In November 2008, five months after the CA Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, the people of CA passed a constitutional amendment (52% to 48% ) to define marriage as a union between men and women only. The constitutionality of the law was challenged, and the CA Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional (it’s hard to say something in the constitution is not constitutional!). That decision was appealed, and a federal judge just ruled yesterday that the constitutional amendment violates the U.S. Constitution. Anyone surprised? This is the way the gay agenda is always advanced: through the courts. Why? Because the democratic process isn’t working in their favor.
I have not read the judge’s decision, but I’ve read the decision of other courts who have made similar rulings and the legal rationale is usually the same. I don’t buy the legal rationale one bit. I do find it interesting that the judge who ruled on this gay happens to be gay. That fact itself doesn’t necessarily mean he let his own personal biases or political agenda influence his decision, but only a fool would think it played no part at all.
The decision will be appealed. And to whom will the case go? None other than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal appellate court in the nation. I wonder how they’ll vote!?! There’s no question in my mind that they’ll upheld the decision of the federal judge and this will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ll have to wait to see what happens.
Thinking to Believe 
August 11, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Couple of things on this issue:
1. I personally don’t approve of gay marriage.
2. I think it’s a dangerous precedent to overturn a ruling that was made by the electorate majority.
3. Only in the U.S. would a decision made by a homosexual judge, on a case riddled with homosexual interests, not generate some controversy with the media.
4. I’ve argued for a long time that gay marriage could not be rationally argued against in a secular socieity. Which is exactly the language the judge used to articulate his ruling on the case, “Prop. 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.”
5. I have yet to hear a solid airtight argument from Christian perspective that would hold up in a secular society.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I make such an argument here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/samesexmarriage.htm
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I’ve read that article and don’t find it convincing. It essentially relies on elements of tradition, constucts of “purpose” and “function,” (ie. people marry to have children…) that have to be agreed upon to work.
1. The concept of marriage (purpose and function), per se, has meant different things to different cultures, at different points in history, and has changed throughout history. Which one is relavent, and why?
2. If the argument is made that “…it has always been this way,” then it begs the simple question, okay, so what? Tradition should play little if any role in determining law. That line of thinking can be exposed by reductio ad incommodum.
3. Gay marriages strongest argument is that it deals with human rights; two consenting same-sex adults that wish to marry is absurd to me, but not beyond the pale of reasoning and acceptance.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 3:00 pm
BTW, let me rephrase, I shouldn’t say “can’t be rationally argued,” but rather “convincingly” argued, in my opinion.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Phillip writes,
Since you do not elaborate on what constitutes an “airtight argument,” one must ask what criteria you use for evaluative purposes.
What is an argument from a “Christian perspective that would hold up in a secular society”? If you want a Christian perspective, the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior and the majority of U.S. citizens are Christians. In a democratic republic, the majority generally makes the rules. Unless Christians are duped into believing they have no right to vote their convictions, laws will reflect their morality. Since most citizens are Christians, and since homosexuals comprise the extreme minority of society, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will have practically zero effect on society. Secular society has functioned just fine for over 200 years without gay “marriage.” That’s proof enough it works.
However, this is all a non-issue. There isn’t a law in the United States prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. Any person in any state may exchange vows with whomever and whatever and live accordingly. In fact, they’ve been doing it for a long time. The only legal difference is recognition by the State. The motive of gay rights advocates is to destigmatize their lifestyle. It cannot be property rights or the freedom to marry because legal constructs are available and, as stated, they can call anything they want a marital relationship.
This reply is most disappointing. Jason’s article is very well thought out and adequately addresses practically every issue relevant to this topic. To encapsulate his argument as you have done is irresponsible. I don’t have a problem with your disagreement. I do, however, take issue with your failure to adequately explain why you disagree with him. To do so, you need to engage his argument, not a misrepresentation thereof. If you read his paper and absorbed his argument, it is difficult at best to fathom how you came away with what you’ve characterized in Post 3.
For example,
It has been agreed upon for centuries and it has worked just fine. That aside, the only thing Jason “relies” upon is the historical justification for State involvement in marriage; and he specifically addresses practically every counterargument proposed by those who want to change the definition of marriage. You acknowledge the “strongest” argument for gay marriage is “human rights,” but Jason addressed that as well.
Different things? Such as? When has marriage been defined as a homosexual relationship? When has marriage not involved at least one man and one woman? What is relevant is our culture, our society, and our beliefs. Unless one appeals to a standard like the Bible, society is going to define what the boundaries of acceptable behavior are. And as Jason as argued, unless we strictly define marriage as we have done, the institution will become meaningless and subject to overwhelming abuse.
What about two male non-homosexual friends who “love” each other as true friends. Why should they be denied legal advantages married couples enjoy? What about unmarried brothers and sisters who live together. Do they not love each other? Why should they be discriminated against because they do not have a sexual relationship? Are there not married couples who are impotent? If an impotent couple can avail itself of marital “perks,” why not a brother and a sister who are not incestuous? As somebody wisely commented, “Certainly there’s no reason for a parent and child or two siblings of the same sex to be excluded once procreation is breached. In fact, many siblings of the same sex live together and share resources. Are you going to argue that they must commit deviant sexual acts to obtain the same rights as two unrelated individuals of the same sex?” What about men and women who live together in a sexual relationship but are not married? You mean to tell me the only legal difference is whether or not they say a few words in a ceremony? Jason pointed out many other absurdities as well. Walking down that path will render the institution meaningless.
I close with these thoughts posted on another blog, but relevant to this topic.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 7:50 pm
The closing paragraph in italics are the words of another contributor to another blog. They are not my words.
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 4:23 am
Scalia, thanks for your reply and subtle darts. Sharing the same spirit in which wrote me, I’ll do the same. The reason why I didn’t flesh-out my critique/analysis of Jason’s article is because I didn’t want my comments to suffer the same fate as yours did in my eyes. That being a long-winded passive-aggressive response that requires much more time than I normally care to invest.
I’ve dialogued with Jason on various topics for many years now and it has always been with respect and cordiality.
Regardless, I’ll try to address a few of your points.
You ask “what constitutes an airtight argument?” How about one that is well-reasoned, without appeals to tradition, and that would readily be acceptable to secular society and our understanding of civil rights.
Next, you state “Since most citizens are Christians, and since homosexuals comprise the extreme minority of society, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will have practically zero effect on society. Secular society has functioned just fine for over 200 years without gay “marriage.” That’s proof enough it works.”
Seriously? This line of thinking is so riddled with faulty logic I’m almost persuaded to think you’re being silly.
First, the fact that most Americans consider themselves Christian and therefore would have no problem with prohibiting gay marriage is jump in logic. A large number of voters who are not homosexuals are adamently against Prop 8.
Laws shaped by religious convictions have no business being saddled on all citizens of a secular society.
I wonder how adament you would be about that notion if the U.S. became a Muslim nation with laws influenced by Islamic sensibilities? I’d like you to address that.
Second, saying “Secular society has functioned just fine for over 200 years without gay “marriage.” That’s proof enough it works.”
That thinking is just disturbing. First, it’s an assertion and fuzzy logic at best. Prior to the abolition of slavery, society was working just fine. Slaves were just an “extreme minority of society” too.
An elementary “majority trumps the minority” argument is way too simplified for this type of issue.
You said, “The motive of gay rights advocates is to destigmatize their lifestyle.”
That’s simply an assertion. You then go on to point out how homosexuals have all the property right and freedoms afforded to heterosexuals. This is a myopic viewpoint. How about the fact they want to be recognized as “human equals” to their straight counterparts.
It would be no different than if you attended Stanford University and the Dean told you that you can live in the dorms, attend classes and take the tests, but you cannot graduate with a degree.
You said, “When has marriage been defined as a homosexual relationship? When has marriage not involved at least one man and one woman?”
How about since ancient times in various cultures? Please see the link (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage)and follow the hyperlinked footnotes for numerous sources.
You said, “And as Jason as argued, unless we strictly define marriage as we have done, the institution will become meaningless and subject to overwhelming abuse.”
I’ve debated w/Jason before on this point and never received an adequate response. Even if I was to accept this notion as a valid criticism, here is my antagonistic response: So what? What you call “abuse,” another will call “adapting.”
I will gladly accept this notion if you can first provide me the historical reference point that mandates why the definition of marriage can’t change or evolve. Remember now, this is a modern secular society. Pointing to the Bible isn’t going to cut it for Joe Athiest and Anna Agnostic.
Finally, you point out a bunch of so-called absurdities to drive the point home. Problem is, rationally speaking, I don’t have to disgaree with prohibiting any of those named types of marriages. Ironically, the issue is for those who think the word “marriage” holds some type of intrinsic value that is only privy to heterosexual non-related couples.
I’m a strong libertarian. I believe in free-will and free-choice as long as it doesn’t impede on the rights of others or causes physical harm. If two siblings want to get married, I say go right ahead. It doesn’t bother my Christian scruples; we all stand and fall before our maker.
The question should be asked of why there are “special rights/priviledges” afforded to married couples? If it’s argued that they exist to benefit and encourage procreation, then why should it be different for two men who have decided to adopt a child and raise it to adulthood?
Let me end by saying again, I don’t support gay marriage. However, I fail to reason myself and from the lack of reasonable arguments from others, the validity of prohibiting it.
I don’t think Christians can win in the court of law on this one.
Best-
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 12:27 am
Phillip, thanks for your reply. Your latest is much better than your previous ones on this thread. I understand the restraints of time (I, too, am extremely busy), but I think you will agree with me that unless you take the time to explain your position, it will not be persuasive.
You write, in reply to my question on what constitutes an airtight argument:
1) I think our arguments are definitely well-reasoned. It is therefore incumbent upon you to demonstrate the flaw(s) therein.
2) A rejection of an appeal to tradition needs to be “fleshed out.” We live in a democratic republic and citizens will vote in accordance with their beliefs; and those beliefs include their traditions. Citizens from various cultures and worldviews bring their traditions to the voting booth. There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes us from voting for a Christian over an atheist. You may not like their rationale, but that’s what democracy is all about. It is incongruous to insist people vote the way you want them to vote and to use only the rationale that appeals to you.
3) “Our understanding of civil rights”? What is “our” understanding of civil rights? I can just pick any right out of the air and claim you’re out of step if you don’t “adapt” to my preferences? If voting history is an accurate barometer of public perception, the significant majority of our citizens do not believe “civil rights” extend to same-sex marriage (ssm).
Moreover, you specifically asked for “a Christian perspective” on this issue. I gave it. The fact you disagree does not change the fact the “Christian perspective” has just as much say in the public arena as any other perspective. In reply to my synopsis of the Christian perspective (which you asked for), you state
We’ll see whose logic is faulty.
First, you asked for a Christian perspective and I gave you one. I considered it a given you were aware of public opinion polls and election results across the country proving that assertion. Even the president feels compelled to oppose gay marriage because he knows it is a political hand grenade. So far, nobody is leaping.
That’s your opinion and that opinion shared by many Americans; but that makes your request for a “Christian perspective” incoherent. What makes a perspective Christian if it isn’t rooted in some sort of religious conviction? Many Christians opposed (and supported) slavery. What sense does it make to tell a Christian that if s/he opposes slavery for religious reasons, s/he shouldn’t vote?
Morality is the basis of ALL LAW, and moral absolutes cannot be grounded in secularism. Societal morality is based upon societal preference and that includes those whose morality is informed by their religious upbringing.
I’d be glad to. Talk about a leap of logic! My consistency or lack thereof has no bearing on the validity of my claims. That’s arguing ad hominem, you know.
If I moved to an Islamic country, I would fully expect to live under its laws. If I cannot abide by them, I’ll be forced to move someplace else.
Phillip, do you realize there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop a nation from enacting any legislation it deems appropriate? If the significant majority of our citizens want to enact Sharia Law, they will vote accordingly. Every politician elected by them will bring pro-Sharia views to their respective legislative bodies. Eventually, judges will be appointed with that viewpoint and the Constitution will be changed to “enshrine” it as a constitutional mandate – and it can all be done legally! In a democratic society, everybody is allowed to bring their ideas to the table and, hopefully, the best and most persuasive ideas win the day.
You say religion has no place at the table, but the “logical” mistake you are making is you’re begging the question. Whether or not religious convictions have a spot in the market-place of ideas is precisely what is at issue. It appears you and I disagree over the First Amendment and some subsequent Supreme Court decisions; and that is the basis of our disagreement here. There’s no need to go off on that tangent now, but since it is the basis of our dispute, it is circular to assume I must adopt your Constitutional viewpoint. That reduces to, “Adopt my views and then justify your beliefs.” Again, I remind you of your request for a Christian perspective.
In reply to my “secular society functioned fine” observation, you countered,
What is disturbing is your definition of “logic.” The “logical” mistake you’re making is a fallacy of relevance. You asked how our perspective would “hold up in a secular society” and my reply demonstrated it held up just fine. My reply was directly relevant to your request, so it is difficult at best to understand what’s so fuzzy here. I never said everything that “works” should be perpetuated. Are you saying that everything that works should be changed? I assume not.
To be continued…
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 12:28 am
Phillip writes,
That is based upon their own statements to me and published works. I do not deny the “human equals” argument is a component of their approach. What I deny is the legitimacy of their claims and the rationale of your arguments. If certain citizens have the right to redefine marriage, other citizens have the same right to preserve its traditional meaning. To deny one is to deny the other. We do not deny their political “right” to argue their case, we argue that their case is not rationally persuasive and does not justify State intervention.
As I’ve already stated, they can marry right now if they want to – in every state! The issue, consequently, isn’t marriage, per se. It is access to financial advantages afforded to other citizens. And what Jason & I have been arguing is there is no rational stopping point and the end result is to give every citizen (every last one) in the country marital rights by simply redefining it again and again. Let’s redefine marriage to include arranged marriages between newborns. Let’s redefine it to include single-vow arrangements so men can marry their favorite trees and can avail themselves of marital rights (while protecting their property from eminent domain). Anybody can claim a desire to be “human equals” or speak on behalf of those who cannot speak (e.g. infants) in a stampede to obtain marital rights and/or protections. With limited financial resources, such a posture is “myopic.”
You say, “so what?” Fine. If that isn’t a problem for you, vote your conscience. But that will entail granting marital status to every citizen because their “rights” will be trampled by not being able to access the same financial advantages as others. To reduce the meaning of marriage to anything and everything is to render the institution meaningless in a legal sense.
You claim to be a strict libertarian. I take you at your word. That being the case, why are you so free with taxpayer dollars? Why not simply argue that the State should get out of having anything to do with marriages? I would think a libertarian would more readily argue against governmental involvement in private relationships as opposed to arguing for more. And since politics is the art of compromise, I would think a libertarian would, in the event s/he could not eliminate State involvement in marriage, discourage further involvement rather than argue the opposite. I am not saying that what appears to be a counter-libertarian position defeats your argument; I am simply wondering how you reconcile libertarianism with State-sponsored marriages.
Woefully disanalogous, Phillip. To tell a student s/he may obtain a degree if s/he completes certain courses, only to deny h/er a degree for reasons never specified when s/he was admitted is fraud. However, if one attends the United States Military Academy at West Point, active duty military service is obligatory upon graduation. Thus, if one wants to attend West Point, one is REQUIRED to serve in the military. Is such a policy discriminatory? Of course it is. The education one obtains at the academy is given in exchange for service. If one is unwilling to serve, one cannot attend. Why shouldn’t a law-abiding citizen have the “right” to go to any State-sponsored institution of h/er choice? There are many excellent non-military related classes at said institution, but most of our citizens will never be allowed to attend because they are unwilling to serve. Your objection is akin to a demand West Point change its admission policy because it denies the “rights” of citizens to attend.
Remember? There’s nothing to remember. If you don’t want a “Christian perspective,” you should never have asked for one.
As stated above, every citizen has the political right to argue h/er case. The examples Jason and I have provided demonstrate there is no logical stopping point to a conferral of marital status upon the entire nation. Any rational assessment of proposed legislation must consider not only its immediate effect, but what the adoption of certain principles will entail. For somebody who appears sensitive to “myopic” arguments, your objection skirts mighty close.
Finally, with respect to your historical evidence for ssm, citing controversial information from Wikipedia should give one pause, as it isn’t the best source for accurate information. That is not to say everything is contains is false. One should be very careful drawing conclusions from the way it presents evidence. I have read several gay rights advocacy works and have found the level of scholarship contained therein questionable at best. The “history” section of the cited reference is very brief and only cites a handful of works. One of the cited authors, John Boswell, is extremely sloppy in his book, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. Space does not permit a detailed analysis. For those interested, a withering critique may be found HERE. I have not read the other works, and since I have not read them, I grant it is at least possible some ancient societies recognized ssm to some degree. Even granting that, as I noted in my initial post, “[w]hat is relevant is our culture, our society, and our beliefs.”
Thank you, Phillip, for the lively exchange. All the best.
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 1:05 am
Scalia, I’m only going to address your post #8 right now due to time constraints.
We need to get something straight here, you incessantly keep harping on the fact I supposedly “asked for a Christian perspective/argument.”
I never said such a thing.
I said I had “yet to hear” one (Christian argument). You took that as a challenge and the dialogue began thereafter. It’s a minor point, but I feel obligated to note it because you continue to come off like “oh boy, you asked for it…now you’re gonna get it.”
Moving on.
You seem to be caught up in the Christian’s right to vote and vote based off of his/her moral or religious convictions. I understand. I agree. I’ve never disputed that, so any further lecture regarding that is simply chirping.
You’ve missed the crux of case for which was the basis of why Prop. 8 was overturned: Regardless of what ruling a voting majority wins, if it is discriminatory to the personal freedoms, liberties and civil rights of a law-abiding minority it should not be upheld.
You continue to lean upon a simple “majority > minority” understanding of the issue. Hypothetically, if 75-percent of all Texans voted that people of a Chinese origin had the right to work in Texas, but not own a business, would that be a legitimate ruling to you? If not, why?
You invoke “tradition” like it holds some sort legal value in the court of law. Do you know what that appeal boils down to? Circular reasoning or at least ignorant redundancy; all it is basically saying is “we need to keep marriage between a man and a woman.” Why? “Because that’s the way it’s always been!”
Lol, I think if you’re being intellectually honest about this point, you would agree that particular argument is terribly weak.
You brought up in a previous response the slippery slope argument, which basically follows, “if gay marriage is allowed, why not sister and brother; daughter and mother; et cetera.” The implication being if gay marriage is permitted, then all semblance of normalcy evaporates and “tradition” is lost.
You could very well be right and the “traditional” concept of marriage could change drastically. However, your presumption is that the traditional interpretation of marriage in our culture (man & woman) is the only correct and acceptable version.
You need to prove why that is. Bringing up the possibility of strange, awkward and unconventional future forms of marriage does nothing for your argument. Again, you need explain convincingly why your concept of marriage should be the only permissible one. Here’s the key though, it needs to be defensible to scrutiny in the court of law against charges of discrimination and impeding the rights of other citizens.
The proponents of Prop. 8 failed in arguing along the same lines you are regarding traditions in this most recent trial.
You said, “Secular society has functioned just fine for over 200 years without gay “marriage.” That’s proof enough it works.”
No, that is not proof that it “works.”
Marriage is not a device that either works or breaks, passes or fails. Heterosexuals going through the act of getting married for the past 200 years are not proof of its validity or worthiness. Just as 200+ years of gay marriage wouldn’t be proof of the same.
Here’s a question for you: Do you believe homosexuals are the equal of heterosexuals in every sense of our common societal understanding of present day civil rights? And please don’t be coy; we are speaking of notions of equality, liberties and civil rights.
You said, “Talk about a leap of logic! My consistency or lack thereof has no bearing on the validity of my claims. That’s arguing ad hominem, you know.”
Let me help. I brought up a rhetorical question by way of a hypothetical scenario. An ad hominem attack would be if I claimed that nothing you said could possibly be true because you’re an alcoholic.
Next point… You said, “If I moved to an Islamic country, I would fully expect to live under its laws. If I cannot abide by them, I’ll be forced to move someplace else.”
I’m sorry Scalia; you’re either being disingenuous or completely naïve. I didn’t ask you if you moved to an Islamic nation, I asked what you would do if that happened in this country via a majority vote.
Regardless, that is not how this country operates. This is not a theocracy. This is a country governed by democracy which allows for religious freedom and freedom from religion. This country is first concerned about the civil rights, liberties and freedoms of its citizens first. That is precisely what is at the heart of the Prop. 8 issue.
You seem to be struggling with acknowledging the equal truths of two realities:
1) People vote based off of their moral convictions, wherever they are derived from. In this case religious. It should be noted that I voted in favor of Prop. 8 based off those convictions.
2) On the issue of gay marriage, my religious convictions cannot legally supersede the civil rights, liberties and freedoms of another law abiding citizen of the United States without just reason or cause.
The entire basis of my arguing in this thread is the realization of point #2 (above).
For me, there is no break in logic. Despite the fact I voted in favor of Prop. 8, it doesn’t offend my Christian scruples in saying that I support upholding the constitutional rights and protections of our citizens versus imposing my convictions on all people for the sake of satiating religious traditions.
Finally, you said “I never said everything that “works” should be perpetuated,” regarding me bringing up the notion that slavery was acceptable and “working fine” for an extended period of time in our country’s history.
Baloney, lol.
Again, your words were “Secular society has functioned just fine for over 200 years without gay “marriage.” That’s proof enough it works.”
What you said is tantamount to saying “…it works and should be perpetuated.”
*I’ll respond to your post #9 when time permits.
Best-
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I really do wish we could correct our posts. One misstep messes everything up. Here it is again…
Phillip writes,
It is either a challenge or an invitation, and that is what my replies have been based upon. Everything else could have been avoided had you simply stated you were not really interested in discussing the “Christian perspective.”
You then proceed to shelve what you had “invited” in order to defend the cogency of your position. Sorry, but I’m not letting it go, and any further replies I offer under this thread will continue to reflect what I consider the Christian perspective of ssm. What you “move on” to it up to you, but since it represents an essential plank of my argument, I’ll be staying right here.
No, Phillip. I completely understand civil rights. You’re confusing discrimination with civil rights. If you didn’t “miss” my argument, I’ve noted there are many, many instances of legal discrimination (see above), and what is illegal has been specifically set forth in the U.S. Constitution, federal and/or state law. Particular rights and liberties, specified by law, are protected from the democratic process, and since those rights and liberties are specifically insulated from majority rule, it is the responsibility of judges to rule accordingly. What is irresponsible of a judge is to invent civil liberties the people have not codified. A judge is not entitled to “correct” a defective piece of legislation. S/he is not authorized to “fill in the blanks” because of h/er sense of justice. If we accept the notion (as liberals have done) that judges are free to make up their own rules and invent civil rights, the rule of the people is then replaced by the tyranny of the judiciary.
Ssm has never been legally codified as a federal civil right (in the United States). It is immaterial what any judge thinks the law should be, or what the law would have said had s/he only written it. A responsible judge would have ruled that since ssm is not a civil right, the people of California have every right to regulate marriage as they see fit. If the case for ssm is really “logical,” those who support ssm may continue to argue their case until they persuade a majority of their citizens to modify their statutes accordingly.
Against this you may argue that a judge has the prerogative to see emanations, penumbras, and principles in legal texts that cover unspecified acts. If that is the case, then it is clear why you and I disagree. Our philosophies of the role of the judiciary are completely at odds, and until that is resolved, we will continue to disagree.
That depends upon what you mean by “legitimate.” Based upon current federal law, legislation resulting from said vote will violate federal statutes. However, if there were no federal law or State of Texas statute barring discrimination based upon race, upon what legal platform would a judge nullify the proposed law? H/er beliefs?
Phillip, you’re not paying attention to your own argument. Just a few paragraphs above this, you stated you “agree” with a Christian’s right to vote based upon h/er religious convictions (which agreement logically extends to my previous point, which you were replying to, that such convictions are rooted in religious tradition) only to question the “legal value” of their vote. Well, which is it? If they may legitimately vote in accordance with their religious convictions/traditions, then their victory at the polls is equally legitimate and must be respected by the judiciary. The only legitimate way the judiciary may nullify a legal vote is if said vote violates existing statute(s). Consequently, whether or not a vote is based upon tradition, is it always legitimate unless it is illegal. The “circular” reasoning is not from yours truly. Since you’re assuming what is at issue (that ssm is a civil right), the petitio principii is on your side of the fence.
To me and my Christian tradition, of course; but, as noted above, there should be a compelling reason why the State should get involved with marriage. A persuasive case is made due to the reciprocity involved. The State grants financial advantages to married couples in exchange for the rearing of its future citizens. The fact heterosexual couples may not have children only argues for a further restriction of marital perks, not an expansion thereof.
Perhaps you are a little too pressed for time, Phillip. This has already been explained.
Of course not. In my view, Americans have rights as citizens, not as homosexuals. But again, your question is a little imprecise. What I believe and what I know is the current state of law may be two different things. Since your question emphasizes what I believe, and since what I believe is from a Christian perspective, that has already been answered.
Then you don’t fully understand ad hominem arguments. Your “rhetorical” question was designed to pin my argument to an inconsistency in what I believe. That shifts the argument from the subject to the proponent and that makes it ad hominem.
How am I dodging your question? If that happened in the U.S., I’d be faced with the same situation. I would either adapt or move. What’s your point? As a Christian, I disagree with Islam and would vote against any proposal I disagree with, but I would never advocate a judge should invent rights not specified by law.
I’m not struggling with anything, Phillip.
Your key words, here, are “legally supersede.” Your legally enacted convictions cannot supersede a legally enacted civil right; but that is not what is at issue. There is no ssm civil right, unless you believe the judiciary is another branch of the legislature.
You missed the word “everything,” didn’t you? What I said was in reply to your “invitation/challenge” that you hadn’t heard a persuasive Christian perspective that would “hold up” in secular society. Since you didn’t define “hold up,” I applied it to its workability with Christians, other faiths, and atheists; and yes, it has worked just fine. Proof. That does not imply, as I made clear, that everything that works should be blindly followed.
Regards.
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 5:53 pm
You said, “Particular rights and liberties, specified by law, are protected from the democratic process, and since those rights and liberties are specifically insulated from majority rule, it is the responsibility of judges to rule accordingly. What is irresponsible of a judge is to invent civil liberties the people have not codified. A judge is not entitled to “correct” a defective piece of legislation. S/he is not authorized to “fill in the blanks” because of h/er sense of justice. ”
Utter nonsense. Of course it’s “irresponsible” in your eyes, lol. You’re misinformed of the role and responsibility of Judge Walker or simply unwilling to acknowledge the parameters in which he’s allowed to rule. It’s Walker’s responsibility to analyze the prior case, weigh its legitimacy, and give his interpretation under the framework of the Constitution via a ruling. He’s done that.
Unless of course you think a judge simply flips open a book of rules to see how to make a ruling.
You said, “Phillip, you’re not paying attention to your own argument. Just a few paragraphs above this, you stated you “agree” with a Christian’s right to vote based upon h/er religious convictions only to question the “legal value” of their vote. Well, which is it?”
I’m failing to see the distinction. I’ve already addressed this plainly.
The reasoning behind why a person votes (religiouss convictions, traditions, life experience, et cetera) the way they do has absolutely no relevance as to whether any particular ruling, policy or amendment is unconstitional, discriminatory, lawful or unlawful when scrutinized in a court of law.
I voted for Prop. 8 based off of my religious convictions and my desire to see traditional marriage remain intact and exclusive to heterosexuals.
However, I knew/know that appeal wouldn’t stand up as a strong defense in a court of law.
You seem to think it does. Judge Walker says it doesn’t.
You said, “A persuasive case is made due to the reciprocity involved. The State grants financial advantages to married couples in exchange for the rearing of its future citizens. The fact heterosexual couples may not have children only argues for a further restriction of marital perks, not an expansion thereof.”
Some real nuggets here. I’d like to dive into that, but could you please highlight some of the perks married couples recieve from the State by “rearing its future citizens?”
You said, “Then you don’t fully understand ad hominem arguments. Your “rhetorical” question was designed to pin my argument to an inconsistency in what I believe. That shifts the argument from the subject to the proponent and that makes it ad hominem.”
This is comical. When I asked you that rhetorical question, I was trying to pin your argument to an inconsistency in what you believed. Sound familiar? That’s what was happening. Anytime you have dialogue between two contrasting viewpoints, one person is trying to find inconsistencies in the information previously forwarded or is a known belief/position by the other individual. If you can make that person acknowledge their inconsistancy, you then have a opportunity to show how they have a similiar flaw in the position they forwarded. That is not an ad hominem attack.
Here’s a book on logic fallacies you can pick up from Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2f4tzly
While you’re at it, here’s a link to the actual court documents: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
You may be able to actually gleam some info from it.
I’m off to Hawaii for a week my friend. I’d rather not think about SSM while I’m trying to enjoy my vacation, lol. I promise to address your post #9 at some point when I come back.
Best-
LikeLike
August 15, 2010 at 12:43 am
Phillip writes,
You’re quickly running out of ammunition, Phillip. This infantile “lol,” “nonsense,” “silly,” and “comical,” demonstrates your inability to craft a persuasive argument. I’ve been accused of acerbity on occasion, but you make me look like Santa Claus. Since you’re just about to trek to Hawaii, you’re perhaps just a little rushed.
Given your description of Judge Walker’s role here, I’m “misinformed” of nothing. His ultimate responsibility is to determine whether Proposition 8 (P8) passes Constitutional muster. His ruling, among other things, determined said proposition violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So yes, I understand that perfectly, and I most certainly disagree with his decision. I assume you’re not denying me the right to disagree with a judicial decision.
For the most part, the federal government keeps its hands away from marriage. State involvement in marriage is overwhelmingly regulated by individual states. Of course, one must declare to the IRS whether one is filing jointly or separately and that could result in higher taxes, but it is at the State level where one sees real regulation. As you note, Judge Walker stepped in when P8 was appealed on Constitutional grounds.
No. Judges carry their judicial philosophy into their decision-making process; and his philosophy compels him to see P8 as a violation of the Constitution. I disagree with both his philosophy and his interpretation of the Constitution, which follows from his philosophy. If you are familiar with the debate at this level, it is difficult for me to understand your derisive dismissal of my objections. Among a host of literature, I recommend Bork’s, The Tempting of America, and Antonin Scalia’s, A Matter of Interpretation. It really is immaterial whether you agree with the philosophy of originalism. The salient point is the philosophy of originalism isn’t novel, nor is it rare. It is at the forefront of contemporary debate on the role of the judiciary and under its perspective, Walker’s ruling fails as a legitimate exercise of judicial responsibility.
Then you need to re-read why I wrote what I did.
And?? Since you’re not saying that whenever Judge Walker speaks, we should all stiffen our right arms and shout, “Sieg, Heil!!”, what’s the point in saying something we already know?
Why would a state ever get involved in marriage? The answer to that goes way back in time. Emperor Augustus enacted laws to encourage marriage and having children, including provisions making adultery a crime. This was in response to social conditions he found intolerable. I could say a lot more about this, but suffice it to say at this point his basic approach fits a Judaeo-Christian model.
Proverbs 14
34. Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
Since sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, the only legitimate environment in which to bear children is a marital one. Since children are natural products of a heterosexual union, a State interested in morality will thus encourage marriage as the preferred status of child-bearing couples. In exchange for embracing the preferred status, the State offers privileges not accorded those non-compliant. Some examples from Augustus were:
Unmarried persons were not permitted to attend certain public festivals. Persons of illegitimate birth were not allowed to be registered on official registers. A consul, of a pair of consuls, having more children was considered the senior consul. Having a certain number of children could lead to exemption from certain civil obligations.
There is much more to this, but you get the idea.
Insofar as the United States is concerned, marriage can also lead to lower taxes (e.g. sharing deductions for children [HoH status included] and mortgage payments, estate tax, gift tax). Property can more easily be shared; Social Security benefits go to the spouse, etc. Thus, under a Christian paradigm, making marriage the preferred status through moral affirmation and financial incentives are key elements of preserving social order.
If the State isn’t interested in the moral/social condition of its citizens as it relates to marriage, including the climate in which its future citizens are raised, then I fail to see what business the State has in the institution at all. And if no compelling argument can be made for State involvement, then it should be eliminated. All marriages should then fall within the purview of one’s personal community. This issue suddenly disappears and gays can do what they’ve always been able to do – exchange vows with whomever and whatever.
So, the “Christian perspective” is the persuasive argument that a State’s involvement is justified by reciprocity – moral, spiritual and secular.
Boy, you must really be in a hurry to catch that plane! You should have waited until you got back instead of hoisting yourself with your own petard. Why refer me to a book of fallacies when there’s a host of very good references on the Internet? Either way, your effort fails because you again demonstrate an inadequate grasp of this fallacy. You specifically asked,
You are thus NOT attacking the consistency of my argument, you are questioning how adamantly I would stand for my argument if I were required to live in this country under Muslim rule. How adamantly I would or wouldn’t stand for my argument has nothing to do with my argument. You are thus attacking ME instead of my argument. And, of course, when you attack me instead of my argument, you are guilty of arguing ad hominem. Since you would rather cite books from Amazon, how about this direct quotation from Schaum’s Outline of Logic, which identifies five types of ad hominem arguments (you can buy it from Amazon). Under the third type (tu quoque), it reads, in part, “…to refute a claim by attacking its proponent on the grounds that he or she is a hypocrite, upholds a double standard of conduct, or is selective and therefore inconsistent in enforcing a principle.” So, according to Phillip, I make a lot of noise because I happen to be in the majority, but let’s just see how hard he stomps his foot when he’s in the minority. Does that clarify the issue, Phillip? How adamant I am is irrelevant.
I mean this in all sincerity: I hope you have a safe trip and a wonderful vacation.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Philip,
I have been swamped, so forgive me for jumping into this debate so late. I wrote much of what follows before reading through the comments (based on my memory of reading comment 3), so I apologize for repeating some of what has already been said, but I do say it in a slightly different way.
The argument I offer against SSM is an entirely secular argument. You may not find it cogent, but no argument persuades everyone (“airtight” in your words), and thus the fact that you don’t find it persuasive does not mean it isn’t a sound argument. Only if you could point out some logical or factual fallacy in the argument could it be shown to be invalid.
The substance of my argument rests on a historical and practical fact that should not be controversial: The primary reason human governments across time and cultures have chosen to regulate, encourage, and privilege one kind of human relationship over all others is because they have a vested interest in what that kind of relationship can produce: socialized children to perpetuate society. Apart from that, there is no reason for the government to meddle itself in personal, sexual relationships. They are not interested in promoting friendships or romantic love; they are interested in social self-preservation. They are interested in producing a new generation of responsible, socialized citizens to replace the existing generation. Optimal socialization involves both natural parents, so the state is interested in keeping the natural parents together as well. That is why marriage comes with legal responsibilities, and until recently, was difficult to dissolve.
What I have written thus far is not an argument, but a history lesson: Governments regulate and privilege heterosexual unions because heterosexuals procreate. My argument simply incorporates this historical fact as a premise. If the only reason government involves itself with regulating private heterosexual relationships is because of the children some of those relationships can produce, why should government involve itself with the regulation of same-sex relationships? Same-sex relationships do not produce the very thing that necessitates government involvement in the case of heterosexual unions. So while there is a practical need to regulate heterosexual relationships, there is no practical need to regulate same-sex relationships, anymore than there is a practical need to regulate friendships. Same-sex relationships simply do not function in the same way in society, and thus society need not treat them the same as they do heterosexual unions. Same-sex relationships have nothing to do with the purpose for which civil marriage is enacted; therefore, homosexual relationships are not entitled to the benefits of marriage.
Marriage is not about affirming people’s love and commitment, but about promoting, protecting, and socializing children. But people are not looking at the reason for marriage’s existence. They are taking its existence for granted, and then demanding that it apply to them, but for what reason? To make a just claim to something one must show that they are entitled to it. To determine if same-sex couples are entitled to the institution of marriage we must first determine why the institution of marriage exists in the first place. It exists to manage procreation for the benefit of society. It does not exist to validate people’s relationships. It does have the secondary effect of giving social validation to adult relationships, but that is not what it exists for. It exists to create a context in which children can be born and socialized.
That’s my argument, and I think it is sound.
Tbc…
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Continued….
One cannot dismiss the traditional view of marriage (TVOM) as the standard for a secular society on the grounds that it is a religious view, because that is clearly not the case. It is no more a “religious” idea than the prohibition of murder. While virtually all religious prohibit murder, clearly the notion is not peculiar to religion. The same is true of marriage. Virtually all societies, secular and religious, have recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman, for reasons I have already pointed out.
At best one could argue that the TVOM is just that: a cultural tradition. Actually, it would be more accurate to say it is a human tradition, but I won’t squabble. The fact of the matter is that this won’t help one’s case, because if it is a cultural/human tradition, then if humans in a particular culture want to preserve that tradition, they are free to do so. They don’t even need to make an argument for it. It’s just their preference, and they vote their preferences in the voting booth.
You say marriage has changed. I dispute that. Ideas about the roles of husbands and wives have changed, but it’s always been understood as a union between a man and a woman (even if homosexual behavior was accepted in society, such as in Roman society).
As for SSM being a human right, that’s ridiculous. Besides, what new rights do they get when they get married? Or to ask negatively, what are they being denied without marriage? Are they being denied the ability to have sex? Are they being denied the ability to love? Are they being denied the ability to make life-long commitments to one another? No, the only thing they are being denied is the social acceptance that comes along with the institution of marriage, but society is under no compulsion to give their approval to relationships they do not approve of.
Tbc…
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Continued….
As for homosexuals being viewed as “human equals,” two things. First, no one is claiming they are not equally valuable as human beings. But that doesn’t mean we have to affirm their sexual relationships as being equally valuable to society as heterosexual relationships. They aren’t. Secondly, how would opening up the institution of marriage cause them “to be recognized as ‘human equals’ to their straight counterparts?” People who do not recognize their relationships as being equal will continue to view them that way even if the State says otherwise. You can call a cat a dog, but everyone with any sense still recognizes it to be a cat.
I find your strong libertarian political philosophy to be in opposition to a Christian worldview. As I read Scripture, God was not only concerned with the moral behavior of His people, but with the moral behavior of others as well. Put simply, He was concerned about moral/social justice. He clearly did not have the perspective of “let the sinners do what sinners do, and I’ll do what Christians do” that I see embodied in your libertarian political philosophy. To the extent that we can affect the laws of society to make them just, we should do so. Since we live in a democracy, we can affect the laws, and thus we should vote our worldview to promote the kind of justice God is interested in. There is nothing in our Constitution which says moral points of view that are rooted in a religious worldview must be excluded from the system. Everyone has a moral point of view, and everyone has some source for their viewpoints that they draw from. To think we cannot outlaw SSM just because it happens to coincide with a religious point of view is to say anyone with a religious point of view is excluded from the public square. Clearly that is mistaken. Someone’s morality will be enshrined into law, so why not ours?
As for the legal reasoning, I agree with Scalia that it is flawed, but I won’t get into all the details. I should also point out that there is a difference between determining if there are rational reasons for prohibiting SSM (keeping the TVOM), and determining if there are legal reasons. They are related, but different. Each requires a slightly different way of arguing.
The ultimate question is why anyone should think gays have a right to the institution of marriage. Why do they have a right, but polygamists don’t? Why do they have the right, but siblings don’t? Any argument for SSM on the basis of equality, freedom, and rights will work equally for these other relationships. The only rational basis for privileging any relationships in this country is because of what those relationships do for society. And the fact of the matter is that society is no better (and arguably would be worse) if the relationship of two people of the same sex is legally recognized and regulated, but it is better if the relationship of two people of the opposite sex is legally recognized and regulated because those relationships produce and rear children, and thus perpetuate society. Gays have no rational or legal right to marriage, any more than I have a right to get a hysterectomy. It doesn’t apply to me because it’s not the kind of thing for men. Likewise, marriage is an institution of the state to encourage the production and rearing of children. That does not apply to same-sex unions. They can do whatever they want to do, but the State and the people are under no obligation to give them legal recognition or financial incentives.
Jason
LikeLike