I don't see why the government tells people not to gay-marry, but I also don't see why it tells people not to be polygamists. I understand that some places this view is ripped down as trying to smear gay people, but I don't feel like it's a smear.

I guess there's really a lot inside the Right To Marry that comes out when it's unpacked. Exactly what kind of a relationship is a marriage? And what to do if we disagree?

I mean, I suppose my position comes from the fact that I see a marriage as a commitment of love and obligation that is intended to last for life. For some people, apparently, the concept includes [between people of different sexes], and for some people it includes [an exclusive relationship]. For others, it IS for life, not just intended to be for life.

Interesting stuff. It's a topic that turns out to be more interesting than it sounds at first, I think, because so many people assume that we're all going to agree on what's going to come out when we unpack "marriage."

WE MUST NOT ALLOW A HANDICAPPED RAMP GAP!

I'm putting Chip on ignore now, but just so no-one else misunderstands my position: If you tear off your howler monkey's tail we do not classify it with tail-less creatures. If a couple have a medical problem such that they are unable to conceive, we try and find a cure, we don't ban them from getting married. So I'm quite happy that the capacity for having children is a legitimate distinction between homosexual and heterosexual couples, even though some people may be medically infertile and some people may simply not want kids.

I don't really believe he's putting me on ignore.

For one thing, anyone stupid enough to not only use the "howler monkey with a tail torn off" analogy for gays, but then repeat it, is clearly too dumb to know how to turn the ignore function on.

For another, he's replying too quickly now to my posts to convince me that he's not enjoying being made the fool.

You still haven't answered the question.

He answered the question. As per AlouGoodbye, a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. A union of a man and a man is not a union of a man and a woman, so therefore is not a marriage.

If the question is purely a matter of the definition of marriage, I don't see how he could be more clear. If the question is a matter of tax and other benefits, then I'm not sure what his position is on homosexual unions because I tend to skip over gay marriage posts since I find the whole issue uninteresting.

He answered the question. As per AlouGoodbye, a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. A union of a man and a man is not a union of a man and a woman, so therefore is not a marriage.

That wasn't the first question.

Or the followup question.

Why don't you go back, read the exchange, and try again?

David, really, I hope you don't have the misfortune of a high-level spinal cord injury (although with your attitude, you've got it coming)

And people think Nieporent is insufficiently compassionate. Eesh!

David, really, I hope you don't have the misfortune of a high-level spinal cord injury (although with your attitude, you've got it coming), and but if you did have one, and managed to survive the mental trauma associated with it, you'd be thanking all the people who fought to have ramps built in places where 30 years ago no one thought disabled people had the need to access. You'd be thankful that you live in a society that rather than cast you off on a chunk of ice has elected to at least try to help you overcome the obstacle. But again, my assumption is that you'd go from pitiless #### to suicidal within two weeks of losing the use of your legs.

BTW, you still can't answer the most fundamental questions at the heart of your intellectually bankrupt philosophy...

Herein you have:

1.) Expressed what I read as either a desire to see David crippled, or at least a would-be satisfaction at the prospect.
2.) Projected your beliefs on David regarding how he would react to present day warriors for the special treatment of disabled people.
3.) Projected psychological problems on David that would manifest themselves after the injury.
4.) Added a throwaway comment about "fundamental questions" and an "intellectually bankrupt philosophy" without expanding on either.
5.) Provided nothing of any value whatsoever.

Why don't you go back, read the exchange, and try again?

I'd rather not. Since you don't seem compelled to repeat the question instead of saying, "that wasn't the question, please go find it and read it," I'll just continue to largely ignore this line of discussion.

Time, gentlemen (and BBC).

We now move the debate to foreign policy...

I think Obama just had one of his best "into the weekend" news cycles this season.

Set aside the merits of each individual's foreign policy for a moment. Who in the world told Bush to start this little brushfire?

I cannot imagine anyone in McCain's camp thinking "Gee - let's have the guy with a 20something% approval take on our opponent on what we feel is our best issue."

Of course, I cannot imagine anyone in McCain's camp thinking "Hey John, George just tagged you in!"

I think Obama's response was effective and strong - and I think it shows with the White House now trying to claim "we were talking about Jimmy Carter."

On the merits, I have no issue whatsoever with Obama's stand. I hate to agree with Chris Matthews, but he's exactly right... Chamberlain's problem wasn't talking with Hitler, it was giving away half of Czechoslovakia.

5.) Provided nothing of any value whatsoever.

Disagree!

No comment on 1-4.

David, really, I hope you don't have the misfortune of a high-level spinal cord injury (although with your attitude, you've got it coming), and but if you did have one, and managed to survive the mental trauma associated with it, you'd be thanking all the people who fought to have ramps built in places where 30 years ago no one thought disabled people had the need to access. You'd be thankful that you live in a society that rather than cast you off on a chunk of ice has elected to at least try to help you overcome the obstacle.

First, I reject your premise, that I would do this. Not everyone is as selfish as you think they are.

Second, I reject the form of the argument. I mean, what's your point? Let's suppose all of the above were true: what would it prove? It would prove that, in this hypothetical, I'd be a hypocrite. But that tells us nothing whatsover about the rightness or wrongness of the underlying position. If formerly-dp hadn't had sex for a very long time, he'd commit rape if he thought he could get away with it. (Sure, it's baseless, but if you can make up stuff about what I'd do in a hypothetical situation, I can do the same for you.) Would that be an argument in favor of rape? Of course not.

If I were desperate, I might do something bad, yes. That wouldn't mean it wasn't bad. If you lived in the antebellum south, you might well have owned slaves. That doesn't change the wrongness of slaveholding.

BTW, you still can't answer the most fundamental questions at the heart of your intellectually bankrupt philosophy...

The rights of children are hard questions to answer in libertarianism, but that hardly makes them "the most fundamental questions at the heart" of libertarianism.

I didn't realize this had been pretty well determined. I'm not saying homosexuality is or isn't a choice (I don't think it should matter either way), just that I'm not aware of any research that concludes homosexuality is genetic.

Concludes is a strong term. And I didn't say genetic [edit - i'd rephrase this as biological] - I said genetic or determined so early as to make it not a choice, which I believe the term "lifestyle" is intended to imply.

Research has found linkages in birth order, differences in maternal x-chromosomes, and a bunch of other things. It doesn't seem to be a single factor, but it's certainly not a "choice."

I agree it shouldn't matter either way, FWIW.

Time, gentlemen (and BBC).

We now move the debate to foreign policy...

I think Obama just had one of his best "into the weekend" news cycles this season.

Set aside the merits of each individual's foreign policy for a moment. Who in the world told Bush to start this little brushfire?

Really? I thought this was exactly the sort of idiocy that Democrats always engage in that causes them to lose elections. Inventing faux outrage and vehemently denying that you're a really bad thing that nobody called you is not a way to win a p.r. battle.

Here's a hint to Democrats: when you deny that you're X, all you do is convince some people that you're really X. LBJ understood this; why don't modern Democrats?

The only way I can think that you could possibly think this helped Obama is in that now he gets to attack Bush, which is easy, instead of McCain, which is harder. (Because of the relative popularity of Bush/McCain, I mean.) That's perhaps a minor point on his side, but vastly overwhelmed by Obama's stupidity in putting forth the notion that he wants to appease terrorists.

I'd rather not. Since you don't seem compelled to repeat the question instead of saying, "that wasn't the question, please go find it and read it," I'll just continue to largely ignore this line of discussion.

I've repeated it several times.

You're the one who claims he answered it, which means you know what I wrote.

Try again.

Alou told us there were "differences of characteristics" between gay and straight marriage.

When asked to explain those differences (note the plural), all he offered was "for starters, only [man-woman] is capable of having children."

Which is problematic on many levels, as has been demonstrated in followup posts: infertile couples of childbearing age can marry but are not capable of having children. Couples where the woman is post-menopausal can marry but are not capable of having children. Gay couples can, in fact, have children, through artificial insemination, or adoption (methods also used by many heterosexual couples). Individuals in a gay couple can also bring children from a previous relationship and raise them together, the same way heterosexuals in a second marriage can end up raising children who don't share their DNA.

So his "for starters" is a non-starter.

What other "differences of characteristics" are there between gay and straight marriage?

I'm not gay, and I can't speak for all gay people, but it's less about what people call their relationships and more about what privileges they are denied. I don't deny that part of the goals some people have is to force people to accept the legitimacy of their relationships.

I think "dignity" is a much bigger part of the argument that gay-rights advocates are making than you're understanding (as MCoA's comments demonstrate).

Here is some of what the California court said in that regard:

Page 81:

Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected
designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry.

Page 101:

Even when the state affords substantive legal rights and benefits to a couple’s family relationship that are comparable to the rights and benefits afforded to other couples, the state’s assignment of a different name to the couple’s relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple’s relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled.

[Skip part where court talks about the symbolic importance of the designation "marriage."]

Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass citizenship.

Page 105:

In addition, plaintiffs’ briefs disclose a further way in which the different designations established by the current statutes impinge upon the constitutionally protected privacy interest of same-sex couples. Plaintiffs point out that one consequence of the coexistence of two parallel types of familial relationship is that — in the numerous everyday social, employment, and governmental settings in which an individual is asked whether he or she “is married or single” — an individual who is a domestic partner and who accurately responds to the question by disclosing that status will (as a realistic matter) be disclosing his or her
homosexual orientation, even if he or she would rather not do so under the circumstances and even if that information is totally irrelevant in the setting in question. Because the constitutional right of privacy ordinarily would protect an individual from having to disclose his or her sexual orientation under circumstances in which that information is irrelevant..., the existence of two separate family designations — one available only to opposite-sex couples and the other to same-sex couples — impinges upon this privacy interest, and may expose gay individuals to detrimental treatment by those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been rejected by California society at large.

I think "dignity" is a much bigger part of the argument that gay-rights advocates are making than you're assuming, as MCoA's comments demonstrate.

And God forbid they have any dignity.

And God forbid they have any dignity.

Is there something I wrote that deserved this remark?

It's settled, then. The progressives here will never say anything mean about Bush again, because that would interfere with his constitutional right to respect and dignity.

Is there something I wrote that deserved this remark?

No, I didn't mean it towards you, but towards those who DO feel that way. Sorry about that.

instead of McCain, which is harder

.

In some respects, yes. But the overall strategy is clear, and that is to continue to connect Bush's policies to McCain's.

Setting aside the merits of the decision as a whole...

the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled.

...

Because the constitutional right of privacy ordinarily would protect an individual from having to disclose his or her sexual orientation under circumstances in which that information is irrelevant.

Do people really have a "constitutional right" to respect and a "constitutional right" to not tell people that they're gay? I assume these refer to the state constitution rather than the U.S. constitution, but they nonetheless sound like rather dubious propositions to me.

connect Bush's policies to McCain's.

That's probably a good strategy (we'll know for sure in November), but I don't see how whining, "I do NOT like terrorists, and it's mean and unfair that Bush said I did" accomplishes that.

The right to privacy is an explicit one in article 1, section 1 of the CA state constitution:

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

that nobody called you

Right. This is about like the Obama campaign's denying that the "losing his bearings" remark had nothing to with McCain's age, or Bill Clinton's saying that his Jesse Jackson comment had nothing to do with race. Bush knew exactly what he was doing when he used the wording he did.

There are a lot of types of political attacks; one effective one is the indirect type designed to play on pre-existing doubts/concerns and foment them, without making a direct accusation or assertion.

Whether denying it is a good strategy is contextual and debatable. LBJ, when he used smears, kept it up either way, whether the opponent denied it or not. That is the point of the strategy.

That's probably a good strategy (we'll know for sure in November), but I don't see how whining, "I do NOT like terrorists, and it's mean and unfair that Bush said I did" accomplishes that.

That's really not what Obama said, in my reading.

He articulated a full critique of the Bush foreign policy that McCain is proposing to extend. He made clear that McCain was falsely attributing to him positions he did not hold, but he located that correction within an articulation of a different foreign policy vision and a critique of Bush's foreign policy and a connection between McCain and hte Bush foreign policy that he has endorsed.

I'm obviously the choir here, so what do I know, but you're equally unqualified since you're whatever the opposite of the choir is. I hate it when Democrats only play defense and don't counterpunch, and I thought that today Obama counterpunched, hard. You're seeing it as merely defense, and I just don't think that's correct.

It's settled, then. The progressives here will never say anything mean about Bush again, because that would interfere with his constitutional right to respect and dignity.

I won't deny him the dignity of having his marriage respected by law. Obviously no one is talking about insults, and drawing that equation is utterly ridiculous.

see how whining, "I do NOT like terrorists, and it's mean and unfair that Bush said I did" accomplishes that.

It may or may not, but I would suggest that your take, like zonk's, (although I of course am more sympathetic to his due to my own preferences) is very partisan. Demos will see it not as Obama's "whining", but as "hitting back"--unlike Kerry or Dukakis. Independents, I think, will not care much one way of the other.

In the recent George Will thread in which Will used baseball refs to bag on HC, Andy posted an excerpt from the story is which Will suggested that some Repub politicos might underrating Obama's "sheer toughness" as a politician. That may or may not be true, but I don't think Obama comes off as a whiner on the stump a la Mondale.

Speaking of homosexuality, our friend Bad News Cubs gave us a shoutout on his blog reeking of intelligence.

And for the faggots at the Baseball Fag Factory, some of us actually have gay friends as opposed to worrying about PC gay ass sensibilities. And when you actually have gay friends, you know that they’re not all a bunch of PC pussies like you guys. My gay friends would call you guys a bunch of tired ####### faggots.

I cross-posted with Matt; he used "counterpunch" whereas I said "hitting back", but I think it shows what I meant.

The guy who wrote that's got to be a queer, Szym.

Speaking of homosexuality, our friend Bad News Cubs gave us a shoutout on his blog reeking of intelligence.

He comes across all butch, like he thinks he's a top, but is there any question he's a bottom?

One worry I had with Obama's remarks was that he began with a couple minutes of defense before moving to the foreign policy counterpunch, and it might get picked up in the media as only defense. We'll see how that goes. but the full speech was primarily composed of an attack on Bush/McCain foreign policy.

Video of speech (youtube)

I can't find full text, but Marc Ambinder has a good selection of paragraphs that gets at the core of the speech, I think.

Speaking of homosexuality, our friend Bad News Cubs gave us a shoutout on his blog reeking of intelligence.

"And for the faggots at the Baseball Fag Factory..."

We'll have to change the logo to show the monkey pondering his sexuality instead of a baseball.

I won't deny him the dignity of having his marriage respected by law. Obviously no one is talking about insults, and drawing that equation is utterly ridiculous.

If you make Bush unhappy, you're violating his apparent right to obtain happiness.

We'll have to change the logo to show the monkey pondering his sexuality instead of a baseball.

Don't forget to tear the monkey's tail off.

And for the faggots at the Baseball Fag Factory, some of us actually have gay friends as opposed to worrying about PC gay ass sensibilities. And when you actually have gay friends, you know that they’re not all a bunch of PC pussies like you guys. My gay friends would call you guys a bunch of tired ####### faggots.

THIS guy is the true "uniter" in terms of bringing BTF together.

"And for the faggots at the Baseball Fag Factory..."

Jesus - what a blow hard. I'll be rooting against the Cubs now for a while.

With Edwards on board - can he give Obama his delegates??

Right. This is about like the Obama campaign's denying that the "losing his bearings" remark had nothing to with McCain's age, or Bill Clinton's saying that his Jesse Jackson comment had nothing to do with race. Bush knew exactly what he was doing when he used the wording he did.

Please. It's clear why Hollywood is dominated by liberals: they have such good imaginations. Bush was giving a speech to the Knesset that about 4 people in the United States would even hear about if Obama hadn't brought it up, and said this:

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.

The notion that this was some sort of attack on Obama is ludicrous. (If it were an attack, it certainly wouldn't be out-of-bounds; there's nothing in the above statement that's a "smear." All it says is that some people are naive. If that's too tough a criticism for Obama to handle, then he probably would be more effective as, say, deputy chair of the Peoria town council than as president of the U.S.)

If you make Bush unhappy, you're violating his apparent right to obtain happiness.

Huh?

The notion that this was some sort of attack on Obama is ludicrous.

That's not what Bush's briefers told the press.

NBC:

Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage.

CNN:

So, the inference is clear. Although the President didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.

Please. It's clear why Hollywood is dominated by liberals: they have such good imaginations. Bush was giving a speech to the Knesset that about 4 people in the United States would even hear about if Obama hadn't brought it up, and said this:

Pre-internet, that might be true, although I don't think so. Today, with youtube etc, I simply don't buy that. And like I said, it is not a partisan issue--both parties do it, and it is just politics.

Who do you think he wanted people to think of when he said this?

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before..."

Speaking of homosexuality, our friend Bad News Cubs gave us a shoutout on his blog reeking of intelligence.

Dan, having read the top couple of posts on that blog, I have to request that you please not link to it again. Ever. I'd rather get gay married with Retardo. Just reading those two posts made me feel dirty.

Huh?

Well, if he lived in California.

I think I've made it clear I completely support homosexuals getting married, I just object to the tortured reasoning. Homosexuals should be able to be married because it's none of the government's business, not that they're entitled to governments placing some magical seal of approval upon their relationship.

Give it to California, they find a perfect case of when the government shouldn't be involved and still manage to find a way to rule against the government in a way to make government matter even more.

Give it to California, they find a perfect case of when the government shouldn't be involved and still manage to find a way to rule against the government in a way to make government matter even more.

The court very specifically left open the option for the state to recognize no marriages or to recognize only civil unions or domestic partnership. Their point is that it's wrong for the state to discriminate by only calling heterosexual unions "marriages". The argument runs from the starting, empirical premise, that the state of California is in the business of recognizing and giving legal status to marriages. From that being the case, it follows from the principles laid out in the constitution that the state can't discriminate against gays and lesbians in its naming of these unions.

Thanks for the links, Matt.

Who do you think he wanted people to think of when he said this?

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before..."

The EU? The Israeli left? Leftists generally?

Let's assume it was a reference to Obama, though; again, what does it say? "Some are naive." For Obama to throw a tantrum over that just leads people to wonder.

For Obama to throw a tantrum over that just leads people to wonder.

But he didn't throw a tantrum. It is not being reported as a tantrum.

He articulated a specific and hard-hitting critique of the Bush administration's foreign policy and used John McCain's own statements to argue that McCain wants to stay the course with that same foreign policy.

Which I'd agree with, until this:

Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of secondclass citizenship.

Which, in effect, is an argument that it's the role of government to actually put labels on people to prevent disparagement. A homosexual union deserves respect because and only because they're two people who care about each other and wish to join their lives together, not because the government puts a label declaring them deserving of moral respect.

The EU? The Israeli left? Leftists generally?

Give me a break. Obama is the one running for president by trashing Bush's policies hourly.

"Some are naive."

Which, of course, is one way you would attack a candidate if you were trying to hit him or her on inexperience.

With Edwards on board - can he give Obama his delegates??

The delegates are technically free to vote for whomever they choose. Following Edwards' endorsement, seven of Edwards' thirteen delegates from NH and SC pledged their support to Obama. One of his Iowa delegates has already endorsed Obama, and his Florida delegates are still in limbo pending a DNC decision. (DemConWatch post with full explanation.)

Which, in effect, is an argument that it's the role of government to actually put labels on people to prevent disparagement.

No, it's that since the government is already in the business of putting labels on people, they need not to disparage when they do it.

Thanks Mikael - I was confused as hell

But he didn't throw a tantrum. It is not being reported as a tantrum.

See, e.g., this AP story, with the headline: "Obama says Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement". AP is the version that will appear in more media outlets than any other. Obama's "hard-hitting critique" doesn't appear in the story; Obama complaining about the mean ol' Bush does.

No, it's that since the government is already in the business of putting labels on people, they need not to disparage when they do it.

Right. The state has chosen to give government sanction to couples who ask for it. The label they use to identify that sanction is "marriage." The gays don't want a new label. They want the same one everyone else gets.

Obama complaining about the mean ol' Bush does.

Like I said, that's just a partisan take.

Like I said, that's a partisan take.

No, it's the AP's take. Read the story I linked.

No, it's the AP's take. Read the story I linked.

I did. We covered this in post 4727. The exchange occurred. You, being an intense partisan, are assuming people will read it your way. I am saying some will and some won't.

Right. The state has chosen to give government sanction to couples who ask for it. The label they use to identify that sanction is "marriage." The gays don't want a new label. They want the same one everyone else gets.

Which is a convincing argument as to why government shouldn't be giving any a label.

Which is a convincing argument as to why government shouldn't be giving any a label.

Sure. But the label's there already. And no one yet has offered a voter proposition or a legislative bill to remove it.

I love Huckabee right now - his unfunny awkward joke might have just guaranteed that he's not going to be the VP and thus, there's no way he'll be in national office after November.

Which is a convincing argument as to why government shouldn't be giving any a label.

Perhaps. But in any case, your claim that this ruling would make insults constitutionally unacceptable is incorrect.

The right to privacy is an explicit one in article 1, section 1 of the CA state constitution:

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

Yes, but where do you find the right to same-sex marriage in the CA Constitution?

The court seemed to find it. Not sure how. Page 79:

Accordingly, we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.

And if you're going to cite the CA Constitution, how do you square the following?

1) The original CA Constitution assumed that marriage was between a "husband" and a "wife" (*);
2) The first CA statutes confirmed this assumption;
3) In 1971, the legislature, responding to alleged "ambiguity," clarified the statute to define marriage explicitly as being between a man and a woman;
4) In 2000, the people adopted Prop 22 which explicitly reaffirmed this definition.

At no time in the past 150 years were either the CA Constitution or the CA statutes open to the possibility that marriage could be between members of the same sex.

Setting aside whether there should be same-sex marriage, I have trouble following the court's reasoning and think the court overstepped its bounds.

(*) Article XI, section 14 of the California Constitution of 1849 stated:

“All property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise, or descent, shall be her separate property; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property, as to that held in common with her husband. Laws shall also be passed providing for the registration of the wife’s separate property.”

Huckabee wasn't going anywhere, Szym. Comment or no comment, he's staying in Little Rock. Nobody wants a lunatic for a ticket partner.

I love Huckabee right now - his unfunny awkward joke might have just guaranteed that he's not going to be the VP and thus, there's no way he'll be in national office after November.

Heh. That was exactly my thought when I read it, Dan. "Yay; no Huckabee as vice president."

The court seemed to find it. Not sure how. Page 79:

Accordingly, we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.

And if you're going to cite the CA Constitution, how do you square the following?

1) The original CA Constitution assumed that marriage was between a "husband" and a "wife" (*);
2) The first CA statutes confirmed this assumption;
3) In 1971, the legislature, responding to alleged "ambiguity," clarified the statute to define marriage explicitly as being between a man and a woman;
4) In 2000, the people adopted Prop 22 which explicitly reaffirmed this definition.

As a question, what is the content of article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution? I'm curious as to how the content relates to the other items referenced by Ray.

(Note: Ray, this is not a criticism of your post - I honestly don't know the content of these other items, and how one may or may not conflict with the others)

Yes, but where do you find the right to same-sex marriage in the CA Constitution?

The court seemed to find it. Not sure how.

David asked two questions, one of which was about privacy.

Do people really have ... a "constitutional right" to not tell people that they're gay?

In California, they do.

Yes, but where do you find the right to same-sex marriage in the CA Constitution?

This question betrays a basic misreading of the decision. They lay out the question they have to answer very clearly:

In considering this question, we note at the outset that the constitutional issue before us differs in a significant respect from the constitutional issue that has been addressed by a number of other state supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts that recently have had occasion, in interpreting the applicable provisions of their respective state constitutions, to determine the validity of statutory provisions or common law rules limiting marriage to a union of a man and a woman. (See, e.g., Conaway v. Deane (Md. 2007) 932 A.2d 571; Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health (Mass. 2003) 798 N.E.2d 941; Lewis v. Harris (N.J. 2006) 908 A.2d 196; Hernandez v. Robles (N.Y. 2006) 855 N.E.2d 1; Baker v. State (Vt. 1999) 744 A.2d 864; Andersen v. King County (Wn. 2006) 138 P.3d 963; Standhardt v. Superior Court (Ariz.Ct.App. 2003) 77 P.3d 451; Morrison v. Sadler (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) 821 N.E.2d 15.) These courts, often by a one-vote margin (see, post, pp. 114-115, fn. 70), have ruled upon the validity of statutory schemes that contrast with that of California, which in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially
designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

The point, basically, is that California already has recognized same-sex unions. The question before the court, then, is whether it is constitutionally acceptable to have one name that is only available for straight unions, but not same-sex unions. They found that this form of discrimination violated basic principles laid out in the constitution.

Since David likes AP stories, here is the lead from another one:

WATERTOWN, S.D. - Barack Obama laid into John McCain on Friday for advancing a tough-guy foreign policy that he called "naive and irresponsible," serving notice that he's ready to launch a full-throttle challenge to the Republican presidential contender on international relations in the general election campaign.
Lumping McCain together with President Bush, Obama declared: "If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for."

***

I am looking forward to seeing McCain and Obama debate foreign policy. They have some major differences, and as McCain is paraphrased in the next paragraph of this article, he is ready to let the American people decide who is right. That is as it should be, of course.

Huckabee wasn't going anywhere, Szym. Comment or no comment, he's staying in Little Rock. Nobody wants a lunatic for a ticket partner

.

I don't think Huckabee is a "lunatic", but I never thought he would be VP, and I think today's remarks sealed the deal.

Celtics down 9 at half, kevin. I have been surprised at their struggles on the road. I expected that in the west due to the parity among the top 4 teams.

This question betrays a basic misreading of the decision.

Thanks for the insult, but I disagree. There are several layers to the court's opinion, and one of them was that the court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Thanks for the insult, but I disagree.

I didn't mean to insult you, so I apologize, that wasn't my intent.

I think there's a distinction between a "right to same-sex marriage" and a right to have the state not discriminate in its naming of unions given state recognition. The second creates a right to same-sex marriage, but only within a regulatory scheme in which the state recognizes same-sex unions and straight marriages and gives benefits to both.

Thanks for the insult, but I disagree.

With what? His interpretation of the decision, or the court's finding?

Edit: Never mind. I see you edited to clarify while I was asking.

The only way I can think that you could possibly think this helped Obama is in that now he gets to attack Bush, which is easy, instead of McCain, which is harder. (Because of the relative popularity of Bush/McCain, I mean.) That's perhaps a minor point on his side, but vastly overwhelmed by Obama's stupidity in putting forth the notion that he wants to appease terrorists.

Well, as I said - John McCain was only too happy to oblige with a friendly "me, too!".

As for the "appeasement" statement, the old tricks aren't working. For whatever reason, the American public has become interested in nuance again. The logical fallacy of "talking with our enemies = giving our enemies what they want" is fading.

The only way I can think that you could possibly think this helped Obama is in that now he gets to attack Bush, which is easy, instead of McCain, which is harder. (Because of the relative popularity of Bush/McCain, I mean.)

Well, as I said - John McCain was only too happy to oblige with a friendly "me, too!".

As for the "appeasement" statement, the old tricks aren't working. For whatever reason, the American public has become interested in nuance again.

It's beyond comical that the same people who see this great connection between Obama and a pastor whose opinions he's repeatedly repudiated, simultaneously see little connection between McCain and a President...

---whose economic policies he's vowed to continue,

---whose type of judges he's vowed to keep appointing,

---and whose war he's vowed to "win."

I guess if only Bush were McCain's minister, perhaps the connection might sink in....

The notion that this was some sort of attack on Obama is ludicrous.

Is this an example of false naivete?

The notion that it wasn't is ludicrous- and the admin isn't even pretending it wasn't.

How is it that everytime the repubs make a veiled attack on the Dems, DMN claims that anyone drawing an inference that it really was an attack is being paranoid?

Usually most rightwingers and conservatives will deny it at most once or twice before smirking and fessing up
Usually most Libertarians won't deny that's what's been done at all

Dave you are an odd bird

Usually most rightwingers and conservatives will deny it at most once or twice before smirking and fessing up
Usually most Libertarians won't deny that's what's been done at all

Dave you are an odd bird

Hell, David's not only defending Lee Atwater nearly 18 years after Lee Atwater himself gave up the ghost; he's defending Lee Atwater 17 years after Lee Atwater BECAME a ghost....

Celtics down 9 at half, kevin. I have been surprised at their struggles on the road.

I was a little at first but I'm not anymore. Rondo and Perkins aren't the same players on the road.

I don't think Huckabee is a "lunatic", but I never thought he would be VP, and I think today's remarks sealed the deal.

He believes in a literal translation of the bible. That's a lunatic.

David, let me take one more shot at pissing on the raging inferno that consumes your soul...

The rights of children are hard questions to answer in libertarianism, but that hardly makes them "the most fundamental questions at the heart" of libertarianism.

See the question on socialization- where do these so-called fundamental and natural rights come from, on a pragmatic level? Who passes on the knowledge? The ways in which these ideas circulate is a crucial part of tracing the power relations that get bound up in them. You can't simply deny that they exist, take their definitions as self-evident, or treat their origins as inconsequential. Or you can, but your inability to speak to these questions makes your position look poorly thought through. And if your philosophy can't speak to how you manage the self-interests of a group that thinks their self-interests involve eating quarters and trying to touch fire, it really has some work to do. If you let those free/autonomous children fend for themselves, your little libertarian utopia will last a generation at the most. If not, then you're compromising their autonomy by forcing them to eat peas and not #### on the kitchen floor. You might want to get your best minds working on this one in a hurry...

As to the baselessness of my hypotehtical- this is the original position that Rawls talks about informing a concept of justice that is more nuanced than raw, naked self-interest. Since the hypothetical put forth by Rawls is equally as much an act of fiction as your own, I think it works here. How would you like to see society set up if you didn't know who you would be born to or what physical and mental abilities you'd start off with? By comparison, you start with the ideal, rational, economically and socially privileged (where'd you go to school again?), autonomous subject and work backward from there to justify keeping what you have as if the game only started at the time you designate as the starting point. Again, as long as you get to set the rules- define what counts as "your" property, what counts as a "freely agreed upon contract", and who is coerced and not coerced, then you win. But these are terms and categories with long and contested histories (you don't like "discourse" so let's try etymology). You don't have to be a marxist to take value away from Marx- in a system where capital is scarce and labor is more abundant, the laborer is always in a position of compromised freedom- their freedom to starve compromises their ability to do what is in their long-term self interest, which means they will concede certain products of their labor in an agreement that the person with the scarce resource has defined as "free" and "non-coerced". Because this system has worked out well for you, you're quite content to accept these definitions, but that doesn't make them the only definitions possible for these terms.

Given a society composed entirely of equal capitalist entrepreneurs (no children, everyone is in the prime of their lives and able to provide for themselves) who possess the same starting resources, there's a case for libertarianism as a functional system. But such a society has never existed, and if it did, its conditions are so untenable that they disintegrate quickly and we'd be back to square one, with the strong setting the rules of the game to disadvantage the weak. Now I have no problem with you saying that this is what you're trying to do. But when you try to ground your principles in some sort of natural right, they fall apart, because this move itself is strategic, designed to place your ideology beyond those basic questions it can't coherently answer, thus ensuring your continued status as the rule-maker in exchanges of property between unequal parties. That's all there is too it. And that's why no one takes it seriously as a philosophy any more except by people who are content to stop asking questions once they've got the answers that best serve their own interests. Pwned. Again. And again and again and again...

Wow. That Bad News Cubs guy makes me even prouder to be a Cub fan than I could've ever hoped to be. What a tool.

i just want to check on this, but Neiporent compared building ramps for the disabled to slavery? and people still take him seriously? you people are ####### mentally ill.

and people still take him seriously?

No. He's just fun to beat up on.

It's beyond comical that the same people who see this great connection between Obama and a pastor whose opinions he's repeatedly repudiated, simultaneously see little connection between McCain and a President...

"Being on the same side of the aisle" is not a "connection."

I guess if only Bush were McCain's minister, perhaps the connection might sink in....

Yes, if only there were a connection, then people would see a connection.

David asked two questions, one of which was about privacy.

Do people really have ... a "constitutional right" to not tell people that they're gay?

In California, they do.

That seems like an awful lot of work to have the single word "privacy" do in the Article I, Section I that you quoted. I freely admit to not being a California lawyer and therefore having no idea of the gloss put on that word over the years by the Cal. Supreme Court -- I know Hill v. NCAA, but I don't think that helps here -- but that seems a lot like an invitation to judicial mischief.

(This case presents a perfect example: the California government can't create civil unions for gay couples because then in some situation where people are asked whether they're married, they'd have to say that they were civil unioned and then people would know they were gay? (How can one even have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that fact, if one is formally married to someone of the same sex?))

"Being on the same side of the aisle" is not a "connection."

Yeah, they barely acknowledge each other's existence.

and people still take him seriously?

My bad. Although in my defense, I'm not hoping to sway him, just the lurkers...

you people are ####### mentally ill.

I accused Andy of being mentally ill yesterday because of how long he indulged David's fantasies about desegration...I think the jury's still out on both of us...

I'm still waiting for "Why are my tax dollars going to fight AIDS in Africa? Given another few years, the market will fix this on its own." That should take this thread past the "pitches thrown by Walter Johnson" mark...

i know a pretty much pure libertarian, and i think he's insane, but even he is more in contact with the world than dmn is.

Might be a stretch, but I think the cumulative nature makes:

14.

"Being on the same side of the aisle" is not a "connection."

Yes, because god knows party affiliation's all Bush and McCain have in common.

"Why are my tax dollars going to fight AIDS in Africa? Given another few years, the market will fix this on its own."

Well, won't it? All the untreated people with AIDS in Africa will be dead and we won't have to deal with them amymore.

DMN is certainly right about that.

Just to be clear, he didn't say that, I was just throwing it out there as our next topic. You know, for fun...

i just want to check on this, but Neiporent compared building ramps for the disabled to slavery? and people still take him seriously? you people are ####### mentally ill.

No, you useless twit; Nieporent -- I know spelling is hard, but copying shouldn't be -- compared being compelled to build ramps with slavery. Because forced labor is forced labor. Of course there are degrees of forced labor; nobody denies that. Slavery in the American south was worse than being forced to build a ramp. And being forced to build two ramps is worse than being forced to build a ramp, too. But the difference is one of degree, not kind.

See the question on socialization- where do these so-called fundamental and natural rights come from, on a pragmatic level?

As I've said on several occasions, it all derives from self-ownership. Of course, Rand would say it derives objectively from the fundamental nature of a human being. And then there are the natural law theorists.

Who passes on the knowledge?

What knowledge?

The ways in which these ideas circulate

Which ideas?

is a crucial part of tracing the power relations that get bound up in them.

Yawn. "Power relations" is yet more pointless jargon of no intellectual weight.

You can't simply deny that they exist, take their definitions as self-evident, or treat their origins as inconsequential. Or you can, but your inability to speak to these questions makes your position look poorly thought through. And if your philosophy can't speak to how you manage the self-interests of a group that thinks their self-interests involve eating quarters and trying to touch fire, it really has some work to do.

I didn't say that there was an "inability to speak to these questions." I just said that the issue of children's rights was a hard question. (To be precise, the really hard question is where the line is drawn between children and adults; any such line is inherently arbitrary.)

If you let those free/autonomous children fend for themselves, your little libertarian utopia will last a generation at the most. If not, then you're compromising their autonomy by forcing them to eat peas and not #### on the kitchen floor. You might want to get your best minds working on this one in a hurry...

Look, I'm sure that your reading of a bunch of French word players who had no influence on anything outside some English faculty lounges was very meaningful to you, but your insinuation that everyone from John Locke to Robert Nozick haven't thought about these issues is just demonstrating the shallowness of your own education.

As to the baselessness of my hypotehtical- this is the original position that Rawls talks about informing a concept of justice that is more nuanced than raw, naked self-interest. Since the hypothetical put forth by Rawls is equally as much an act of fiction as your own, I think it works here. How would you like to see society set up if you didn't know who you would be born to or what physical and mental abilities you'd start off with?

I'm well aware of the veil of ignorance, and it just won't do the work you want it to do. There's nothing about the thought experiment that's incompatible with libertarianism. In such a scenario, I -- and I would think just about any sane person -- would pick a setup in which everyone has equal rights. Which, in a libertarian system, they do. There's nothing which demands a welfare state, however; the fact that I might be poor on the other side of the veil in no way implies that I would want a system which enabled me to force other people to serve me.

By comparison, you start with the ideal, rational, economically and socially privileged (where'd you go to school again?), autonomous subject and work backward from there to justify keeping what you have as if the game only started at the time you designate as the starting point.

Your inverse-Rawlsian argument is no less frivolous for being inverse. You just can't get it through your head that some people are actually principled and select a system because it is morally right, not because it benefits them. To be fair, your argument is not only morally frivolous, but intellectually so as well; what's most pathetic about crude pseudo-marxist analysis of power structures is how dumb it is. Libertarianism is not the optimal choice for the self-interest of the "economically and socially privileged"; if one is privileged in such a fashion and one is interested in advancing one's interests, one wants to concentrate power so one can take advantage of it. But libertarianism involves dispersing power more broadly than any other system.

And that's why no one takes it seriously as a philosophy

This from someone who quotes Foucault.

"Why are my tax dollars going to fight AIDS in Africa? Given another few years, the market will fix this on its own."

I know trying to teach you about libertarianism is like being Neifi Perez's hitting coach, but in case there are some other readers here who are more interested in good faith discussion, libertarianism is not about saying "the market will fix this" towards everything. Contrary to your ignorant ramblings, libertarianism is not a utopian philosophy.

Libertarians object to tax dollars going to fight AIDS in Africa because it is outside the proper scope of government. Libertarians have no objection to private dollars going to fight AIDS in Africa. Although, speaking of the markets, you'd think even the slowest-witted leftist would realize that Africa's problem -- with AIDS and scores of other social ills -- is poverty, and that poverty is caused by lack of free markets.

David, you're not being forced; you have the choice to go open your business somewhere else (see below). And no one is forcing you to build the ramp; they're requiring you have a ramp added. How that ramp gets built is up to you. If you want to take up a collection for the funds to build the ramp, you can. If you have a friend who will build the ramp for you, you can do that too. You're trying yo conjure the image of the state whipping you while you pour the concrete. Your labor won't build the ramp. Chances are, you'll use money that you earned by mixing your labor with the labor of others and claiming it as your own. You're trying to tell a great story, but you're doing a terrible job telling it.

You still haven't established where your right to absolute, unrestricted dominion over that plot of land comes from. You take it for granted that everyone agrees with your horseshit first principle that you've given no support for.

equal rights. Which, in a libertarian system

Equal property rights, based on some arbitrary and contractual definition of what property is, where it begins and ends, that you then take to be the only possible way of conceiving of property, deriving from some mythologized state where everyone is rational, autonomous and equal.

And once again, you've managed to not speak to a single question I've raised about the origins of these definitions, just dismissed it as "jargon"- this is a tactic that you take because you have no way to account for the circulation of your ideas. You can't defend these definitions because you've just decided to ignore any conception of them that doesn't conform to your imagination of them. It's certainly possible that you hold this as a principled stand, but you don't defend it as such- you just deploy over and over again naturalized definitions of terms with no comprehension of their history. Closing your eyes and making fun of intellectuals doesn't invalidate their arguments, no matter how hard you want it to. Calling my treatment of your position "dumb" and trying to marginalize it by pretending it's a view confined it to English faculty lounges just betrays your own shallow-mindedness. Pwned again.

Just because you can't understand Foucault doesn't mean he's wrong, David.

Contrary to your ignorant ramblings, libertarianism is not a utopian philosophy.

It's based on a utopia. Without that utopia, there can be no assertion of equality. Without that utopia, where there is a tacit consensus on what constitutes "private" property and "equality" and "freedom" you will have people contesting the definitions of those terms, and people trying to impose their conceptions of those terms on others in such a way that it benefits them. If people act in their own self-interest, setting the rules of the game to maximize that self-interest is part of their obligation. If this involves redefining where their property ends and another's begins, that's all fair game. The answer to this is either to place faith in everyone to naturally come to the same concept of property (ummm....DMN's concept of private property is hard-wired into the human genetic code...?)or you've got to educate everyone on what you think the proper concept of private property is, which again depends on a whole network to circulate that conception, and an imposition of one concept on supposedly autonomous subjects.

No, you useless twit; Nieporent -- I know spelling is hard, but copying shouldn't be -- compared being compelled to build ramps with slavery.

I'm sorry, but the point stands. Based on your own clarification of your own comparison, your relevance and comprehension of the same is pushed passed the breaking point. You really aren't to be taken seriously. Sadly, you've got some kind of education and an excellent ability to express yourself, so you still will be. More's the pity.

I think there's a distinction between a "right to same-sex marriage" and a right to have the state not discriminate in its naming of unions given state recognition. The second creates a right to same-sex marriage, but only within a regulatory scheme in which the state recognizes same-sex unions and straight marriages and gives benefits to both.

So, Matt, am I properly understanding your position to be:

It would be ok for the statute to (A) define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and (B) have no same-sex unions. But it is not ok to (A) define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and (B) also have same-sex unions.

?

The part where he calls him a "useless twit" for spelling his name wrong was actually pretty funny. I wonder if his property extends to his name, and he therefore considers misspellings of his name a violation of his right to absolute control over his property...? Man, I'm glad Sym doesn't get pissed when we don't bother to spell his name out...

poverty is caused by lack of free markets

The Magic Bullet theory solves Africa too. Want to provide us with your laughably simplistic theory for this one, Free Market Jesus?

This is a post in support of DMN. He is taking a lot of abuse on this thread, and while I don't agree with all of his arguments, I agree with the IDEA of his arguments.

It would be ok for the statute to (A) define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and (B) have no same-sex unions. But it is not ok to (A) define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and (B) also have same-sex unions.

The court quite specifically excluded the first question from their purview. All they found was that the second situation was not ok.