What happens in San Jose if you publicly support traditional marriage
Posted in: Uncategorized
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Oh-So-Tolerant Left « Decidedly Right
- What Happens When You Support Publicly California Proposition 8 and Traditional Marriage | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- SUV Denounces Family’s Prop 8 Stance - Do All SUV’s Think The Same Way? « Padna’s Ponderings
- F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.] » Blog Archive » Getting Nasty
- ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Getting Nasty
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Stop The ACLU
» Obama’s Approval Ratings Tank, But Media Still Love HimNewsBusters.org
» Top Press Secretly Parties With Obama on Fourth of JulyRiehl World View
» Palin In Iowa? Watch The Heads Explode!Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversyPundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoSister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day – from Carol Browner, climate-czar
Try reading that again, the ruling was specificaly on INTER-RACIAL marriage, not on any other type of marriage. If it had been as you quoted it would have opened marriage up to ANYTHING 1 human being decided was marriage.
If marriage is right, then where’s my wife? Can the government hand one to me?
I’m con-fyoo-zed.
“a” right
gotta proofread better
JustifiedRight, what is the SCOTUS case you speak of?
JustifiedRight, are you a concerned Conservative Christian?
Never mind, I found it. Dittoes to sonofdy.
Come on, guys.
If the couple has the right to put their sign on the garage, the other couple has the right to write whatever they want on their vehicle and, unfortunately, the right to park that vehicle wherever the law allows them to do so.
We cannot demand the right to say what we want and then deny those who respond the same right. That’s what the liberals do.
cjh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v_virginia
The 1967 case of Loving v Virginia did is not limited to interracial marriages.
Before you respond just think it through for a second.
Are you suggesting the Supreme Court has found interracial marriages to be a “fundamental right” but for two people of the same race the right is less - not fundamental?
Loving v Virginia held that marriage itself is a fundamental right, regardless of race, not because of it.
From the article sonofdy linked:
Back to the question:
Since the marriage right is fundamental, what is the legal standard used by the Court to test whether a State’s restriction on that right is constitutional?
Anyone know?
I’m going to bet that neither of you graduated from an elite univeristy.
You are not qualified to understand/interpret judicial rulings. You must first become a lawyer, a community organizer or a college preofessor. Get back to me on that.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex”.
The SCOTUS dismissed the appeal case “for want of a substantial federal question.”
On October 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm, CantCureStupid said:
After reviewing the California Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage, I came to a conclusion that so far, nobody has been able to dispute:
Anyone wanna take a shot? Come on, I dare you.
Now, I will admit that this is an unlikely scenario, but no more than was the idea that when a Hispanic woman fought for her right to marry a black man in California sixty years ago, it would be used as the basis of insisting that marrying someone of the same gender was a constitutional right.
I am qualified because I say so.
Works for Obama.
I don’t really care about the marriage thing in any case, but between the trillion+ we’ll be handing out in bailouts and corporate welfare, not to mention the trillions in wasteful spending that is going to bankrupt us, the efforts to undermine our Constitution, endless gov’t growth and power, Nanny Statism, illegal immigration, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg on the domestic issues, gay marriage is a nothing thing in comparison.
It’ll be coming in the mail with your personal bailout check.
*crickets chirping*
Are you implying that context matters Sonofdy?
You are a racist and part of the right wing conspiracy
You haven’t addressed anyones comments since your first challenge.
Either put up or shut up!
Sorry Sambo - what’s outstanding that I didn’t address?
Is that in the SEMEN-ary? I’ll never forget the smell of his rectory…
Sigh. Guilty as charged. Please point me to the nearest re-education center.
Lets see. The context of the ruling you keep ranting about (inter-racial marriage). Restrictions on rights. Polygamy
Incest (as in sister and sister), hell, why can’t a bisexual marry one of each?
C’mon, Cosmo, I’m entitled.
Before anyone can defend the SUV owners, try to imagine how you’d react to seeing that outside your front door. The aim was to publicly humiliate a family of strangers for expressing their opinion, which, unless something’s changed, is a guaranteed right. The couple were picking for a fight, possibly predicting that the Sundstroms would vandalize their vehicle. Kudos to the Sundstroms for showing restraint.
Oh I see, Sambo.
Well that gets me to the constitutional test, which I understand to be as follows:
To overcome a fundamental right, the state restriction must further a “compelling state interest.”
The compelling state interest protected in retricting marriges of siblings and cousins, etc., is protection of an innocent third party, namely the offspring that will have a hightened chance of genetic disability.
That being said, what “compelling state interest” is furthered by restricting gays from marrying?
Anyone have an answer?
The state’s compelled to support traditional marriage because it is the most beneficial structure for the upbringing of children, and for the husband and wife.
Read this.
Children raised in traditional marriages are less likely to suffer from numerous problems - ranging from behavior issues to learning disabilities to abuse.
So I think there’s an overwhelmingly strong “compelling state interest” in maintaining the traditional marriage structure.
I’m reminded of the old Dionne Warwick song: “I’ve got lots of friends in San Jose… You can breathe the air in San Jose…”.
Burt Bachrach may have to write new lyrics.
The ruling you quoted did not establish that it is a fundamental right. It said races was not a good reason to restrict it. Your entire basis for you theory is wrong.
On October 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm, JustifiedRight said:
“That being said, what “compelling state interest” is furthered by restricting gays from marrying?”
You answered your own question. The innocent third, fourth, or fifth parties, the children. Studies show that it is better to be raised in a loving, two parent home.
Before you say anything, yes, hetero marriage has its problems. Divorce is too easy to obtain and children are being raised by far too many single parents. However, the ideal and gold standard will always be that children do best in a home that includes a mother and a father, not dad and dad or mom and mom.
and as we’ve seen from the netherlands it destroys traditional marriage…not to mention what this is really all about is restricting the rights of christians…silencing them.
That doesn’t apply to sisters (or brothers) so there is no compelling state interest to disallow incest.
JustifiedRight….there can be no such thing as “gay marriage”. The very definition of the word marriage since the beginning of time includes man and woman. It is not up to the courts to re-define words. What the court said about inter-racial marriage did not violate the very definition of the word marriage. What you are trying to do is make words have variable meanings.
Check the front page of drudge, the violence has begun.
Several of you say the compelling state interest is the protection of children, because they do better in heterosexual households.
I’m not disputing your answer. But it brings up some interesting discussions - for instance children do better in two parent households, and richer households.
Can we legally start restricting parentage?
Just a thought.
I think Sonofdy has the better legal answer.
In the Baker case the Court ruled that gay marriage did not raise a substantial federal question, certainly intending that it is not a Federal Right at all.
Not that it can’t be revisited (it certainly will should Obama appoint 2 more Justices) but it does seem to be the law of the land.
Which brings me back to the original question - squaring that with the “self evident truth that we are all created equally.”
Well done everyone - a nice discussion with no name calling, etc. Just reason. I expected nothing less from the good folks here at Michelle Malkin.
Take care and I hope we can do it again sometime.
Once again - it does not say we are created equally…it only says so with respect to a listed set of rights. It does not even say so with respect to all rights. Only the listed set.
The woman who co-owned the vehicle, Mara McWilliams, is active in South Bay organizations dedicated to defeating Prop 8. She also is, according to a Google search, an author (Out of My Head and In Your Face), a poet, an activist for people with bipolar disorder, and an artist. You could view some of her works on her website, but it is “Temporarily Unavailable.”
Here’s what McWilliams wrote in 2003 about public perceptions of people with mental illness:
I guess she was ‘riding the roller coaster’ when she slandered the family. Now, we can expect her to start loving and teaching any moment
nownever.Am I giving McWilliams the Joe the Plumber treatment? Absolutely not. The only things I have revealed about McWilliams are what she’s put out there herself. All Joe did was ask a question, and because B.O. accidentally said something instead his usual nothing, he’s been targeted for punishment. McWilliams (presuming she was in on the stunt) put herself on our radar, and has nobody to blame but herself.
ConservativesRus,
It says we have inalienable rights, and “amoung these” are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
“Among these” means more than just the examples listed are inalienable.
Since you brought it up, is there anything in life more conneccted to the pursuit of happiness than marrying?
The word “marriage” has, until receintly, been defined in our society as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. What is being asked is that this society be forced to change the deffinition or the word to be any two or more people who feel like it. Use whatever legal paper you want to get the same result, but don’t call it “marriage. It isn’t, and never will be.
you don’t have a ‘right’ to be married. not everyone gets married. in order to have a ‘right’ to be married, you’d have to force someone else to marry you.
sounds like a typical liberal ‘right’…that costs someone else something.
Evidently so…some people choose to have gay relationships.
“you don’t have a ‘right’ to be married. not everyone gets married. in order to have a ‘right’ to be married, you’d have to force someone else to marry you.”
That’s very funny!
Seriously though - folks on this site do think heterosexuals have a right to marry, don’t you?
If not, could a State pass a law that passes constitutional muster banning heterosexual marriages?
I certainly hope not.
its very true. you are twisting the meaning of ‘rights’ to justify gay marriage. lame.
no, a right is something that doesn’t force someone else to do something. there is no right to healthcare, or food, or housing, because someone else would have to pay for it.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the posts here, but has anyone mentioned that the family could have gone out to that car and washed off the paint themselves? An abandoned car in front of your house with a hate message? I would have been out there scrubbing immediately. Sorry if someone has already mentioned that. It is pretty obvious.
if you can show me in the constituion, bible, magna carta, or some other authority where marriage is a ‘right’, I’d like to see it…
The licensing of such marriages, yes. Though they would lose thier jobs very quickly afterwards. Each state has the right to issue or deny marriages based on any condittion they want as long as that condition is applied equaly to all. Right now any adult man and woman can marry any other adult of the oppose sex in utah (of age and not related). Those are the licensing rules. Any church in Utah can marry a 2 year old baby to a tree if they want to, but the state simply will not issue a license. Now under this theory, california can change thier rules and utah will not be affected. Utah will also have no say it californias rules. California can have a gay old time and utah can have a striaght old time. I think this is the most fair way of doing it. Yes this does mean that tennesse could legalise incestual marriage and we could say a think about it outside of the state (yyyeeeahhhaaahh) but I doubt that would fly.
That appears to be a very clear cut case of libel. I know I’d be taking them to court - if nothing else, I’d take their SUV as damages.
could = couldn’t
“if you can show me in the constituion, bible, magna carta, or some other authority where marriage is a ‘right’, I’d like to see it…”
Well it appears you and I have a different view of where our rights come from.
Mine were not given to me by other men. That would make them perilous indeed, because other men could take them away.
As a conservative, an originalist and a strict constructionist, I’m certain my rights were endowed upon me by the Creator, they are inalienable by man and protected from government action by the Constitution.
That’s what Americans believe, because it says so in our original declaration of what we believe.
You can call yourself an American and not believe it, but you can’t say you agree with America and not believe it.
I asked where in the bible marriage was a right. unless you have some other holy document you would like to cite.
again where is marriage a right in the constition?? its not there. sorry.
San Francisco Values™
BTW, Prop 8 is currently failing in the polls.
California voters are such an enigma.
They’ll vote to approve virtually every bond measure and YES to on-demand abortion for minors yet they draw the line at gay marriage.
Just try and figure that one out.
A comedian put it one time:
Marriage is just mutual blackmail
If were in front of my house, that nice white paint job would have been a little less than white, and full of dings, after I mowed a few thousand rocks next to it. It’s amazing how much volocity you can get out of the blades of a craftsman riding mower with a 15HP engine.
Since you make the point, I’ll follow up with this question, for the sake of discussion: why do people who pay no taxes (or receive a net gain from the government after paying taxes and receiving government relief) have the right to vote? Now, I’m sure some exceptions could be made (i.e. past/present service members, widows, police, fire, teachers, clergy/full-time missionaries, etc.), but could this be a plausible possibility for our government?
“again where is marriage a right in the constition?? its not there. sorry.”
The Constitution doesn’t give rights.
It protects rights that already exist (because they were endowed by the Creator).
That’s why the 1st Amendment does not say “You are hereby endowed with the right of free speech.”
That’s also why it DOES say:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
The ‘Freedome of speech” was already there. The Constitution simply denied the government the right to infringe it (respecting the Declaration’s language that the rights the Creator endowed are “inalienable.”
Thats true, and any powers not specficaly mentioned in the constitution are give to the states. Which is where the licensing laws come in. It is also where abortion should be in my opinion. Then California again can have free abortions for all and utah can be more restrictive reflecting the locals views and not the views of interest groups half way across the country.
Oh BTW I believe California should be broken up because it represents too much of a power block. 3 states at least.
Do you really want the government to pick out your spouse?
And get the lowest possible bidder?
It would lead to an interesting version of outsourcing to other countries…
There have been lots of Prop 102 signs stolen, defaced or destroyed here in Phoenix. If I ever catch one of them in the act of doing it, they’ll be sure to get more than a piece of my mind.
Once again, the Liberal Thought Police are out in force, denying you your right to think what you want, have your own morals and belief structure etc.
Get used to it kids. Should Capt. Big Ears and his Boy Blunder become successful in their attempt at turning this country into the United Socialist Republic of America, you can be damn sure to wish that this is all they will do.
Well, they all got that one right, but tend to take it to the extreme.
But when it comes to religion, it’s a different definition.
As L.N. Smithee mentioned, there is a site - although down - for Mara McWilliams.
I’ve had to work with people that were dealing with bipolar disorder… It’s difficult.
I’m certainly not making any excuses for McWilliams’ actions, but bipolar disorder would explain where those actions may have come from.
See the cached info of the site here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Amaramcwilliams.com
RLR
Good reasoned, non-hatefilled, discussion. Two (hopefully quick) comments:
1. Someone asked if the state could restrict (prohibit) heterosexual marriage:
It already does in many states regarding relationships considered “too close” in the family tree. Some call that incestual. Some have referred to it as protecting the (possibly deformed — my words– children).
2. Someone commented separately that the reason for “incest” protections/restrictions was to protect a third party (the child).
How do we all square that with the view that an unborn (or in this case un-conceived) child has any rights to protect itself (i.e., from abortion)? Seems like some on the the liberal left want to claim gay marriage is a right by pointing to this reason, but it runs counter to the belief that the unborn have no rights. Are they now claiming that the unborn have no rights, but the unconceived have to be protected?
logic yoga….