them to form contracts akin to, but not called, marriage, I and many other folks of libertarian bent would have been willing to let them have it. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 20, 2004 04:38 PMBut Bill... isn't it possible that the way civilization has defined marriage for thousands of years... is wrong? Posted by: CJ at May 20, 2004 04:51 PMBecause of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, the action of 5 judges in Massachussets to legalize gay marriage (even though the people of Mass voted to ban gay marriage) will be forced on the people of Tennessee, Texas, California, and the rest of the nation. The Massachusetts court did its job and upheld its interpretation of the constitution. If the people want to ban gay marriage (and they may), I assure you, they will. So why is it such a big deal? It seems to me that what pervades your vehement opposition to even this interim period of legality is a fear that before they get a chance to ban it, they'll realize that civilization will not, in fact, collapse. They might realize that it doesn't really make one bit of difference, except that a class of people has one less form of discrimination under the law. Posted by: Chris Wage at May 20, 2004 04:52 PMa. Regarding the interest on loans comment, I am assuming you are referring to the following verses. Ex 22:25 "If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; Luke 6:34-35 "lend, expecting nothing in return" Much of the laws in Exodus are The Law for the Jewish people, and are part of the old covenant. "You will be my people, and I will be your God." I am not a Jew, and am therefore not covered under the old covenant. This is the same reason I don't keep a kosher kitchen or follow many of the other laws in Exodus. I am rather covered under the new covenant which is created by Jesus Christ the Son of God. As to Luke 6:34-35, that is indeed how I carry out my life. When something is borrowed from me I don't concern myself with when it will be returned. Posted by: Hal Duston at May 20, 2004 05:24 PMActually bill, i don't think anything is being forced on us, whoever that is. Quite the opposite, someone is being permitted to do something. What the majority wants is irrelevant. Constitutional provisions exist in part to protect the minority from majority oppression. To use the standard example, what if the majority wanted to kill all redheaded left handers? And denying them marriage does take away rights, such as the right to the estate of their loved one or their right to make medical decisions in the event that their loved is incapacitated, or their right to marry who they want in their pursuit of happiness. And we're in agreement on getting the state/fed out of marriage altogether. Legally, marriage should just be a contract between two consenting adults. Posted by: SayUncle at May 20, 2004 06:20 PMIf someone's religious faith prevented them from renting to Jews, would you feel it is an unacceptable imposition on their religion for the state to mandate equal housing rights? What about selling their house to blacks? What about interracial couples? What if someone's religion forbids them to sell food to someone who is living in sin with a person of the opposite gender? Man, that slope IS slippery. It sounds like in order to allow you full exercise of your religion, we'll need to impose it by force. Myself, my version of Christianity so far has weathered just fine with practicing gay and lesbian ministers. Maybe yours should give it a try. --Kynn, one of the "legal" Christians PS: I almost never agree with anything I read from Say Uncle, but his take on this has forced me to re-evaluate my opinion of him, and I have newfound respect for the man. Kynn, To all of your above hypotheticals, my answer is yes. Distasteful as those choices might be, Americans ought to have the freedom to make them. Just as, of course, atheists or lesbians or minorities should be free to refuse to rent their property to me, a white, hetero, Christian. I actually believe in private property rights, and that I should have the right to rent or not rent my property as I see fit, for whatever reason I chose, without having to justify it to you or to kowtow to the state, which ought not to be butting its nose into my business at all. I'm an extreme libertarian on this, and getting more so as I see court cases where religious people are forced to do things that run counter to their faith because "the state" decided it was for the best. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 20, 2004 10:56 PMTo finish that thought, I believe the first level of government in this country is NOT the local town council, or the county commision - it is the PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. I should be free to do with MY property that which I decide, without interference from the state, so long as I am not harming others. I should be allowed to refuse to rent to someone based on their sexual orientation (or, for that matter, their religion, non-religion, or preference for chunky over smooth peanut butter). The state should not be able to FORCE me into a contract with them. The state should only maintain a system of laws to ENFORCE any contract I and my renter choose to make. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 20, 2004 11:01 PMBill, you're right on this. We've already seen anti-discrimination laws used against landlords who object to renting to "shack-ups" for religious reasons; out in California, I believe, there's a Catholic charity which is being told the anti-discrimination laws apply & prevent it from limiting its hiring to believers. Moreover, the goals of the activists in the homosexual movement have never been limited to simple equality of treatment in the public arena; their contempt for those who don't accept homosexual conduct as "normal" is open, as are their efforts to SHUT THEM UP. The homosexual movement does not respect the right of others to disagree with them, and it does not seek "live and let live". To some extent, abortion is a case-study worth reviewing. When the Supreme Court declared abortion a Constitutional Right, the pro-abortion movement proclaimed the moral argument over. We've not been able to have a civil conversation on the issue since. The homosexual movement will use the same template here. Posted by: BradDad at May 21, 2004 10:29 AMBill: This may already have been mentioned, but aren't you a libertarian? What business does the government have in deciding who can and cannot get married? Regulating marriage in this way seems like oppressive nannyism by the state... Posted by: tgirsch at May 21, 2004 12:53 PMAnd "traditional marriage" was actually a transfer of property, specifically the girl ceases to be property of her father and becomes property of her new husband. This is the Biblical and historical tradition of marriage. Is this what we're trying to preserve? Posted by: tgirsch at May 21, 2004 12:56 PMBill: A Christian landlord in the gay-marriage future refuses to rent an apartment home to a "married" couple of lesbians on the grounds that their lifestyle is immoral and he can not be a party to enabling that immorality. The law doesn't criminalize his belief, or even his right to tell others of his belief. But it WILL force him to rent the apartment to the lesbian "married" couple because of anti-discrimination laws and the court recognition of the legality of gay "marriage." Isn't this already the case? Even though homosexuals are not explicitly a protected class, I'd bet your hypothetical lesbian couple could sue the landlord, right now, today, and win. Brian: LGF just covered the DoJ's decision to allow Muslim headscarves in public schools. Right now Islam has more sway than Christianity does in policymaking questions (because we're all terrified of offending someone with a suicide belt, as if this would somehow help). That's just asinine. Is Ramadan officially recognized as a holiday by our government? Didn't think so. What about Christmas? Oh, lookie there, it is! Do sessions of Congress open with a Muslim prayer? Nope. Christian prayer? Often yes. Is there a "Muslim Nation Amendment" proposed on a yearly basis? Nope. What about a "Christian Nation Amendment." Yep. For you to say that Islam has more sway than Christianity in American anything is to be so blind that you couldn't see reality with the help of a telescope. Bill: So, as the gay activists press for judges to legislate from the bench, I and others will avail ourselves of our democratic rights to try to elect candidates who will pass an amendment that defines marriage the way civilization has defined it for thousands of years - one man, one woman. At least say what you mean: It's not the way "civilization" has defined it, it's the way Christianity has defined it. Regardless of what you might think, the two terms are not synonymous. Uncle: What the majority wants is irrelevant. Constitutional provisions exist in part to protect the minority from majority oppression. Bravo. I couldn't have phrased it better myself. Further, it is the job of the judicial branch to enforce that Constitutional protection, and that's precisely what the Massachusetts court has done. It is not "legislating from the bench" (a bullshit term anyway -- when has a judiciary ever passed a law? All they can do is nullify existing ones). Bill: I actually believe in private property rights, and that I should have the right to rent or not rent my property as I see fit, for whatever reason I chose, without having to justify it to you or to kowtow to the state, which ought not to be butting its nose into my business at all. Except that, as the 1950's and 1960's taught us, that doesn't work. If you don't want to rent out your property to blacks/jews/atheists/whatever, then don't rent out your property. Once you elect to do business in the public sphere, you've willingly subjected yourself to the rules, which exist as much to protect you as to protect "them." I should be free to do with MY property that which I decide, without interference from the state, so long as I am not harming others. See, there's the rub, in the definition of the word "harming." By "harming," you presumably mean physically harming, as in punching in the face. But it can be argued (and, in fact, has been argued) that by refusing to rent to those people, you ARE harming them. You are preventing them from finding a place to live, particularly if everyone else with property is also refusing to rent to them for the same reasons. The only way you should be discriminating is based upon whether or not they can pay the rent. Their money is all the same color, isn't it? Posted by: tgirsch at May 21, 2004 01:17 PMBill: The idea that legalizing gay marriage will make it a "hate crime" to criticize gay marriage is silly. Yes, that has happened in Canada. No, it won't happen here. Why? Because our First Amendment has teeth, while theirs is riddled with politically correct exceptions. Chris: Now that we've been slipping down this very slope for 40 years, I think it's more than fair to make a slippery slope argument in this context. Slippery slope is only objectionable when it is presented as though it were a logical proof. That's where the fallacy lies: the assumption that a little X today necessarily will lead to more X tomorrow. There is nothing fallacious, or even wrong, about arguing that a little X today is likely to lead to more X tomorrow, particularly if we're leaving it up to judges to decide these things. Your own objection is a prime example of the lesser-known, but equally fallacious, "fallacy fallacy," which basically says "your argument is not a logical proof, therefore, your conclusion is wrong." Bill and Chris: the "full faith and credit" argument is largely bogus. There is a well-established public policy exception to the FF&C clause, so while an argument could be made that gay marriage states must recognize each other's marriages, it's very doubtful that a court would ever have ever ordered a no-gay-marriage state to recognize a gay marriage on that basis, even if the Defense of Marriage Act had never been passed. [As to the über-silly argument that DOMA itself violates the FF&C clause, be sure to read both sentences of Art. IV, Sec. 1.] Tom: You may not like the phrase "legislating from the bench," but that's precisely what occurred here. The Massachusetts Legislature never voted to enact gay marriages; a bare majority of the SJC did. This is neither the first nor the last instance in which a court has passed a law on its own, but it is one of the most brazen examples in recent centuries. A more brazen, less recent example being the entire friggin' common law of England. Also, aside from being based on a false dichotomy, your statement that judges don't make law is factually incorrect. In this instance, Massachusetts law (as enacted by the Legislature) clearly provided for straight but not gay marriage. A bare majority of the "judges" on the SJC didn't like that, so they expanded the law to cover gay marriages as well. Had they simply struck down the law, as they theoretically could have done, the result would not have been to legalize gay marriage, but to abolish marriage altogether as a legal institution. Nor is this the only example of a court curing an alleged constitutional defect by expanding the scope of a challenged law rather than by restricting it. Another example is a 1970s (?) case that abolished the spousal exception to New York's rape statute. More recently, the Ninth Circuit extended California's "assault" weapons ban to include off duty cops, who were previously exempt. Posted by: Xrlq at May 21, 2004 02:35 PMXrlq: You may not like the phrase "legislating from the bench," but that's precisely what occurred here. The Massachusetts Legislature never voted to enact gay marriages; a bare majority of the SJC did. The Massachussets court ruled that the part of the marriage law that excludes gays was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the part of the law that says these two people can, but those two people cannot was discriminatory, and this is well within both their power and their reason for existence. That is not akin to passing a new law, but merely striking down a clause of an existing law, no matter how you try to spin it. Precisely where in this ruling did the court overstep its bounds?
You continue: Had they simply struck down the law, as they theoretically could have done, the result would not have been to legalize gay marriage, but to abolish marriage altogether as a legal institution. That was one of three options available to them, yes. But I think you'll agree that it was the least desirable option. Another option would be to strike down the offending portion of the law and leave it at that. Option #3, the one taken by the court, was to allow the legislature six months to rewrite the marriage law to conform with the ruling. That seems like a reasonable option. I suppose that you'll argue that "Option 4: Rule in favor of state-sponsored discrimination" was also available to them, but I would argue (and I imagine most liberals and [l/L]ibertarians, at least, would agree) that this would be the wrong ruling. Nor is this the only example of a court curing an alleged constitutional defect by expanding the scope of a challenged law rather than by restricting it. Another example is a 1970s (?) case that abolished the spousal exception to New York's rape statute. More recently, the Ninth Circuit extended California's "assault" weapons ban to include off duty cops, who were previously exempt. You have an odd defintion of "expanding scope." In none of these cases was text added to legislation. Instead, special exemptions that were written into the law were struck down. Does this make the law farther-reaching than before? Sometimes, yes. But nothing was added to the law; things were deleted from the laws in all of these cases. It just so happens that in the cases you've got your panties in a bunch about, the things that were deleted were unconstitutional exemptions and restrictions. Perhaps you'd be happier if we amended the constitution such that only entire laws, and not parts of laws, could be stricken down. But I think you'd find the consequences of that to be far worse than what we have currently. Posted by: tgirsch at May 21, 2004 03:09 PMXrlq: Sorry, forgot to link this evidence: This backs up my claim that the court didn't just declare "Huzzah! Gay marriage is now legal!" as you seem to be arguing. Posted by: tgirsch at May 21, 2004 03:17 PM Where did they overstep their boundaries, you ask? Simple: when they babbled about "constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law" rather than the actual text of the constitution they were pretending to apply, and attached a meaning to it that its authors clearly did not intend. As to striking laws down vs. expanding them, you missed my point. I didn't bring up those examples to suggest it is *wrong* for courts to make new law, merely to rebut your silly claim that courts never do it. The question of whether to add vs. take away law generally depends on what the court thinks the legislature would have done if it had known of the constitutional defect in question. Would the NY Legislature have preferred to legalize rape, or prohibit husbands from raping their wives? Obviously, the latter. Marriage in Massachusetts? Same deal. If warned in advance that a renegade court was going to invent a "right" to gay marriage, the Legislature probably would have sooner acted to extend marriage benefits to gays rather than deny them to everybody. IOW, if the underlying constitutional defect were genuine, I would have no problem with the remedy the court applied, except for the 180 day delay. Speaking of that delay, I don't know why you think that part of the ruling makes it look less like legislating from the bench. Quite the contrary. Legislatures vote all the time to pass laws that take effect later or, depending on certain intervening events, not at all. Courts generally don't. If denying gays the "right" to marry really violated the constitution, as written last year, then the SJC should have ordered an immediate remedy. It should not have given the State of Massachusetts the green light to go on violating its own constitution for the next 180 days, or 180 minutes. Posted by: Xrlq at May 21, 2004 06:23 PMXrlq: We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I guess. Apparently, your definition of "legislating" means "doing something Xrlq doesn't like." Because in my book "legislate" means "to create or pass laws." Specifically what law did the Massachusetts law create? They ruled one particular part of an existing law unconstitutional. That law is now less restrictive than before, but nothing about that law is "new." They said that if you're going to have this legally defined instution called "marriage," you can't allow these people to do it but not those people. This, to you, is the same thing as drafting, passing, and placing on the books a whole new law? You have an odd definition. It seems that every time the courts rule in a way that conservatives don't like, that constitutes "legislating from the bench," as if the court has no right to keep a check on the legislative body. Something tells me that if a court struck down part of a gun control law, you wouldn't be whining about "legislating from the bench" on that one... As for the court's "babbling" about constitutional protections of personal autonomy, does the constitution not guarantee individual autonomy? Or does individual autonomy not apply to personal decisions like marriage? (Have you even read the ruling?) I also don't buy the "original intent" arguments, either. The authors of the US Constitution wanted only white, male landowners to vote. Shall we honor that original intent? Original intent, by itself, is not a compelling argument for anything. As for the delay, I agree with you. They should have made the effects immediate. But I'm pragmatic, so I can live with a grace period. Posted by: tgirsch at May 21, 2004 08:55 PMSpecifically what law did the Massachusetts law create? They ruled one particular part of an existing law unconstitutional. That law is now less restrictive than before, but nothing about that law is "new." Oh, please. Prior law did not provide for gay marriage. New law, following a court ruling and no action by the legislature, did. It has nothing to do with whether the law was good or bad, whether I like it or not, etc. It has to do with the fact that a court made law. Why can't you just admit the obvious, and argue that in this case, judge-made law was a good thing? That position is at least tenable; denying that the court made law is not. Your claim that I define "legislating from the bench" smacks of projection on your part. I have already identified two examples of judge-made law that I do like: (1) the common law (most of it, anyway), and (2) the court ruling that prohibited men from raping their wives. You are the one who is having a hard time separating the question of whether or not you like a law, on the one hand, from whether or not that law is a judge-made law, on the other. If the Massachusetts Legislature, rather than the SJC, had been the one to create gay marriage, would you now be arguing that the Legislature had wrongly usurped the proper role of the court? As to the "original intent" issues you raised, the answer is that we have a procedure for amending the Constitution, and it's not leaving things up to a few judges to pretend that The Constitution (TM) demands whatever their own political preferences happen to be. If someone were to argue that only white males should vote, the "original intent" of the drafters of the original Constitution would be irrelevant, as the original Constitution is not law anymore. What would be relevant is the original intent of the drafters of the 15th and 19th Amendments, respectively. Posted by: Xrlq at May 23, 2004 09:17 PMXrlq: Oh, please. Prior law did not provide for gay marriage. New law, following a court ruling and no action by the legislature, did. Methinks you've got it backwards. What prior law actually did was exclude gays from marriage (and unfairly so, in the opinion of the court). The court's ruling simply removed this unconstitutional exclusion. The only thing that's different now is that the law now applies to a wider group of people than it previously did. Apart from that, it's no different than before. However you try to spin it, that's not the same thing as a new law. If the US Supreme Court struck down the AWB, would that be the same as them "making law?" After all, under the "old law" it was illegal to own firearms with certain features, and under the "new law" (as you'd put it), it would now be legal! You could apply that logic to anything the court does! Bottom line is you might not like the rulings, but that doesn't make the ruling "legislation." You are the one who is having a hard time separating the question of whether or not you like a law, on the one hand, from whether or not that law is a judge-made law, on the other. If the Massachusetts Legislature, rather than the SJC, had been the one to create gay marriage, would you now be arguing that the Legislature had wrongly usurped the proper role of the court? No, what I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "judge-made law." The legislature can pass whatever laws it wants to, because that's its job -- it's not usurping anyone's authority when it does so. However, it's the job of the judiciary to interpret those laws, and also to determine whether or not those laws are allowable under the constitution (state, federal, whatever level we're talking about). If the judiciary isn't there to protect individual rights from the whims of the majority, then who's going to protect those rights? What you're left with is mob rule. As to original intent, interesting perspective, but the problem with that is that it's highly subjective. We don't know, and cannot know in all cases what was originally intended. And when we do know what the framers (of the constitution or the particular amendment, as appropriate) intended, it's often contradictory. So then where does that leave us? We have to do our best to interpret what the constitution says, giving only secondary consideration to what the authors may or may not have meant when they wrote it. In many cases what was written was already a compromise of many disparate views on the issue, so what we're left with can be challenging to interpret. (For example, the goofball wording of the second amendment.) Posted by: tgirsch at May 24, 2004 11:09 AMI have come to the conclusion that the alleged humans that post here are morons of incredible stupidity! The intolerance and hatred that is been shown here towards those with different opinions/lifestyles is repugnant to the extreme! Yes I am hetero christian,but I don't try to stuff my religion down the throats of those who don't want to listen.According to my understanding of the Bible: It is not our place to judge these people. To judge them in this way is as offensive to god as their own lifestyles are! Y'all need to get yer heads out of yer backsides and get on with yer own lives! Posted by: All of you at April 28, 2005 04:13 PM"All of you" is exactly right. The idea that to deny certain christians the ability to define marriage for everybody is to outlaw christianity is utterly absurd. Bill Hobbs' ability to practice his religion is not in any way threatened by gay marriage. Unless it's his religion to be king of the world, unquestioned ruler of all he surveys. Mr. Hobbs, did you write this thinking you would be simply preaching to a choir, that your readers would like the conclusion you come to and so never question the reasoning that got you there? Or is this post satire that you were laughing your butt off as you wrote? Because whatever it is, it isn't an intelligent opinion. Posted by: byrd at June 27, 2005 03:46 PM"To see how the legalization (by judicial fiat, no less, not even via democracy) of gay marriage will lead to criminalization of Christianity, consider this: A Christian landlord in the gay-marriage future refuses to rent an apartment home to a "married" couple of lesbians on the grounds that their lifestyle is immoral and he can not be a party to enabling that immorality. The law doesn't criminalize his belief, or even his right to tell others of his belief. But it WILL force him to rent the apartment to the lesbian "married" couple because of anti-discrimination laws and the court recognition of the legality of gay "marriage." Thus, he will be forbidden legally to excersise his faith as he sees fit. Meanwhile, his children at the public school will be taught that it is "hate speech" to say homosexuality is a sin." And what if interracial marriage offends someone's religious beliefs? It sounds here like your objection is to anti-discrimination laws in general. And I place the right of homosexuals to avoid demonization and hatred in public schools over the right of your kids to spread such hatred (and spare us the "love the sinner, hate the sin" fallacy). I would also advise you to avoid buying rental property in NYC. Posted by: Geek, Esq. at June 28, 2005 08:56 AMGeek, you've made my point. You call it "hate speech" for a Christian to voice their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. Once you classify that as "hate speech," the next step is to criminalize it. Thus, you criminalize my public expression of my religious belief, eviscerating my First Amendment right to free speech and the free practice of my religion. Anti-discrimination laws are fine so long as they are restricted to impacting public facilities and institutions. All Americans should have the right to active as discriminately or indiscriminately as they desire in their private dealings and the operation of their privately homes, churches businesses, schools and rental properties - and gays should have the right to form civil-union contracts akin to marriage with other gays, but not to use that right to force Christians to stay silent about their moral views of that lifestyle. That's how you balance rights and freedoms in a pluralistic society. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at June 28, 2005 09:20 AMyou embarrass: Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
