Assuming Other Outrage

When the desperate and outraged people of a major American city have finally had enough, and when there’s the right precipitating event – one of their kids dying while in police custody, again, for just running from the police, which any sensible kid would do, given how the local police, given the impossible task of maintaining order in neighborhoods where despair is a way of life, just beat the crap out of anyone at all, and often kill them – the riots in the streets will transfix the nation. How did it come to this?

Everyone will have an opinion, and everyone will have an idea of what should be done about this. These are thugs, destroying private property, sneering at the law. Bring down the hammer – hell, call in airstrikes to take out these neighborhoods. Do what Netanyahu did, to the Palestinians to make them respect what ought to be respected. Level a few buildings. Others will say that’s absurd. It’s about time to address the desperation and despair and outrage that led to a people finally exploding in anger. Hopelessness that seems to stretch out endlessly into the future generates burn-it-all-down anger. Burn it all down. What does it matter, if there’s no future? The people in the street shout “No Justice, No Peace!” They seem to mean that as a threat. It is, but it’s also a descriptor. Life is kind of like that. The one follows the other. People can be driven too far. Don’t let it come to that.

That’s easier said than done, and while everyone was arguing about the events in Baltimore, few noticed the publication of an odd “No Peace, No Justice” manifesto. That would be the Pledge of Solidarity in Defense of Marriage drafted by Vision America’s Rick Scarborough, the Focus on the Family guy James Dobson, and Liberty University law school dean Matt Staver. This is explained at Townhall by Todd Starnes:

“We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line… We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

They’ve been driven too far:

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

Mike Huckabee signed this. Rick Santorum signed this. So did Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse. They pledge to break the law:

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.” …

Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

They won’t burn down Baltimore, but there will be acts of civil disobedience:

“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

So it’s the same thing, really, and Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge, because fines for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and that Washington State florist, facing fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding, have pushed them over the edge:

“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. … What will we do, and how will we respond?”

They’ll refuse to obey the law. Those gay folks are using the courts. That will change the law. Now they have no choice. Burn it down, all of it. It’s just like Baltimore, sort of.

So, two presidential contenders have signed a public pledge to break the law. That’s odd, but while Baltimore was tearing itself apart, forty miles south, this was happening:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was deeply divided over one of the great civil rights issues of the age, same-sex marriage. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote is probably crucial, gave gay rights advocates reasons for optimism based on the tone and substance of his questions.

In two and a half hours of arguments over whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry, Justice Kennedy sent conflicting signals. At some points, he seemed wary of moving too fast and torn about what to do. But his demeanor was more emotional and emphatic when he made the case that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. He is also the author of three landmark opinions expanding the rights of gay Americans.

The other justices for the most part played to type…

Justice Kennedy was the issue:

He said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for thousands of years based on little more than a decade of experience with same-sex marriage in the United States. … Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay couples from the institution of marriage.

“Same-sex couples say, of course: ‘We understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled,'” Justice Kennedy said, strongly suggesting that the reasoning resonated with him.

But he wasn’t the only story:

The day’s arguments, over same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, were divided into two segments. At the start of the first, about whether states must allow same-sex marriage, Mary L. Bonauto, representing more than a dozen gay and lesbian couples, urged the justices to remove “the stain of unworthiness” that marriage bans produce.

She was met with a barrage of skeptical questions from the court’s more conservative justices, as expected. But there were several queries from Justice Kennedy that caused leaders of the gay rights movement who were in the courtroom to squirm.

He asked, for instance, whether “there has not been really time” for “the federal system to engage in this debate.”

Justice Antonin Scalia echoed Justice Kennedy’s language in emphasizing how new same-sex marriage is. “Do you know of any society prior to the Netherlands in 2001 that permitted same-sex marriage?” he asked Ms. Bonauto. She said no, at least as a legal matter.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

Well, yes, and then the chief justice then brought up something else:

“One of the things that’s truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society,” he said.

Justice Scalia agreed. “The issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.” The right answer, he said, was the people or their elected representatives, not the courts.

On this point, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the court’s liberal wing, had his own reservations.

“Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is to include gay people,” he said. “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Later in the argument, though, Justice Breyer indicated support for same-sex marriage as part of basic liberty. “Marriage is about as basic a right as there is,” he said.

The other side’s argument, he said, was that “people have always done it” in a certain fashion.

“You know,” he said, “you could have answered that one the same way we talk about racial segregation.”

The law, then, will change, unless we fight another civil war about those black folks too, but there was this:

The proceedings were calm but for a brief interruption by a protester. “You can burn in hell,” he yelled from the rear of the courtroom. “It’s an abomination of God.”

Courtroom security officers promptly dragged him from the room. Justice Scalia did not seem bothered by the disturbance. “Rather refreshing, actually,” he said.

Jeffery Toobin had a few things to say about that:

It may have been just a joke from the senior Associate Justice on the Court, but what kind of joke – or was it really a joke at all? Scalia probably did think that the directness of the protester was bracing – “refreshing.” Indeed, there’s every reason to believe that Scalia more or less shared the protester’s view of the immorality of homosexuality, and that he regards the Court’s toleration of gay people as one of the great disasters of his nearly three decades as a Justice.

But he may stand alone:

Scalia’s counter-outburst was a notable contrast to the respectful tone of the rest of the argument, including from his fellow-conservatives. It is one measure of the success of the gay-rights movement that all the other Justices felt compelled to phrase their questions in ways that honored the humanity of gay people. Justice Anthony Kennedy gave voice to an issue of real concern when he mused, toward the beginning of the argument, about just how quickly the country was changing, and about the part the Supreme Court should play. “One of the problems is, when you think about these cases and the word that keeps coming back to me, in this case, is ‘millennia.'” By that, Kennedy meant that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been around for thousands of years. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the Court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.'”

It should be difficult for unelected, unaccountable judges to remove a major issue like marriage from the will of the democratically elected branches of government. No judge should take such a step lightly.

And then there’s Scalia:

In questioning Bonauto, Scalia further established his reputation as the Fox News Justice, who appears to use conservative talking points to prepare for oral arguments. Clearly drawing on a reservoir of outrage about the revision of an Indiana law that would have effectively allowed businesses to refuse to do business with same-sex couples, Scalia tried to pick an example that would motivate his ideological supporters, if not his colleagues. “Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if, indeed, this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?” he asked Bonauto. “Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?” Bonauto and Justice Elena Kagan shut down this silly idea with dispatch. Under the First Amendment’s free-exercise-of-religion clause, it’s long been clear that ministers can perform weddings (or refuse to perform them) for anyone they want.

Scalia, however, wasn’t the whole story:

Fortunately for the plaintiffs, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was speaking for the Obama Administration, gave a superb argument in support of marriage equality in the mere fifteen minutes allotted to him. “The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity,” he began. “Excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples. It did demeans their children, and it denies both the couples and their children the stabilizing structure that marriage affords.” (“Dignity” is Kennedy’s favorite word, and it’s funny to listen to lawyers pander to him by throwing it in at every opportunity.)

Justice Elena Kagan battered John Bursch, the lawyer for Michigan, with various versions of the same question: What governmental interest was the state serving by excluding gays from the institution of marriage? Bursch’s answer: children. As Bursch put it, “It has to do with the societal understanding of what marriage means. This is a much bigger idea than any particular couple, and what a marriage might mean to them or to their children. And when you change the definition of marriage, to delink the idea that we’re binding children with their biological mom and dad, that has consequences.” Bursch could never really say what those consequences were, nor could he explain why heterosexual-only marriage had to be preserved for the sake of the children when lots of straight people don’t have kids and lots of gay and lesbian people do.

It looks like Huckabee and Santorum will have to break the law:

The most likely outcome still looks like a victory for the plaintiffs and marriage equality in all fifty states. At a minimum, even before the decision is announced, the argument itself was an example of how much the country, and the Court, has changed on the subject of gay rights. On this issue at least, it’s not Scalia’s Court anymore.

And there was this:

Justice Kagan indicated that she hoped the Supreme Court would find a right to same-sex marriage. She said the court has a role in protecting minorities even when majorities made their views known at the polls.

“We don’t live in a pure democracy,” she said. “We live in a constitutional democracy.”

Scott Lemieux addresses that:

John J. Bursch, the lawyer charged with defending the bans, began with the rather strange argument that there was a “fundamental liberty interest” for individuals in giving their states the right to define the institution of marriage. Justice Antonin Scalia, the arch-conservative who is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage and enjoys making homophobic jokes in court, attempted to state the point in a somewhat more defensible form, drawing a distinction between judicial decisions and popular self-government. When state courts rule same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, Scalia asserted, “That’s not the people deciding it. It’s judges deciding it.” At other times, Scalia described the argument of the states as “leave it to the people.”

The point has a certain superficial appeal. Given how deeply entrenched the traditional definition of marriage had been – a point the conservative justices returned to again and again, citing millennia of human history – doesn’t it make sense for the change in definition to come from the people themselves, rather than having unelected judges make it?

The appeal of the argument is just that: superficial. It either begs the question or advances a conception of judicial review that no justice of the Supreme Court actually shares.

Making a distinction between “the people” (as represented by legislators) and “judges” is misleading. In the American system of government, legislative enactments, state initiatives, and constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review. The only question is whether judicial review is appropriate in a particular case.

Lemieux argues it is in this case, and arguing otherwise is kind of dumb:

Admittedly, there are a few states where a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage would be unpopular. But these are also jurisdictions where, absent judicial intervention, ending marriage discrimination would probably take decades. Making gays and lesbians wait that long for their fundamental rights to be recognized in order to prove an almost certainly erroneous point about democratic procedures is not very attractive.

The argument that a judicial opinion striking down same-sex marriage bans is inconsistent with democratic values is not very convincing. And yet, when you consider the other arguments advanced by gay marriage opponents in amicus briefs – an unhealthy stew of illogic, bad science, double standards, and unfounded speculation – it’s the best line of argument they have.

It’s an argument that is overwhelmingly likely to lose, and richly deserves to.

Huckabee doesn’t get it. Santorum doesn’t get it. They both signed that “pledge” to break the law, but Politico reports that they stand alone:

Days before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could make gay marriage the law of the land, a number of Republican presidential candidates spent the weekend in Iowa, assuring social conservatives that they won’t ever give up the fight.

There’s just one thing: it’s getting harder to believe them.

Sure, they all continue to publicly support “traditional marriage” and some will eagerly throw red meat to their audiences about the assault on religious freedom but, for all but a few candidates, their personal commitment to that position, long a pillar of conservative orthodoxy, is less and less convincing.

Scott Walker told reporters he’s attended the reception for a gay couple after missing the wedding ceremony itself. Marco Rubio said he would go to a gay wedding “in a heartbeat” but believes marriage itself should remain between a man and a woman. Jeb Bush said on Tuesday he’s never been to a gay wedding but that “of course” he’d attend one “if invited.”

There will be no riots in the streets:

Like Bill Clinton explaining in 1992 that he once smoked marijuana but “didn’t inhale,” Republicans are struggling with one of 2015’s first cultural litmus tests, not wanting to offend social conservatives, a dominant force especially in Iowa and South Carolina, or to upset the GOP’s donor class that’s increasingly pushing candidates to better align their position with the nation’s broader, rapidly changing electorate.

“That awkwardness you’re seeing comes from the collision of conviction and calculation,” said John Weaver, a Republican strategist who advised John McCain’s presidential campaigns. “We’re seeing that all of these candidates are uncomfortable when they have to answer what seems like an easy question.”

Look no further than Ted Cruz, who last week told gay donors who hosted a fundraiser for his campaign that he’d love his daughter “just as much” if she were a lesbian; as soon as that statement leaked, he slammed the media for making too much of it and went right back to railing against the cultural forces threatening traditional marriage, asking his audience in Iowa to pray about the Supreme Court case at hand.

And then there’s Jeb Bush:

Beyond communications director Tim Miller, who is gay, Bush’s inner circle of staffers have all expressed strong support for marriage equality, including Mike Murphy, hired to run his messaging shop, who wrote about the GOP’s need to evolve on policy following Romney’s defeat in 2012.

“The Republican challenge is not about better voter-turnout software; it is about policy,” Murphy wrote after the 2012 election. “We repel younger voters, who are much more secular than their parents, with our opposition to same-sex marriage and our scolding tone on social issues.”

Bush’s spokeswoman has already disavowed a statement he made as Florida’s governor opposing special designations and protections for a class of people who engage in what he then termed “sodomy.”

Something is up:

Cruz, who vows to fight on if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality in June, has moderated his stance, shifting from advocating a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman to one that merely leaves the question to the states.

“Aside from [Mike] Huckabee, [Rick] Santorum, and maybe [Bobby] Jindal, none of the candidates really care about this issue anymore and want it to go away as quickly as possible,” said a Republican staffer inside a major LGBT-advocacy organization who asked not to be identified. “They’ve seen the polling numbers and realize that this one is a lost cause.”

Recent polls show 59 percent of Americans support full marriage equality, including 52 percent of Republicans under 50.

Yeah, well, there is that. When the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage, if they do, Republicans will move on. Huckabee and Santorum will move on too. Some battles aren’t worth fighting. And then there’s Baltimore.

Advertisements

About Alan

The editor is a former systems manager for a large California-based HMO, and a former senior systems manager for Northrop, Hughes-Raytheon, Computer Sciences Corporation, Perot Systems and other such organizations. One position was managing the financial and payroll systems for a large hospital chain. And somewhere in there was a two-year stint in Canada running the systems shop at a General Motors locomotive factory - in London, Ontario. That explains Canadian matters scattered through these pages. Otherwise, think large-scale HR, payroll, financial and manufacturing systems. A résumé is available if you wish. The editor has a graduate degree in Eighteenth-Century British Literature from Duke University where he was a National Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and taught English and music in upstate New York in the seventies, and then in the early eighties moved to California and left teaching. The editor currently resides in Hollywood California, a block north of the Sunset Strip.
This entry was posted in Gay Marriage and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Assuming Other Outrage

  1. Rick says:

    Another long one.

    Nothing really new here, just a summary of my own counter-arguments — most of them from history — had I only been there to join the discussion.

    – – – – – – – – – –
    Here’s Townhall’s Todd Starnes, talking to Liberty University law school dean Matt Staver, one of the drafters of this Pledge of Solidarity in Defense of Marriage, drafted by Vision America’s Rick Scarborough, the Focus on the Family guy James Dobson, and himself:

    “Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

    That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

    “I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

    So what does that even mean?

    I mean, had the Reverend MLK lived long enough to object to same-sex marriage (and for all I know, he would object), what would he do to resist it — invite a gay couple over to discuss marrying them, and then tell them no, he won’t? But as has already been argued, he wouldn’t be breaking any law in doing that, since the First Amendment protects his right, as a clergyman, to refuse to marry whomever he wants.

    Maybe he could learn wedding photography, then refuse to shoot their wedding? Maybe he could organize a whole group of wedding photographers to march outside a same-sex wedding, carrying signs saying they’d refuse to photograph this ceremony, had they been asked? Although that would seem rather petty of him.

    Speaking of which, I’m not sure I fully understand the argument made by, say, a baker who refuses to sell a cake for a gay wedding. Do they think doing so would make them a “participant”, which would be an implied statement that they condone or approve of gay marriage, and therefore compromise their morality? And if so, does this mean the Presbyterian sax player in the band that plays a bar mitzvah is compromising his own belief system by giving credence and succor to the belief system of a group that doesn’t believe that Jesus was the son of God?

    Even though I’m not a god-believer of any stripe, I’ve actually been a guest at various weddings and funerals for Catholics, Hindus, and even Jews — in the latter case, including my own (wedding, that is) — but nobody there took this to mean that, by doing so, I was endorsing the teachings of any of those religions.

    Which is why I actually have no problem with Marco Rubio on these matters:

    Marco Rubio said he would go to a gay wedding “in a heartbeat” but believes marriage itself should remain between a man and a woman.

    I like that attitude!

    But for a law professor to call on people to “not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law”? Does Staver not believe, when the Supreme Court says some law is constitutional, it’s the law of the land, pretty much by definition?

    Maybe there’s more to this than what he was quoted as saying, or maybe he has a good reason to say it. Maybe the Townhall article left something out, but I don’t get it.

    – – – – – – – – – –
    Chief Justice Roberts, during the arguments:

    “You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

    No, you’re actually not.

    I’ve been married to the same woman for 35 years, and all those same-sex weddings that happened in the last decade or so haven’t changed my marriage one iota. Can some same-sex marriage opponent show me evidence to the contrary?

    I’m not even sure what form a change would come in, but I always imagined all these guys who oppose it, once they find out it becomes legal, slapping themselves on the forehead, V8-style, and say, “Damn! I shoulda waited! I coulda married a man!”

    So far, it hasn’t occurred to me to do that.

    – – – – – – – – – –
    Justice Scalia asks pro-equality attorney Mary Bonauto:

    “Do you know of any society prior to the Netherlands in 2001 that permitted same-sex marriage?” he asked Ms. Bonauto. She said no, at least as a legal matter.

    By “legal matter”, I presume, she means literal “marriage” rather than merely “relationships” that were tantamount to marriage — but more on those in a minute.

    Still, if she’d had time to look it up, she might have found some examples from history, including this one:

    The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other males on different occasions. His first marriage was with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, with whom Nero took the role of the bride. Later, as a groom, Nero married Sporus, a young boy, to replace the teenage female concubine he had killed and married him in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, after which Sporus was forced to pretend to be the female concubine that Nero had killed and act as though they were really married. A friend gave the “bride” away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.

    And okay, to paraphrase Mel Brooks, it may be great to be the emperor, but your average workaday Roman citizen probably couldn’t get away with that stuff — although Rome’s 25th emperor, the teenaged Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, who reigned from 218 to 222 A.D. and was known after his death as Elagabalus, was thought to have married folks from each of the top two genders, at one time or another:

    According to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband. The Augustan History claims that he also married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a public ceremony at Rome.

    Still, this sort of thing wasn’t that common among ancient Romans, and in fact, in 342 AD, there was issued a law in the Theodosian Code prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome, punishable by execution.

    At least one same-sex marriage was recorded in Medieval Europe; in April of 1061, the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz Rairiz de Veiga were apparently married by a priest at a small chapel in Rairiz de Veiga in Spain.

    Remember the Dustin Hoffman movie, “Little Big Man”? Remember the Cheyenne girly-character, Little Horse? We’d call him gay, but traditionally, Native American Indian tribes call these people “two-spirits” people, considered neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals. According to Dr. Sabine Lang, a German anthropologist:

    … female assigned at birth two-spirits usually have sexual relations or marriages with only females. … As male assigned at birth two-spirits often regarded each other as “sisters,” Lang has speculated that it may have been seen as incestuous to have a relationship with another two-spirit.

    There’s no old historical record of two-spirit marriages — maybe because the conquering Europeans, who offended by all this, destroyed all records — but according to Lang, recognizing that marriage is at least now part of the mix, also notes that:

    … female assigned at birth two-spirits usually have sexual relations or marriages with only females.

    In more modern times, there’s that famous example of Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas, living together as if married, in Paris. Such couplings were common, although in their case, they obviously would have benefitted from the real thing:

    Although Gertrude Stein had willed much of her estate to Toklas, including their shared art collection (some of them Picassos) housed in their apartment at 5, rue Christine, the couple’s relationship had no legal recognition. As the paintings appreciated in value, Stein’s relatives took action to claim them, eventually removing them from Toklas’s residence while she was away on vacation and placing them in a bank vault. Toklas then relied on contributions from friends as well as writing to make a living.

    And there’s this historical note that, a hundred-and-fifty years ago, such ad-hoc same-sex common-law marriages were common enough to have their own name:

    During the Victorian Era, two women cohabiting was termed a Boston marriage.

    – – – – – – – – – –
    Scalia:

    When state courts rule same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, Scalia asserted, “That’s not the people deciding it. It’s judges deciding it.” At other times, Scalia described the argument of the states as “leave it to the people.”

    How about separate water fountains for different races? Should we leave that up to the people? To the states?

    Sometimes yes, you do leave decisions up to “the people”, but not when doing so lets the majority trample on the rights of the minority. That’s when we turn to that group Scalia gets his paycheck from: the Supreme Court.

    In the case of the water fountains, majority Whites would not really be hurt by desegregation, while Blacks would be hurt by segregation. In the case of same-sex marriage, majority straights are not really hurt by same-sex marriage, while minority same-sex couples are hurt by its absence. It’s really a pretty easy choice to make.

    Which is why Justice Kagan said this:

    “We don’t live in a pure democracy,” she said. “We live in a constitutional democracy.”

    – – – – – – – – – –
    Leave it to an outsider to bring up the religious angle (God knows, nobody else in the room was gonna do it):

    The proceedings were calm but for a brief interruption by a protester. “You can burn in hell,” he yelled from the rear of the courtroom. “It’s an abomination of God.”

    Maybe that’s true, but first of all, only if you believe in God — many, many of us don’t — and even then, that’s only a maybe, because you may be wrong about what your god thinks about all this. For all you really know, God thinks you’re the abomination, for disrespecting gay people, who are God’s creation, after all, assuming God created everything and everybody.

    After all, God — if he exists — is certainly not an asshole.

    But even this idea of marriage being an invention of Christianity, or even religion, is an urban legend. In fact, when Christians finally got around to noticing marriage, it wasn’t really considered “sacred” (whatever that means). This, of course, not “many thousands of years ago”, it was slightly under one thousand years ago …

    … before marriage was officially recognized as a sacrament at the 1184 Council of Verona. Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: “Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest’s presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime.”

    Often, all it required was for the couple to meet somewhere and say the words, “I marry you.” (Just want to get engaged, for now? All you had to do was repeat the words, “I will marry you.”)

    – – – – – – – – – –
    Speaking of “thousands of years”, here’s Justice “swing-vote” Kennedy:

    Kennedy meant that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been around for thousands of years. “This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the Court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’”

    Well, yes, it has, but also, no, it hasn’t.

    Without repeating the detail I went into in a recent post, there was all that polygamy in the Bible — after all, King David had eight wives, while his son, Solomon, had 700. It’s also worth noting another often-overlooked definition of marriage and the place that Child Marriage holds even in European history (hint: think Marie Antoinette, married by proxy in Vienna to someone in France, at age 14):

    Child marriage was common throughout history but is today condemned by international human rights organizations. Child marriages are often arranged between the families of the future bride and groom, sometimes as soon as the girl is born. Child marriages can also occur in the context of marriage by abduction.

    And, by the way, it is still blatantly defying that definition of “one man and one woman” even today, all around the world.

    – – – – – – – – – –
    And while we’re on the topic of “Children”:

    Justice Elena Kagan battered John Bursch, the lawyer for Michigan, with various versions of the same question: What governmental interest was the state serving by excluding gays from the institution of marriage? Bursch’s answer: children.

    As Bursch put it, “It has to do with the societal understanding of what marriage means. This is a much bigger idea than any particular couple, and what a marriage might mean to them or to their children. And when you change the definition of marriage, to delink the idea that we’re binding children with their biological mom and dad, that has consequences.”

    First of all, to those who say the reason for marriage is “creating children”, I’d argue that, while my wife and I were never able to accomplish that, yet we stayed married. Should we not have?

    Okay, they could instead argue, maybe the purpose is to “raise children”? Okay, well, that’s something my wife and I are doing. We’ve adopted kids instead — but so have many gay couples.

    And, in fact, who is to say childless marriages aren’t also legit? I have friends and relatives who have been happily married for years, without the slightest intention of either “creating” or “raising” children, yet no one in their right mind is going to deny their right to be married.

    In fact, one of the most eviscerating of yesterday’s Supreme Court arguments came from Justice Ginsburg:

    “Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married?” remarked the 82-year-old Ginsburg, to laughter, after a protracted debate over whether it was fair to ask couples if they wanted children before allowing them to wed.

    “You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.”

    As for that business, when you say that “[delinking] the idea that we’re binding children with their biological mom and dad … has consequences”, you’re really disrespecting adoption, way more of which is sorely needed for the thousands of children in this country and the rest of the world who have already been “unbound” from their biological mom and dad, by circumstances beyond their control. Not just straight couples, but also gay parents could help fill that need.

    You must remember that, back when European civilization was struggling to wake up from the dark ages, Copernicus and Galileo delinked us from the idea that the Sun doesn’t revolve around Earth, and sure enough, there were also consequences — and good ones that resulted in the planet (by which I mean the human beings living on it) getting a whole lot smarter.

    Rick

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s