How does Same Sex Marriage "violate" the sanctity of marriage?

Great Debates
161

If it helps, consider that what’s self-evidently RIGHT to you is not nearly so evident to many others. One price of living in a representative democracy is the delegation to the group of the right of governance, even when you don’t agree with the group.

The way to gain ground in our form of government is to convince others of the rightness of your views. Civil rights advocates in the fifties and sixties did not simply reach out and take equal rights, proferred freely and without cost. They were hit with fire hoses on marches; their houses were bombed; their families were threatened; they were beaten; they were killed.

It shouldn’t be this way, of course. But the fact of the matter is that if you change this system for another system, where a few people can decide what’s RIGHT, regardless of the majority, then you had better pick those few people well, because the potential for their abuse of their power is ripe, and history tells us that such abuse is close to inevitable. We don’t get the best possible results here, but we get the best results possible.

162

As for other posters’ comments about the supposed inevitability of a legislative backlash in defense of discrimination, let me kindly mention what happened to the GOP’s latest attempt to pass an anti-SSM amendment in the Senate, just in the last few days. That body couldn’t be more supportive of such a measure than it is now, both by its composition and by the political needs of its majority in an election year. The thing couldn’t even get a simple majority. Choreographed though the vote was to try to put Senators on the record as opposing (or supporting) a particular interpretation of the Bible, it never had a serious chance of success. Is that going to happen in the future, either?

As strong as the opposition to considering gays as fully human is, especially in some parts of the country, I suspect many of you underestimate the strength of the American revulsion to discrimination, created in large part and tempered by the racial civil rights battles of recent decades. All polls or other studies I’ve ever seen on the subject show a rapid swing in favor of enforcing equal rights protections in recent years, as the subject has been discussed and people confront and reject prejudices. But is there even any anecdotal evidence for people changing their minds the other way?
Now, to go down to another poster’s level and clean up a little personally-directed foolishness - or at least try to:

You *might * have simply asked. I’d have been as willing as always to try to help you understand.

It isn’t about me. Except, at this point, to you, perhaps. Nor, if you had ever actually considered what I’ve said instead of looking for a way to react to it, would you *still * have the notion that I think the rules should be changed. I think the Constitution’s protections should not be changed but enforced. I’ve said that enough times to make it clear to everyone else.

Your claim that, in a discussion where the Loving case, and the grounding of SSM in equal protection as illustrated by the history of the civil rights movement are paramount, a comparison is “context-free” as well as being an analogy you think is relevant enough to address is not a position I think you wish to defend, but is instead indistinguishable from yet another of your personally-directed and unworthy snipes.

Isn’t it noticeable that the tool the anti-SSM folks most wish to use, other than of course footdragging, is *changes * to the Constitutions, both federal and state? Are those *changes * to the rules “happening fast enough”? Is it anything better than projection to call those who resist such changes the ones who “*want * the rules changed”, or is it simple intellectual dishonesty? Can you address that for once, without once again repeating your false allegation?

No analogy is perfect. Their usefulness is defined by the length of the explanation one has to go to to show where they fail - and yours is pretty long, you must admit, even if it did show where it fails. The point was that Congress could not then and cannot now always be counted upon to do either what the people want or what is right under the Constitution; sometimes the other branches have to “make law” (pace Bricker). You confirmed that such was indeed the case for black civil rights. If you weren’t so intent on telling me how I’m wrong, you might have noticed that you actually agree.

A simple scroll-up through the thread could help disabuse you of that notion. Unfortunately it would be rather repetitious - it would be mainly a list of the times you’ve told me I want the rules changed, the definition of marriage changed, and all the times I’ve patiently explained otherwise.

Oh. That must be a “delusion” on my part, then. :rolleyes:

163

I would agree. That along with your need first to make this personal and then to whine when I refuse to play your games (both in regards to actual law and to the false motivations you have ascribed to me in at least two threads) are clearly signs of some sort of delusion.

164

And there’s a very simple reason: There is no evidence that SCOTUS is on the verge of mandating legal SSM. If that had already happened, Bush’s amendment most likely would have passed. And if you think that a significant number of Democrats would rally to the gay rights cause and vote against it you don’t know much about politics.

Polls can be informative, but they aren’t worth much when we have actually voting data to go by instead. And the voting data indicates that Americans are much more averse to SSM than opinon polls would lead you to believe.

165

How could you miss the point so completely? There have already been *state * rulings mandating it. The proposed amendment was targeted at the states - did you actually read it? It would have prohibited *state * recognition of SSM. :rolleyes:

The thing feared *has * begun to happen, and yet the bill didn’t pass.

Voting patterns, largely influenced by artificial base-motivating techniques, are more representative of public opinion than objective polls that include less-motivated voters? Really? Tell me more about this “politics” stuff you say I don’t know much about. :rolleyes:

166

There have been three states in which courts have ruled that the state constitution required the recognition of same sex marriage. In two of those states, the voters overturned the court decisions with constitutional amendments. Massachusetts can be dismissed (by those who consider SSM to be a lesser issue than federalismn or who believe that we should not tamper with the Constitution every time some issue becomes a hot button) as being that freaky liberal state and the majority of senators (who wish to uphold federalism) can be persuaded to vote against a measure that appears to be overkill. (As it is, nearly half the senators voted in favor and more than half the members of the House voted in favor. The measure was stopped by a fairly small number of sane senators.) A ruling by SCOTUS that flew directly in the face of every state that has held a referendum on the issue would quite probably move twelve senators to switch their votes, sending the amendment further down the road to passage.

And “the thing feared” is a decision by SCOTUS that would affect the entire nation. As long as the decisions remain in the states (and the states overwhelmingly vote to restrict it, themselves), the Senate (or enough senators) can maintain the lofty dignity to uphold federalism.

167

It is certainly **not ** “upholding federalism” to **ban ** states outright from recognizing SSM - as the proposed and failed amendment would have done, but an *assault * on it. If your point is simply that pols often claim to be doing the opposite of what they’re really doing, that is hardly a revelation.

“The thing feared” can hardly be claimed to be a Supreme Court decision affecting the whole nation, as long as the weapon offered in opposing it is an amendment affecting the whole nation. The thing feared, sadly, is the “gay agenda”, whatever the hell that may be imagined or portrayed to be.

The point of mentioning the amendment was to show that Congress, when up against it, already refuses to take such an action, and the situation there will never be as favorable as it is now. Yes, many Senators, perhaps most, did their political calculations and voted accordingly, but it had already been agreed in advance in the back rooms that the thing wouldn’t pass, did you notice?

If they had ever considered it seriously, do you really think more of the ones who voted against discrimination this time would have reversed their votes than the ones who voted this time in favor of the political easy way in their states? By a margin enough to pass it? The latest polls I’ve seen have SSM listed as the #1 national issue by only 3% of voters - are those concerned with the war or the economy or health care going to forget about those things and vote solely for gaybashing instead, SCOTUS decision or not? Of course not.

168

I think tom~ answered that question more than adequately. The only thing I’d add is that we might get a similar result if a dozen state SCs suddenly ruled similiarly to the MA SC. I’m not as certain about that as I am about a backlash to a SCOTUS decision, but I think it’s a distinct possibilty.

What, may I ask, is “artificial” about putting a SSM ballot initiave before the people? You speak about “the base” as if they weren’t actual people. Should we ignore their input because they are “the base” of some party? And frankly, those who don’t vote can’t expect their opinions to matter one way or another.

I’m only one man, and there are only 24 hours in a day. :slight_smile:

169

OK, since you asked for some instruction on politics: That 3% would be a lot higher if the SCOTUS decided the 14th amendment mandates SSM. You see, politics is a dynamic process, not a static one. Surely you’re not suggesting otherwise… are you?

170

Not really at all, actually, if you read my reply.

3 states isn’t enough, but 12 is? Where in between is the magic tipping point, and how have you determined it?

Believing that the results are truly representative of broad popular opinion, even more so than a poll.

Are you at all familiar with the theory of statistics? Do you know what a “representative sample” is? :rolleyes:

Based on what? Reading tea leaves? You’re consciously ignoring the only actual *data * out there.

171

This is exactly true, although why you insist on misunderstanding that point I am not sure.

The FMA would have been an action taken against federalism.
A sufficient number of senators felt that supporting federalism (by voting against FMA) was more important than actually imposing a federal ban on SSM.
Given the reactions of the real live voters of every state which has put SSM to a referendum–in which SSM has been voted down in 100% of the cases, including overturning state courts when those decisions have been put to a vote–a plurality of senators felt safe supporting federalism by voting against FMA.

In fact, this is not the point at which it is the most favorable moment to push for the FMA. As you, yourself, note, only 3% of the population even think it is a high priority issue. The senators recognized that this was the perfect opportunity to avoid taking a serious stand on the issue, since they can oppose FMA under the guise of supporting federalism with no threat from the voters because neither SCOTUS nor the various state ballot initiatives are likely to make SSM legal.

I propose that, given the above facts, had there been a chance that SCOTUS would approve a nationally recognized right to SSM, the senate would have put aside their eagerness to “defend” federalism and have voted for the FMA.

I suspect that you are also misreading the statistics regarding the popular views of SSM. Most people do not spend much time worrying about something that they do not believe will actually happen. Jobs, economy, taxes, and war will always rate much higher on their minds. However, when the issue is placed in front of them (for whatever reason), a majority of voters in 100% of the states where the issue has been placed on the ballot have voted to prevent SSM, (including in two states where the voters might have been favorably influenced by a court decision that would have favored SSM).

172

Well, there isn’t a magic tipping point. I’m suggesting that 12 would be enough, although it could be less. It certainly is less than 50, I can tell you that. If you really want to quibble about the number, we can, and if you don’t like 12, use 20. It was an illustrative example in which the precise number used was not the important point.

Broad popular opinion is meaningless when you have actual voting data. The latter is all that matters in the realm of politics. Unless you’ve heard of politicians who were afraid of offending people who don’t vote, because I haven’t.

We don’t vote by statistics, and representative samples don’t mean shit when there is actual election data to go by. But I’ll pass on having you explain the branch of mathematics called “Statistics” to me (which is what I assume you mean by “the theory of statistics”). I’ll limp along with what meager bits I learned while earning a graduate degree in Physics.

I listened to the Senate floor speeches in which I heard a common theme-- we don’t need this amendment because there is no real threat from the SCOTUS at this time. Let the states decide for themselves. Of course, an amendment passed by Congress might not be the same one Bush proposes. It might be worded so as to allow States to legalize SSM, but that they can’t be mandated to do so by either the federal or their own state constitutions.

As for actual data, what it tells me is that there are probably enough states to ratify an amendment if it passes Congress right now. It would be close, but it just might pass. If the SCOTUS were to issue a ruling mandating SSM, it would no longer be just “close”.

173

Bolding, mine. Since when is any person’s religions belief (or lack) considered to be the business of government in this country? The very idea that it was framed this way should raise everyone’s red warning flag.

I fear you may understimate The People’s capacity for bigotry and hate (so long as it is someone else on the receiving end). Me, I’m cynical.

174

Why you insist on ignoring the role of simple political positioning in an election year is mystifying, but you’re entitled to it. You know what these Senators *said * about it, when forced to say something, but do you *really * take that at face value? That would take incredible naivete.

If you have a basis in fact for believing it can ever be much more than that, or indeed any more, please provide it.

You could have stopped right there. That’s normally motivation enough for the little darlings, *regardless * of the issue at hand. The leap to claiming it’s a principled stand in support of federalism, a doctrine which has been antiquated since the Civil War, mind you, and is still taken seriously by only a reactionary minority, is poorly founded.

I propose instead that they would continue to take their stands primarily on the basis of offending the fewest voters in an election year. If you think your version is more realistic, you’re welcome to it, naturally.

Did you see the part where I suggested that it is never going to rise above concerns about the war, economy, and health care for many more voters than it is now, or any at all for that matter? Or where I suggested that no SCOTUS decision is going to change that?

Ah, okay, I see. You’re under the impression that Constitutional amendments are voted on by the people directly. Wrong, they’re voted on by legislatures, with the same calculations that federal-level bodies have. Or maybe you’re thinking of elections for Senator? Nope, the candidates’ stands on the war, economy, and health care will be the dominant issues. Single-issue voters will still concentrate on abortion and gun rights, still more important issues to many more voters than gay bashing, even though there’s certainly a lot of overlap.
SteveG1, you may be right, but I think there is as much reason to be optimistic as pessimistic about human nature. Perhaps no more, but not much less, okay?

You brought it up. If you can’t defend it, that isn’t my problem.

It isn’t going to pass Congress right now. Maybe you didn’t notice. But, out of curiosity, *what * “actual data” are you considering, and what alternative interpretations have you considered for it?

175

The concept, grasshopper, not the number. As more states go the judicial route to legalizing SSM, then a federal legislation solution to ban SSM becomes more likely. If you can’t understand that, then I’ll just drop it-- I’m sure everyone else reading this does.

Of course it isn’t gong to pass right now, but we’re talking about conditions that might change the likelhood of passsage in the near future (eg, a SCOTUS mandate to legaize SSM). Comprende? Now, as we all know, passage in Congress does not an amendment make. It also has to pass in 3/4 of the state legislatures. Hence, my reference to actual data in the states, where

3/4 of 50 is 38 (rounded up). 38 < 43. Hence my inclination to believe that it could very well pass in the state legislatures right now, even without juducial action form the SCOTUS. Throw in some actual judicial action from that body, and the odds go up considereably.

As for alternative wording for the anti-SSM amendment, I only want to point out that everyone knew it wouldn’t pass this time, so the precise wording was not too important. In the event of a pro-SSM ruling by the SCOTUS, there would be a real effort to get such an amendment passed, and so if the wording needed to be tweaked in order to ensure its passage, I suspect that we’d see whatever tweaking was necessary. That could take on any number of forms. If you still can’t understand that concept and you want to explore it more concretely, we can.

176

You might find it easier to participate in this discussion if you stoppeed trying to create strawman positions for other posters.

I made no claim that the senators were taking a “principled” stand on anything. I explicitly said that they (or, a small number of them) were using the knowledge that SSM has no hope of being enacted through the courts or Congress to avoid dealing with declaring either their support or opposition at the federal level while hiding behind a shield (or façade) of support for federalism.

The fact that you and I are both saying that they are reacting to perceived political pressure, but you now insist that I am wrong (and then assign me a position I have not expressed) is simply making this thread unnecessarily cumbersome.

Then you are either being naive or something. As long as there is no chance for SSM, it is not an issue on which the general public cares as much as issues that directly affect them. However, as we have seen in real life, when the issue is presented to the public, they have reacted negatively. An Alaskan lower court court declared SSM possible. Then the Hawaiian supreme court ruled the same way. Immediately upon the publication of the decision of the Hawaiian court, the voters of Alaska (where it was only a possiblitiy not yet declared by their supreme court) and the voters of Hawaii (where it had been declared a reality) rose up to outlaw the decisions of the courts by constitutional amendments. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that SSM was legal in a more populous and higher visibility state, the people of an additional 17 states ran to the polls to outlaw SSM in their states as a preventative measure. (It is also unknown whether the voters of Massachusetts would have actually accepted or rejected SSM; the Massachusetts amendment procedure is a drawn-out three-year process that requires so much effort that the people rarely get involved with it. The MA voters might have accepted or rejected SSM, but the process is too convoluted to know, for sure.)

So the idea that a decision by SCOTUS to permit SSM would be met by yawns from the population at large are not supported by actual events over the last decade.

I am not sure why you are dragging this red herring into the conversation, but it is not an accurate statement.

Constitutional Amendments in most states are voted on by the general electorate–the electorate that has outlawed SSM in 19 states.

Constitutional Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are first voted on by Congress and then sent to the states where the state legislatures can decide whether to perform the ratification, themselves, or place the matter on the ballot for the general voting public.

Regardless, if the Senate had not decided to forego the pleasure of passing the FMA, it would have been sent to the states for ratification. If SCOTUS decided to make SSM legal, the example we currently have–19 states voting to kill SSM and one state not voting on the issue–suggests strongly that if SSM was perceived as an issue, today, regardless of the war, taxes, the economy, etc., it would lose in either a referendum or in the legislatures where the legislators are looking at the votes.

177

I’d also like to put to rest this idea that the voters have to be manipulated in some way in order to pass anti-SSM legislation, or that there has to be some kind of artificial base rallying (as if any votes can be called artificial in the first place). lf we look at Oregon, for example, that state passed Ballot Measure 36 (a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman) by a margin of 57-43 in Nov '04. This in a state where (a) Kerry beat Bush, and (b) the opponents of Measure 36 outspent its supporters by 2-1.

One can certainly make the argument that the Republicans (shamelessly) use this issue to rally the base and get support for their candidates, but I’ve yet to see a case where it can be argued that the base had to be rallied (artificially or otherwise) simply to ensure the passage of anti-SSM legislation. BTW, one reason to be suspicious of public opinion polls in gauging the potential success of such ballot initiatives is that the younger demographic supports SSM much more than does the older demographic, and we all know which deomgraphic votes in higher numbers. The good news is that this bodes well, in the long term, for legislation legalizing SSM in at least some states. But it’ll still be a slow process and it’s unclear that all of the younger SSM supporters will continue to support it in their senior years. (I used to think marijuana would be legalized by now since the old farts were dying off, but that hasn’t happened.)