The American Spectator

WendyG| 5.5.09 @ 1:43PM

Despicable the way Carrie is being attacked. She's beautiful and that is, in her case apparently, a crime.

Meanwhile, (speaking of Mary Jo) Vanity Fair (of course) has fawning coverage of Ted Kennedy's revisionist history bio this month.

Marjorie| 5.5.09 @ 1:58PM

What's more damaging to marriages; committed homosexual couples or porn created by people like Carrie Prejean?

brucestrav| 5.5.09 @ 2:35PM

Can somebody admit that this is just a joke now? Otherwise, I think we've reached the End Times (which I never believed in, but.....)

chad| 5.5.09 @ 2:51PM

Marjorie,
Committed homosexual couples are more damaging to marriage because that's not what marriage is. each person in this country has equal opportunity to marry SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX.

Alana| 5.5.09 @ 3:04PM

@chad
I don't see how homosexual marriage is dangerous though? If my brother marries his boyfriend, how does that threaten my marriage to my husband? I don't get it at all. Can you explain it to me?

Marjorie| 5.5.09 @ 3:15PM

Alana, chad can't give you an answer because there isn't one. No heterosexual couple has gotten divorced because of gay marriage.

But a huge number of marriages are broken up by pornography. Immodest little tarts who prance around for cameras in their skivvies have a very real, solid negative impact on marriages. Most marriage counselors will tell you that porn addiction is one of the most common problems in marriages.

JB in Silver Lake| 5.5.09 @ 3:21PM

I fail to see how pointing out Ms. Prejean's extra-curricular activities equals persecution. Ms. Prejean is the one who posed for the nude pictures. She's the one who requested to have breast augmentation. Having those things pointed out doesn't constitute persecution.

She certainly has the right and the freedom to speak her opinion regarding same-sex marriage and should be commended for saying how she feels. At the same time, she can't go around acting like a victim when her own, less that prudent, actions are exposed.

It appears to me that Ms. Gallagher is doing her best to profit and benefit off of Ms. Prejean. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Ms. Gallagher and her organization are using Ms. Prejean and will discard her when they feel she isn't worth anything to them any more. That's pretty evil...much more evil than having the fact that Ms. Prejean has posed for nude pictures brought into the light.

Brad Schwartze| 5.5.09 @ 3:25PM

OK, Marjorie, I admit it: Not only is there no intellectual argument against gay/lesbian/transgender marriage, there is also no intellectual argument for churches being allowed to cite religious beliefs in refusing to perform such marriage ceremonies.

However, I can most certainly make a class warfare and an emotional argument against gay marriage. You won't like the argument I make, as it will shake your assumptions about conservatives to your core. And if a dope like me can make an emotional argument, I KNOW Stacy McCain can.

So, are you in the mood to press us on that emotional argument?

Marjorie| 5.5.09 @ 3:39PM

I have a three year old; I have my fill of emotional, irrational arguments. So if that is all you have, Brad, I am not interested.

But I disagree with you that there is no intellectual argument to defend a church making any decision they want about who they can marry. Divorced people may legally marry, but few Catholic churches will perform marriages for divorced people (though clearly some will, as I believe that Ms. Gallagher got divorced and remarried, which makes her an adulterer according to Jesus' clear teachings. Though I guess people like Ms. Gallagher only heed Bible teachings when they condemn OTHER people's behaviors, not their own).

I know of churches that refuse to marry people who have lived together before marriage, religious leaders who have refused to preside over interfaith weddings--this happens every day. Because it is legal for a Jewish person to marry a Christian doesn't mean every church must be willing to perform the wedding. They aren't.

Brad Schwartze| 5.5.09 @ 3:45PM

Marjorie, class warfare arguments are at their very heart and soul emotional. And yes, I can tell you're not prepared for the class warfare argument against gay marriage.

Let's just say it's the nuclear option that Maggie Gallagher has always had in her back pocket.

ZnSD| 5.5.09 @ 4:01PM

The class warfare argument? You mean the one in which those demonizing marriage equality show that they have no class? That's already been done. How about the class warfare argument in which people who are in a committed relationship for over 40 years but are barred from marriage suffer financially when one of them dies - because they don't have the protections of marriage. How about THAT class warfare argument? How about the fact that we're talking about civil marriage and religious belief has nothing to do with it?

Brad Schwartze| 5.5.09 @ 4:14PM

ZnSD,

I've left some pretty strong hints regard The Anti-Gay Marriage Argument That Dare Not Speak its Name in my previous comments. How about asking the Davids (Frum, Brooks, Harsanyi) of conservatism some questions about my class warfare argument, and see and feel the shrieking in response?

DougN| 5.5.09 @ 4:19PM

ZnSD, it seems to me that if two people are committed to each other for over forty years, they might want to take ONE day out of more than 14, 600 to construct a will. That small gesture seems to be the first real proof of said commitment, I would think.

Crusader| 5.5.09 @ 4:25PM

Marjorie, Alana, Gay People Everywhere,

I am an American. I believe in the US Constitution. I would be completely happy if the federal behemoth gubmint left me the heck alone. Therefore, I could care less you sleep with, stick your appendages into, or anything else. I DO NOT CARE WHO'S POLE YOU SMOKE OR CARPET YOU MUCH, I REALLY DON'T!!!!! That being said, I expect the same "tolerance" you bleat for when someone like Carrie Prejean expresses an opinion.

Further, if you want "gay marriage" go make up some gay religion with a gay god and gay pastors and have them marry you in their merry little gay churches. Just don't expect me to recognize it. You can recognize (or not) my marriage and I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S A$$!!!!! It doesn't change the fact that I love my wife and family and am committed to living in a monogamous relationship with her for the rest of my life.

Man, whodathought gay people were sooo SENSITIVE!

BuckeyeSam| 5.5.09 @ 4:42PM

ZnSD:

I agree with DougN: grow up and get some estate planning done--like any adult. Wills for each, revocable trusts (if appropriate) for each, durable powers of attorney for each, and whatever form of advanced health care directive is in place. If so committed, they'd already have done so. Also, most wealth is actually disposed of by titling (payable-on-death accounts, transfer-on-death accounts, and joint tenancy with right of survivorship) or by beneficiary designation (life insurance, IRAs, 401(k) plans, and the like).

Marriage between a man and a women is the foundation of an ordered society. It's the basis for our most constructive family unit. I don't see this as an equal protection violation. And I don't like the idea of gay relationships forced on religious denominations for fear of some form of discrimination or loss of tax-exempt status. I haven't seen anything showing that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like race or sex. It's sexual behavior. Have at it, but it's up to voters whether they want a behavior actively promoted as something we want to celebrate.

KJ| 5.5.09 @ 5:10PM

Just a drive by comment here.
1. Because we have separation of Church and State in this country no government can tell a church whom to perform a wedding ceremony for. It's indisputably in the constitution. No church will ever be forced to marry a couple they do not wish to marry, be they gay, or interracial. The constitution leaves no room for debate on this.
2. As those of you who are married know, getting there is a two step process. One of course is the religious ceremony. That where you go to your priest/rabbi/imam/pastor and get bound together before the congregation and your families.
The other is the mundane bureaucratic part where you pay the fee, get the marriage license and submit it to the state. Only that part has any legal weight is that second part. This is the bit that grants a couple the sacrosanct right to visit each other in the hospital, to make end of life decisions for one another, to get each others' pension and the tax breaks ( like not being taxes on the house one inherits from one's spouse).
The practical result of this two fold system is that one can be married in the eyes of the church, but be single in the yes of the law and vise versa.
3. The only marriage that is in question here is civil marriage, the mundane bureaucratic sort. It is true that some of the legal benefits of civil marriag can be obtained by powers of attorney and the like. There are several problems with it though.
-First, most states with anti gay marriage laws on the books do not honor these documents
-Second, getting all of the legal stuff done is prohibitively expensive for most folk, and amounts to a tax on gay couples, which does violate equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.
4. Finally, please keep in mind that every homosexual person is a product of heterosexual behavior.

KJ| 5.5.09 @ 5:11PM

Just a drive by comment here.
1. Because we have separation of Church and State in this country no government can tell a church whom to perform a wedding ceremony for. It's indisputably in the constitution. No church will ever be forced to marry a couple they do not wish to marry, be they gay, or interracial. The constitution leaves no room for debate on this.
2. As those of you who are married know, getting there is a two step process. One of course is the religious ceremony. That where you go to your priest/rabbi/imam/pastor and get bound together before the congregation and your families.
The other is the mundane bureaucratic part where you pay the fee, get the marriage license and submit it to the state. Only that part has any legal weight is that second part. This is the bit that grants a couple the sacrosanct right to visit each other in the hospital, to make end of life decisions for one another, to get each others' pension and the tax breaks ( like not being taxes on the house one inherits from one's spouse).
The practical result of this two fold system is that one can be married in the eyes of the church, but be single in the yes of the law and vise versa.
3. The only marriage that is in question here is civil marriage, the mundane bureaucratic sort. It is true that some of the legal benefits of civil marriag can be obtained by powers of attorney and the like. There are several problems with it though.
-First, most states with anti gay marriage laws on the books do not honor these documents
-Second, getting all of the legal stuff done is prohibitively expensive for most folk, and amounts to a tax on gay couples, which does violate equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.
4. Finally, please keep in mind that every homosexual person is a product of heterosexual behavior.

BN| 5.5.09 @ 5:12PM

I just find it amazing that 10% of the population (10% being homo) is so vocal about the what marriage should and shouldn't be. Does the 10% want to be 20%? or 30%? Are the gay marriage proponents in line for (social group) type of reparations by screaming " We want marriage?" What find disturbing is that "love" doesn't mean "love" unless it encompasses some type of tolerance, and all that I see and hear about this pageant winner is selfishness and hate. Yet because of the way she was raised - in a loving home, by a mom and a dad, and it's not like a gay lifestyle couldn't ever be construed as narrow-minded, could it? My apologies to anyone offended, but these are just barely humble thoughts. In this situation, no-one can be happy.

DD| 5.5.09 @ 5:33PM

@BN.

Yeah, those uppity minorities. What are they thinking? This is America, where majority rules over minority rights, duh.

Bob| 5.5.09 @ 7:13PM

Hey Brad, why don't you just reveal your nuclear bomb instead of making weak threats like "you won't like it...", "it's going to make you cry..." ... come on, I bet those arguments are so weak you don't dare mention them, because we're just going to laugh at your metaphorical face, and you know that's the case.

Brad in Seattle| 5.5.09 @ 7:40PM

It might do you "marriage traditionalists" to do some research before you continue your crusade for "tradition." You've got an absolutely Disney-fied version of the history of marriage. There's no such thing as a rich, several hundred or even several thousand year old tradition of marriage. The Bible that you tout ... you don't seem to follow. A few highlights:

Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship.

Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist.

Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction.

As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought...[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free." 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.

As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram would have an heir. Presumably, the arrangement to marry and engage in sexual activity was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to what she probably felt were serial rapes by Abram.

A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.

Polygynous marriages were part of God's plan, according to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Jacob had twelve sons who became the patriarchs of the twelve Tribes of Israel with the help of two wives and two female slaves.

... and on and on and on.

So there ya go. If you like tradition, you'll probably want to consult your bible to get yourself back inline with what you believe God wants from you.

Shelly McNelly| 5.5.09 @ 9:51PM

Back to the topic at hand. Where in the HELL were the parents while this underage bimbo was shooting a soft-porno spread?

Where? Church? The local porno shop?

Why be ashamed now? Oh, she LIED three times, in writing, that she had not posed nude or semi nude.

The NOM folks must be proud. There little "Christian" poke is about to be busted, publicly.

So, what does NOM do? Shift blame to the Gays. The gays made her strip naked, not her EGO!

Basil Plumley| 5.5.09 @ 10:13PM

Thanks Brad in Seattle, for sharing what seems to be the e-mail making the rounds. Like many such e-mails, it seems flawed.
Perhaps, you can explain how Sarah AND Abram were infertile. Don't you even check these things out before posting?
In fact, just a cursory check of Genesis 16 does not describe any rapes by Abram as you (the e-mail) describe.
A cursory look at Deuteronomy 22:28-29 also does not state what you claim.

I was not aware that any of the behavior this e-mail describes is accepted in today's culture and Church. Maybe, in your world it does but not in the normal world.

An embarrassing contribution to this forum. Perhaps, a name change is in order for you Bradley.

Richard Garner| 5.6.09 @ 9:18AM

For more on the separation of church and state and what it really means, check out this blog post: http://richardtgarner.blogspot.com/2009/04/separation-of-church-and-state.html

Also, check out my post on Carrie Prejean.

Akbar Aswalibal| 5.6.09 @ 6:40PM

I would like to ask Maggie Gallagher exactly what she means when she says of herself " as a former unwed mother"? Is the aforementioned Ms Gallagher still among the living? Extremely bad construction and usage, Ms Gallagher, very bad indeed.

Akbar Aswalibal| 5.6.09 @ 6:44PM

I would like to ask Maggie Gallagher exactly what she means when she says of herself " as a former unwed mother"? Is the aforementioned Ms Gallagher still among the living? Extremely bad construction and usage, Ms Gallagher, very bad indeed.

MTB| 5.7.09 @ 5:21PM

Miss CA, used the CA pageant people after she had her title to get a boob job. She signed a contract stating she had never done what the photos that are now available says that she has done. She did not return pageant calls to assume her role as Ms Ca when they called, because she jumped on her 15 minutes of fame, leaving behind the Miss CA pageant that helped her so far. She posed for those pictures at 17 years of age. Her mother and father are divorced, and the testified against her father and his room mate in court. FAMILY VALUES my butt!

She's a blonde gold digger, who really has no clue, which is why she fits in with the Maggie Gallagher crowd. Maggie is in it for the money! She herself wrote a testimony for President Bush and Received more than 20K to do it. Yeah, no problems with ethics, she jumped on a band wagon and is greesing her pockets with the fear money of bigots. She probably laughs herself to sleep thinking, "Donations donations donations, and all she had to do was put out a few BADLY made videos with a lot of misleading statements, get exposure from the many parodies which mocked her and the financial backers, and she counted the cash.

She's refused to submit 990's for her organization as required by law, she's screaming a child needs a mom and a dad as though all children are raised by Ward and June Clever.

Yet, those good old bigot boys keep writting her those checks, and Lord knows she definately appears to be eating very well.

Marjorie| 5.10.09 @ 7:10PM

Love the blog…here's the deal, check out (www.ThePatientsAdvantage.com); seriously. I ran into them looking for breast augmentation surgeons. They have a great way to find the best surgeons and it is completely free. I have used them a couple times now.

99.9%| 5.12.09 @ 10:57PM

DNA scientists have proven that ALL humans share 99.9% of the same DNA structure. The 0.1% is responsible for: physical appearance,
children born with abnormalities, diseases, etc.
Maggie Gallagher overlooks the fact that she shares 99.9% DNA similarity with all those she 'condemns.'
Could it be that back 5,000 years ago when Leviticus was written, the nomadic Israelites,
living in tents had no idea that God also made that 0.1% DNA?

99.9%| 5.12.09 @ 11:04PM

Maggie has written a book stating that married people are the happinest, ergo...wouldn't that apply to married homosexuals.
I am sure that married atheists also fit the category. Now, some people don't opt for marriage....does that make them unhappy.
Are married Muslims (they do not accept Jesus)
happier than single Muslims? Are married Muslims as equally happy as married Christians?
Commitment between couples, that are intelligent,
kind, generous, honest.....need I go on? result in
happy people. It is not the institute of marriage that makes people happy, but the make up of two people....gay or straight.
Maggie, please comment.

Marielle LeDuc| 5.13.09 @ 12:06AM

None of these arguments really matter. All US citizens should be protected by the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws." If one can't get married, one can't access all the legal protections that only come with marriage (the right to claim citizenship for a foreign-born partner, for example, or the right to file federal tax returns as a married couple). It's against the law to deprive a group of American citizens of these rights, just as it's against the law to imprison someone, no matter how awful he is, from his right to a fair trial, a jury of his peers, and a full account of the charges against him.

And so, no matter how one feels about homosexuals and their longtime partners, the law supports their right to marry, and unless we want to change the Constitution or remove ALL legal rights that are only accessible through marriage (neither case is very bloody likely), we are depriving this group of people of their constitutional rights. Arguing about "definitions" of marriage, the morality or immorality of their behavior, or tradition is irrelevant. The laws are clear--that's why state after state is seeing no other option but to legalize same-sex marriage. It's the law. Homosexuality is not illegal, as are incest and polygyny. The only thing preventing these marriages is a blatant disregard for the constitution.

Pole Smoker| 5.13.09 @ 5:33AM

Crusader:
I am glad that you don't care about "WHO'S POLE I SMOKE" and let me live my life. That's real tolerance and I really appreciate that.

But miss California cares, and it is my life not hers (she doesn't "much carpet" does she) that she is expressing her opinion on. That's why I am upset with her. She has the right to say what she wants--and face the consequence with doing so.

99.9%| 5.13.09 @ 2:19PM

Miss California read a script (no doubt written for her) and made these two statements:
a) her grandfather fought at the Battle of the Bulge for freedom of speech
b) naked photos were the result of the wind.

b. I am not going to try to tackle., but (a) is interesting.

Listen, sweeheart (Bogie voice) alongside your grandfather were gays...believe it....and secondly,
your grandfather fought for equality of all American citizens. The keyword is 'equality' over your right to voice a narrow view that dishonours your grandfather by taking the every day 'freedom' away from gays.

Marielle LeDuc| 5.14.09 @ 11:32AM

Hahaha! That's funny, 99.9%!!! I also thought she was reading prepared statements, or repeating them.

I can name some gays who were at the Battle of the Bulge. Yes.

She has the right to her opinion, but doesn't she need support for it, not emotional appeals and rhetoric?

That's why I'm writing this on the Gallagher page. Her support is the best that side has--and it's still pretty weak.

Yes, perhaps marriage SHOULD be about procreation, but it's not. Straight people have made sure of that, and so has contraception. Ban THAT, not marriage rights for LGBT.

And if children really need mothers and fathers to escape being killers or delinquents, prove it with evidence that doesn't really point to a lack of parental involvement/closeness and/or ECONOMICS, and not the gender of the parent, as the real cause of the trouble.

Prejean just stated an unsupported personal opinion. What I want to know is whether or not she voted!?

m.

Philip Chandler| 5.14.09 @ 1:58PM

chad writes: "Committed homosexual couples are more damaging to marriage because that's not what marriage is. each person in this country has equal opportunity to marry SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX."

*********
Response:
*********

It is manifest that you lack basic understanding of the concept of the equal protection of the laws. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution includes the Equal Protection Clause, which states that "[no state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This Clause is binding on the states. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted as subsuming an equal protection component that is binding on the US government (i.e., the federal government) (Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)).

An equal protection violation may occur when two groups of persons are treated differently by a statute despite the fact that those two groups are similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the statute in question (see Varnum v. Brien, 07-1499 (Iowa, April 3, 2009)), with resultant adverse impact to members of one of the groups in question. You state that both gay and heterosexual persons may marry only a person of the opposite sex; thus there is no equal protection violation. This assertion ignores the requirement that the groups in question (gay and straight persons) must be similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law in question (in this case, the marriage laws). To tell a gay person that he or she has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex only is to tell that gay person that he or she has no right at all. This is because you ignored the fact that the groups concerned must be similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law. The legitimate purposes of a state's marriage statute are to enable persons to enter into marital relationships. These relationships are by definition sexual, romantic, and emotional. A gay person cannot enter into a sexual, romantic, and emotional relationship with a person of the opposite sex – this is so basic that it should not even be necessary for me to point this out to you. A gay person, by definition, is emotionally and romantically attracted only to persons of the same sex.

Telling a gay person that he, like a straight person, may only marry a person of the opposite sex, and that there is no equal protection violation is analogous to telling a black person that he or she may only marry another black person, and that there is no equal protection violation because a white person may also only marry another white person (prior to 1967, this was exactly the “logic” invoked by the Virginia state courts; the US Supreme Court struck down all “miscegenation” statutes in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)).

Marriage is about more than the right to have sex or to bear children; it would “…demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse [or to have children]” (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)). People also get married in order to express their lifelong commitment to each other; to provide each other with mutual companionship and emotional support; to pool and share their resources; to help each other make important, life-changing decisions; to express, both to each other and to society, their mutual romantic and emotional attachment; and to create a stable structure in which to raise children (this list is by no means exhaustive). Thus, a statute that permits heterosexuals to marry the partner of their choice, but which denies gay persons the ability to marry the partner of their choice, violates the core principles of equal protection.

The right to marry is a “fundamental” right under federal constitutional jurisprudence (Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)). It is also a “fundamental” right under state constitutional jurisprudence in all states in which this question has been considered. When the ability to exercise a “fundamental” right is withdrawn from any class of persons, or when that class of persons is denied that ability in the first place, the state is required to demonstrate that its actions further a “compelling” state interest, and that the statutory exclusion in question is “necessary” for the promotion of the compelling state interest in question (the latter requirement is referred to as “narrow tailoring”). This standard of judicial review is referred to as “strict scrutiny” – under this standard of review, the burden falls to the state to demonstrate that the challenged measure promotes a compelling state interest, and that the measure in question sweeps no more broadly than is absolutely necessary to promote the interest in question.

A related issue in equal protection theory pertains to the definition of a “suspect class”. A “suspect class” is a group of persons, members of which can demonstrate a history of invidious and purposeful discrimination, where such discrimination is triggered by the expression of a characteristic that has no bearing on the ability of members of that class to contribute to society; the characteristic in question is either “immutable” or changeable only at unacceptable personal cost to members of the group in question, and the group in question can demonstrate a history of relative political powerlessness. Suspect classes often involve “discrete and insular” minorities.

Any measure that withdraws the exercise of a protected liberty interest from members of a suspect class must survive strict scrutiny. The California Supreme Court, in in re Marriage Cases, S147999 (2008), held that gay persons comprise a suspect class for the purposes of state equal protection considerations. Proposition 8 did not, and cannot, reverse this aspect of the state high court’s decision; gay persons in California remain members of a suspect class, and in all contexts other than marriage, legislation that adversely impacts gay persons must pass review under strict scrutiny. The Iowa Supreme Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court both held that gay persons comprise a “quasi-suspect class”. Members of a quasi-suspect class meet the criteria for membership in a suspect class, but not to the same degree; and legislation that classifies along quasi-suspect lines must survive review under “quasi-strict scrutiny” (also referred to as intermediate-level review). For a measure to pass muster under intermediate-level review (or quasi-strict scrutiny), the burden again falls to the state to demonstrate that the measure in question promotes an “important” state interest, and that the measure in question is “substantially related to” the promotion of that interest. This is a slightly less demanding standard of review than strict scrutiny; it has been reformulated in federal constitutional jurisprudence involving gender-based classifications to require the showing by the state of an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the challenged measure (statute, ordinance, executive order, policy, etc.).

The state high courts of Connecticut and Iowa both concluded that the prohibition of gay marriage could not survive intermediate-level review (quasi-strict scrutiny). If a measure cannot survive quasi-strict scrutiny, it follows logically that the measure in question certainly cannot survive strict scrutiny (which is even more demanding than quasi-strict scrutiny).

The California Supreme Court concluded that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is as destructive and as legally impermissible as discrimination on the basis of race or religion, and applied strict scrutiny to the challenged legislation. Gay marriage thus became legal in California for a period of about five months, until Proposition 8 was passed by a narrow margin in November 2008.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the prohibition of gay marriage could not even survive mere rational basis review, and struck down this prohibition on those grounds. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for more than five years now, and heterosexual marriage has not collapsed in that state. Heterosexual marriage has not suffered in Massachusetts as a result of the existence of literally tens of thousands of gay marriages in that state.

Now gay marriage is also legal in Vermont and Maine, and it appears that the governor of New Hampshire may let that state’s gay marriage bill become law without his signature (he still has not signed or vetoed this legislation, and time is running out for him to act). In both Vermont and Maine, gay marriage became legal as a result of the state legislatures voting to make it legal, without prompting by a state court decision. The hard right can no longer argue that gay marriage is being “forced” onto people by the courts. Furthermore, the New York state legislature may well vote to legalize gay marriage in that state within the next few days (the bill has already been approved by the Assembly; it now moves to the state senate for consideration).

Your statement that “Committed homosexual couples are more damaging to marriage because that's not what marriage is” is incoherent. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that committed gay relationships in some way damage heterosexual marriage? If so, how? In what way do gay relationships damage heterosexual marriage? This statement is unclear – please clarify.

PHILIP CHANDLER

Kevin| 5.16.09 @ 4:27PM

Outside of a courtroom, appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. One of the key areas of dispute on this subject is that some people believe there is such a thing as "being homosexual", while for others it is a matter of acts, such as sodomy, and the morality thereof.

Obviously, same-sex intercourse is something that anyone can choose to do. Is it wrong for someone who does not self-identify as "homosexual" to choose to do it? If it is not, then the debate is not about a person's true nature. It is about the act. In which case, deciding one way or the other is not unjust discrimination but democracy (in the case of Proposition 8, for example). Much as one might have a difference of opinion over Prohibition legislation or burdensome environmental laws.

Nor does the issue of consent raise it to the level of a "civil rights" debate, since consent does not override every other social concern. For example, if you kill someone in a consensual duel, you're still guilty. If you beat your wife, you cannot plead that she is a sado-masochist and was literally asking for it. If you sign a contract promising to surrender a pound of flesh to a debt collector in the event of non-payment, it won't be enforced.

The "born that way" argument is dependent on acceptance of the word "homosexual", which was coined in the ninteenth century. This word is intended to "prove" the existence of a third sex, in the absence of any evidence.

If one understands that the matter actually concerns deeds, then the argument falters. Anyone with free-will can refrain from committing an act such as sodomy. What is wrong with that act, apart from the important health concerns, is that the center of our morality - insofar as you choose to participate in civilization - is man; i.e., of course, human beings. This man is not just your friend, your classmate, your colleague or someone else you know. It is every man. Our morality is concerned with the well-being of every man and woman, including how we come into being. Sodomy prevents people from coming into being, and it is wrong to pervert someone else from the moral good of being a father to his own children.

Perhaps it is being claimed that there is a section of the population, presumably very small, that suffers from a condition akin to Tourette's syndrome. But the existence of Tourette's does not mean that we are required to accept swearing. Instead, sufferers of the syndrome are offered appropriate help.

Mykelb| 10.28.09 @ 1:31PM

Kevin, your heterosexual supremacism is fanatical. I suggest you talk to a professional psychiatrist.

MTB| 5.19.09 @ 4:25PM

Lets clarify a few things about Miss Prejeans actions, regardless of her statement. The moral integrity of her actions spoke much louder than her ill-fited words.

1. - After winning Miss CA, the pageant helped pay for her current boob job.

- Once she lost, she immediately blamed it on her comment being unacceptable, not once have we heard her give any credit to the Woman Who Did Win, and maybe just maybe should have won.

- She refused phone calls, and communication with the Miss CA pageant people; and did not return to her Miss CA duties, but instead jumped a band wagon which gave her a few minutes more fame.

She was again in violation of her contract by being a spokesperson for NOM without Pageant approval.

She showed no appreciation to the Miss CA pageant for helping her with the boob job, and did not return to her PRE-AGREED UPON responsibilities of Miss CA.

She failed to mention the nude pictures taken of her, even though she signed a document saying they were never taken.

She failed to mention that her parents divorce included testimony that her mother made that included acqusations that her father was gay, and the children had to witness gay behavior when they were with their father.

She also forgot that near 1/2 of the voters in CA did vote to prevent Prop 8.

As far as Maggie Gallagher is concerned a recent audit of her 990 tax return showed that 42% of the donated money was given to her as salary.

Maggie was also investigated when she testified before the government presenting a paper that she actually was paid by the Bush Admin to write, she collected a 21,000.00 salary for that paper. A Slight conflict of interest.

To the gentleman with blinders on stating that the sex my partner of 15 years and I have is preventing people from coming into being, I would say that the multi-billion dollar birth control market has a pretty good jump on gay men and women.

When statistics start showing a drastic reduction in the world population then maybe additional steps might need to be taken at a certain point, but as for right now, the more than 1.6 million children born to unwed mothers seems to be handling any loss of new births from gay couples.

jordan| 8.19.09 @ 10:07PM

air jordan 8
air jordan 9
air jordan 10
air jordan 11
air jordan 12
air jordan 13
air jordan 14

Nfl jerseys| 8.26.09 @ 11:37PM

It is a wonderful article: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.

candyxiaoxiao| 8.28.09 @ 3:56AM

Ugg Boots UK
Buy Ugg Boots

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:47PM

bikini
bikini swimwear

abercrombie and fitch| 9.3.09 @ 3:30AM

good post!abercrombie and fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos abercrombie and fitch abercrombie fitch abercrombie cheap
abercrombie and fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos
abercrombie and fitch Men, women, and children's clothing

ugg boots| 9.3.09 @ 5:46AM

ugg boots
classic ugg boots

Discount Puma Shoes| 10.18.09 @ 9:45PM

http://www.opuma.com

Joe the Plumber| 11.11.09 @ 5:31PM

Thanks for the information that God was speaking to Carrie Prejean. What was He saying to her during her double penetration scene?