California Supreme Court Flagrantly Violates California Constitution

While the California Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of Proposition 8 it simultaneously violates the Constitution by stating that 18,000 same-sex "marriages" will be recognized in California. This is a bizarre maneuver that demonstrates that the court has no interest in altering its judicial activism posture. It saw clearly that it could not overturn Proposition 8 but refused to accept what the amendment actually says.

Proposition 8 clearly and unequivocally states:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So how on earth can the Supreme Court rule that 18,000 same-sex couples have marriages that are valid and recognized in California? This is an interpretation direct from the twilight zone of Orwellian reasoning.

On one side of its mouth the court states that Proposition 8 is constitutional and on other side states "but we, by judicial fiat, will make 18,000 exceptions to the Constitution."

Now here is a case that needs to be taken to the US Supreme Court. This contradictory ruling needs to be overturned. The California SC cannot be allowed to continue creating law and exceptions to law.

Let's put this in perspective by a couple of examples. If the law states that you must be 18 years old to drink alcohol but then a law is passed that says everyone must be 21 years old to drink, can that possibly be interpreted to mean that an exception will be made for everyone not yet 21 without that being stipulated in the new law? If a state law says you must be at least 16 years old to marry but then a law is passed stating you must be at least 18 years old, can that be interpreted that everyone still 16 or 17 is exempted? Similar examples by the hundreds could be given.

If Proposition 8 is constitutional then it must be applied to everyone. For some reason 18,000 same-sex couples, unqualified for marriage, are in a privileged class that is above the law.

Making a Federal Case of It

As you've probably heard by now, lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies are challenging the California Marriage Amendment in federal court. The usual advocacy groups are leery, though, figuring that they haven't manipulated the system enough yet to be confident of winning. Carol J. Williams has the Los Angeles Times story.

A coalition of nine gay-rights advocacy groups called the suit "premature" and warned that without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't seem likely to rule that same-sex couples are entitled to marry.

Well why not? I thought it was supposed to be so glaringly obvious that only bigots and those completely ignorant of the law would fail to see that there is a right to neutered state marriage licenses.

[More is below the fold if you care to read it.]

The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, urged those disappointed by Tuesday's high-court ruling upholding Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage to pursue their rights through another voter initiative or the Legislature.

It's... not... a... ban. They are not pursuing rights, but rather social engineering by a minority. But I'm glad to see they are advocating legislation instead of court imposition.

California's Supreme Court ruling upholding Proposition 8 creates a community of second-class citizens, Olson said of the thousands of gay and lesbian couples prohibited from marrying because of the voter initiative's redefinition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.

That doesn't prohibit anyone from marrying. Each one of us is either a man or a woman, after all.

I'm almost disappointed that there isn't some sort of challenging argument being made, or at least making it to the press. So much of the news articles over the last several days have looked like boilerplate. At least some of our critics around the blogosphere have colorful name-calling to go along with their failure to actually answer the arguments we make.

Polygamy Continues to Gain Traction

According to their mission statement, Our Weekly "will position itself as the paper of choice as it relates to reaching the Los Angeles African American community." Their cover story by Gregg Reese is on polygamy.

Here are a couple quotes of interest:

Less well publicized is the practice of polygamy within the African American community. Its proponents argue that the adoption of this custom can be seen as a return to the conventions of traditional African rituals abandoned when our present citizenry was forced into slavery. Other viewpoints suggest polygamy is the answer to the extreme imbalance between Black men and women, and the generations old plight of children who grow up fatherless.

and

Plural marriage as a viable concept today is not merely one of a hedonist arrangement put into service for masculine benefit. Advocates from the counterculture of the 1960s, especially those embroiled in the Black Power/Black Nationalist Movement, suggest this idea represents a return to the traditions abandoned when slaves were wrenched from their homeland and forced into the constraints of Christianity and monogamy. Curiously, some feminists claim this as an alternative lifestyle potentially empowering for women, while social scientists suggest it is a practical solution for the dysfunction and ills that ravage contemporary society, especially the absence of fathers and parental figures that plague the Black family. Some religious leaders and theologians propose that polygamy is morally sound compared to the deceit inherent in many Christian unions.

[More is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Notice that fatherlessness is presented as a problem, with the implied answer supposedly being sharing a father, instead of getting another mother.

The article also implies that affairs involving married people are virtually equivalent to formal polygamy, and conversely that being involved in polygamy can give some participants the benefits of an affair without the full responsibility of marriage.

Formal polygamy certainly has a long historical basis, while calling or licensing same-sex pairings as marriages does not. We frequently see marriage neutering advocates cite past polygamy as evidence that marriage has changed over the years, though in doing so they ignore that, through all of the changes, one of the few core elements of marriage has been its uniting of the sexes.

By the reasoning of the California Supreme Court when it struck down Proposition 22, historically oppressed minorities (African-Americans certainly qualify) should be granted what they ask from the majority – doesn't that mean that if some African-Americans ask for a polygamous marriage license, they have a right to one?

(H/T: LAObserved.com)

On Radio

Last time, thanks to my elite radio producer skills, we treated everyone to a full fifteen minutes of "is this thing on" type discussion. This week, who knows what will happen?

Can the vitriol be won? How to survive and win the internet flame wars with love!

More on Pseudogamy

Anthony Esolen has more on pseudogamy over at Mere Comments. From "Pseudogamy 102":

Man and woman unite in marriage to bring into being a new generation; and even when they cannot do so, because of age or some physical defect, they may well wish to do so, or they stand for others as exemplars of the act that naturally brings forth children.

From "Pseudogamy 103":

To play at marriage before marriage causes one to play at play-marriage after marriage; the sharp distinction is lost ("It's only a piece of paper!" laugh those who fear the marriage certificate), and both the unmarried and the married states are thereby corrupted.

I do not doubt that there is a connection between other forms of psuedogamy (among other things) and the push to neuter marriage. We would not be at this point unless without much previous error. Error begets error, unfortunately. That is why I wrote a while back THIS and THIS about "Marriage is Dead". Some of my own past actions have contributed to this mess. However, I admit that those things were wrong to do. I do advise others not to do them. I don't make excuses, or demand approval and affirmation for those or any legal entitlements because I did them. I am not trying to get any media portrayal or school or church to say those actions weren't wrong. I don't pretend that those actions were no different than being married.

California Marriage Amendment News in Today's LATimes

The paper ran some "hard news" articles in relation to yesterday's court ruling. Here is Carol J. Williams' article, on the reaction of various citizens and lawmakers.

They ruled that the 18,000 gay marriages conducted in the state last year during the six-month period that they were legal remained valid, but failed to make clear the status of gay couples legally married in other states and countries who make their home in California.

Probably because they want more cases to come their way so that they can get revenge on the voters.

[Much more is below the fold if you care to read it.]

"The people of California and the tide of history are clearly moving toward equality," ," [California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass] said. "While everyone who believes in equal treatment under the law is disappointed by the court's decision today, we should all take pride in the fact that truth and time are on our side."

No, Speaker Bass, I believe in equal treatment under the law, and I support the California Marriage Amendment. The two are not in conflict.

Jessica Garrison and Hector Becerra have an article that is more about what the activist groups on both sides are doing, and some protests.

Three gay couples then occupied the marriage license office, saying they would not leave without a license to wed.

Smart. I'll get some blind friends of mine to disrupt the local DMV until they are granted driver's licenses.

Bill Walker, 52, and Kelly Ziegler, 41, "grabbed each other's hands when they said we were still married," said Walker, a television writer. "But it's a very compromised feeling because we have friends who can't get married now." The couple had wanted to get married as soon as they could, mostly for the sake of their two children, Elizabeth, 8, and James, 3.

WHERE IS THE MOTHER? We know these two guys did not conceive and carry these children. If they rescued these kids from a group home, that's a different matter than breaking up a marriage, making babies out of wedlock, or intentionally depriving these children of a mother. Since the media loves focusing on couples with kids in these stories, I will keep asking the obvious question every time they fail to answer it.

California Marriage Amendment Opinion in Today's LATimes

The paper is full of opinion pieces prompted by yesterday's court ruling.

First, I want to give some credit to Karin Klein. On the LATimes.com opinion blog, she chides Monica Garcia, Los Angeles Unified School District Board President, who said this:

"And for the hundreds of thousands of LAUSD students, [the court's decision is] a lesson that reverberates in the home and through the hallways, where bullies teasing students over their sexual orientation will continue with impunity."

Klein rightfully points out that Garcia already has the power and the duty to prevent bullying.

[Much more is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Here's the paper’s editorial.

Yet the campaign supporting equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians is far from a total failure. It sparked a necessary if testy national conversation that almost certainly contributed to new marriage rights for same-sex couples in several other states over the last few months, and the possibility of laws that would do the same in three more, including New York.

It is really convenient to ignore all of the other states who have passed, like California, marriage amendments. And again – everyone has equal marriage rights.

The court's decision invites supporters of equal marriage to try again, this time at the ballot box.

Which is interesting, given that so many of them have said that "marriage" and "rights" can't be subject to a vote. Yet, that is exactly what they're going to do, and what they should have done in the first place.

The court's decision leaves California with a muddle of contradictory legalities. By upholding the marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples who wed between June and November 2008, the justices deny the wording in Proposition 8 that asserts the state will recognize only heterosexual unions.

Those licenses should never have been issued in the first place. It is not this decision that created contradictions, it was the court's decision on Prop 22 and their refusal to stay their decision.

The rest of the editorial is standard marriage neutering advocate regurgitation.

Tim Rutten fails to understand the nature of self-government, as demonstrated in this commentary.

In other words, gay and lesbian Californians can board the marital bus but must take seats at the rear.

No, they can board the bus but they can't tell the rest of the riders that the wheels must be removed because they get motion sickness.

Moreover, denying an entire class of people the right to marry the partner of their choice is a "narrow exception" to the equal protection clause?

It isn't an exception, no. The law applies equally to me, a straight man.

So, if a majority of Californians voted to "carve out a narrow exception" to California's right to privacy and applied it only to Jews, would it be constitutionally acceptable? If Native Americans were accorded all the protections of the law by a ballot proposition, except the right to marry a non-Indian, would that be legal?

Were those things the norms throughout all of human history up until a court decision year ago? No.

Columnist Steve Lopez tries to win us over with compelling logic like this:

I've known these guys for eight years, ever since my wife and I bought their house, and they're among our closest friends.

Well, heck, then – how can I deny their request to change marriage licensing for everyone, then? Watever they ask, the rest of us should agree to!

There's nobody at the forefront on this side," Jamie said. "Except for Ellen DeGeneres] . . . there isn't anyone out there who's a symbol."

I wasn't aware that these guys lived in a cave. Perhaps they mean that nobody stands out because there are so many famous people tripping over each other trying to to the front of the advocacy pack?

We also get relevant information like this:

That's a span during which they've seen countless straight marriages dissolve and various nitwits speak out against gay unions, including Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whose parents, by the way, had a messy divorce.

What does that have to do with anything?

Yes we can lie?

Belmont Club's Richard Fernandez notes something that seems very familiar to those who followed our coverage of the election season. This perhaps shows a good look back having seen 100 days in office for our President.

Power Line argues that for some perverse reason, some people on the Left trust Barack Obama because he “will lie” about his own beliefs. [...] This kind of political relationship can occur only if discourse can be carried out at more than one level. For Power Line’s assertion to be correct, it implies that some of Obama’s supporters, instead of relying on a single channel, actually communicate over two distinct paths. The reason they can disregard the signal conveyed by what he says is if they have a separate channel which communicates what he is. [...T]he point is simply that you can be lied to over both channels.

The precipitant of this reasoning comes from Power Line, and the issue of neutered marriage.

[Read on for the rest...]

This has been particularly noticeable with the gay marriage issue….Carrie Prejean being exactly right when noting that her position is identical to that of His Oneness. But Obama gets a pass, of course, from the homosexual activists because they just assume He is lying!!!…

Those that have not read the "Yes we can" tag, will find that we explored this pretty thoroughly in the election season. My analysis at the time included:

Lets look at the churlish possibility presented at BoogieTrain that (to put it in my own words) with a wink and a nudge, we are all supposed to understand that his opposition to neutered marriage is a front to help people feel more at ease with voting for him. Such intrigue could be supported by noting how his promises do not outline a very good strategy for opposing neutered marriage. I would not like to hear that other promises to implement strategy are as poorly drawn as this.

But no matter how much of a possibility that is, we must assume that the large contingent who support neutered marriage and Obama are willing to do so with the belief he is or will flip on the issue. They are hoping the con is on others. Certainly trust in deceit isn't new to marriage, people will often date a married person and then marry them. And if anyone can attest to someone's infidelity, it is the person they cheated with. To in turn hope that a crook on your side won't sell you out too is a strange risk. I don't know if that is what is going on, but if it is I'm sure they know. And I'm sure they should know better than put such hope in the ability someone has to lie to the public.

In fact, we even noted the distaste of dual-channel politics at the time from Pam's House Blend's own comment section, one of which is as follows...

Yes on 8 uses quotes from statements Obama and Biden made to the general public both from debates.

No on 8 holds up words he used in a letter written months ago to an LGBT political club based in San Francisco.

Which is a more compelling source to an undecided or changeable audience?

Oh, sure we can blame the scheming Yes on 8 campaign for being devious...but why can't we hold responsible the men that made these statements?

Why are we so willing to sacrifice ourselves for a politician?

But on this issue we not only sacrifice ourselves but marriage equality. Marriage is an institution that is our best channel to directly influence people engaging in the practice of human mating to see the equal right protection of all involved. From the person to the mate to the child who depends on both for their self-value and acceptance of their identity. To neuter marriage is to disconnect that channel, to give once and for all a victor status to adult needs and vulnerability while the children are considered the strong and resolute ones to handle the burden we put on them.

The AP and LATimes Coverage of the California Marriage Amendment

Here is some coverage of yesterday's ruling on the California Marriage Amendment. First up is this piece by Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno, in the lone dissent, warned that today's ruling "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."

Sure. Any minority that comes to the majority and demands a state license for something might hear "no" if that requires changing the basic requirements of issuing that license, and members of that minority already can obtain that license the same way everyone else does. Gee, how scary.

[Much more is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a former civil rights lawyer who also joined last year's ruling in favor of [neutering marriage], wrote separately because she disagreed with the majority's definition of a constitutional revision.

"The drafters of our Constitution never imagined, nor would they have approved, a rule that gives the foundational principles of social organization in free societies, such as equal protection, less protection from hasty, unconsidered change than principles of government organization," she wrote.

As if the drafters ever imagined that anyone would be calling two guys a "marriage".

"Hasty, unconsidered"? Huh? All of human history around the world had marriage as uniting the sexes. Even cultures who have been mortally opposed on almost everything about life agreed on that. Then, along comes a activist movement that gets a court to overturn an eight-year-old codification of that reality, while the people are submitting a proposition to add that condification to the state constitution. It is debated (well, if you can call the marriage neutering side's appeals to emotion "debate") for months, and then it is voted on by the people. And that is "hasty" and "unconsidered"?

As far as principle of government organization – the government is supposed to be organized to protect individual rights, not to cater to activist groups seeking to impose their will on an opposed majority.

The court declined to determine whether same-sex marriages performed outside of California -- and not formally recognized by the state prior to the election -- would be legal in California.

I'm sure there will be court cases. I was wrong when I said that they had apparently exhausted their options in court. I should have known better.

But [neutered] marriage advocates captured a wide array of support in the case, with civil rights groups, legal scholars and even some churches urging the court to overturn the measure. Supporters of the measure included many churches and religious organizations.

Notice that? Only churches and religious organizations supported the California Marriage Amendment, while "civil rights groups" and "legal scholars" opposed it. At least, that is what they want you to think.

The California Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation to have elevated sexual orientation to the status of race and gender in weighing discrimination claims.

Sexual orientation is one thing. Sexual behavior is another, and shouldn't be in the same category as race and gender.

Checking back on the link later, it looked as though the article was completely rewritten. So here are some additions...

In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not,

Not at the state level. It is written right there in state law that domestic partners are to be treated as spouses.

and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."

No, it doesn't The state has a duty to protect the actual rights of individuals, not try to eliminate the recognition of marriage as a unique institution uniting both basic components of society – men and women.

In deciding that [same-sex] couples who [obtained court-neutered marriage licenses] in California before the November election will remain [legally] married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.

Well whose fault is that? The justices knew full well the matter was heading for the ballot, but they refused to stay their decision.

"It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."

Perhaps anything that requires someone else to consent, yes. When you ask other people for something, they can always say "no". There’s a word (a phrase, actually) we use when two people force other nonconsenting people to do something for them on the basis of their sexual desires. But in California, you have not lost any legal entitlements, thanks to the strong domestic partnership law.

Jesse Choper, a professor of constitutional law at UC Berkeley, said the court's ruling means that voters may take away individual rights "in a limited fashion" and that the scope of the measure will determine whether it is permissible.

"The court wasn't happy about this. Proposition 8 changed their opinion" last year that gave gays and lesbians marriage rights, he said.

Wrong. Gays and lesbians have always had the exact same marriage rights as straight men and straight women. I can repeat it as often as they repeat their lie.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno dissented, calling the ruling "not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

So, Justice, you would side with a couple of siblings would wanted a state-issued marriage license? They would be a minority. You did say "any minority group that seeks...equal protection",

Ted Olson and David Boies, two prominent lawyers who had been on opposite sides in the Bush vs. Gore case, said they are coming together to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court.

And here we were told all along that this could only be a state matter. Go figure. I shouldn't be surprised.

Here is Lisa Leff's Associated Press article. As usual, they use the erroneous "gay marriage ban" language right there in the headline.

As for the thousands of couples who tied the knot last year in the five months that [neutered] marriage was [court-imposed] in California, the court said it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

How could they have intended it to be retroactive when they didn't know that the court was going to neuter marriage licensing before the measure made it to the ballot?

The decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse, holding signs and waving rainbow flags.

What? Signs and rainbow flags? And an outcry? Well, then, I guess that changes thousands of years of recorded human history and experience.

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," Moreno said. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

Great. Where are my veteran's benefits? No, I'm not a veteran, but I demand equal treatment.

Who Needs The Advocate When You Have the Los Angeles Times?

The Los Angeles Times has a group of pieces they are calling - and I'm not making this up - "Same-Sex Marriage: An Oral History". I guess calling it "an intercourse" is out of the question. These were printed yesterday, before the ruling on the California Marriage Amendment.

Included is this piece from Phyllis Lyon, who "married" Del Martin in 2004 as the central part of Gavin Newsom's little illegal nose-thumbing stunt.

[Much more is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Here is what caught my eye:

We never even thought about getting married back then. It didn't become an issue for a long time -- in fact, it never was much of an issue for us...We were feminists, and a lot of the feminist movement was opposed to marriage because the institution gave men power over women. We hadn't really thought about marriage, and we'd certainly never thought about getting married ourselves.

Then, in 2004, it all bubbled up. A day or so before Mayor Newsom announced that San Francisco would allow marriages, we got a call saying we were going to be the first couple. I don't know that anybody asked us. It was just, you're going to do this. They had picked us to be the first couple.

Kate Kendell [executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights] came over and picked us up...Kate whisked us down to City Hall and into Mabel Teng's office. She was the recorder, and she was the one who was going to do the wedding. We realized we didn't have rings. Who'd thought about rings? We borrowed them.

Lyon and Martin were used as pawns by selfish activists, apparently. Notice she expresses no deep-seated, long-suffering desire to get "married". In fact, she references the past mantra of radical feminists that marriage is oppressive. They sure changed their tune on that one, didn't they?

That Lyon and Martin were used as pawns is confirmed in another piece by San Francisco Mayor Gavin "Whethah Ya Like It Or Naht!" Newsom, who explains how the advocates and activists conspired to manipulate the system. (The other adulterous big-city of California mayor, the mayor of Los Angeles, is trying to jump onto this issue, too.)

The speech ended with President Bush railing about gay marriage. We were in two wars and grappling with things like climate change and income equality, and he's talking about gay marriage.

So, you mean, there were no problems in San Francisco and that's why you had time to pull your stunt? The President wouldn't have had any traction with that cause if people like you, Mayor Newsom, weren't making it an issue.

Whether we've liked it or not, civil rights in America have been determined, almost exclusively, by the courts.

Uh, no. Without the Constitution, they would have no basis. It takes the will of the people and legislation to defend true rights and make sure all individuals have their rights protected.

After all, 70% of Americans opposed interracial marriage after the Supreme Court declared it legal. If we had submitted interracial marriage to the will of the voters, they wouldn't have approved it.

Ah, the same very tired card. That many people may have been personally opposed to the idea for themselves and their children, but it wasn't like there had never been "interracial" marriage before, and only some states banned it, which, as we have explained, was an actual ban, not simply a refusal to issue a marriage license. The comparison is superficial.

I think that in 10 years people are going to look back and say, "What was the big deal?"

You mean like with Roe v. Wade?

Presumably for balance, they also included this piece by Andrew Pugno, an attorney who has defended marriage.

Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

The California Supreme Court has, to their credit, upheld the state constitution. Proposition 8, approved by the voters, has been "allowed" as an amendment to the constitution. The court also upheld the estimated "existing" 18,000 brideless or groomless licensed marriages that were started in the state between when the court's decision striking down Prop 22 went into effect and the voters passed Proposition 8, which was already heading for the ballot when the court refused to stay their own decision on Prop 22.

Californians are going to be bombarded with pleas by marriage neutering activists to get behind a new ballot measure to repeal the California Marriage Amendment. Of course, the fight rages on in many other places, too. So, submitted for your use is my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant. Of course, this blog right here - The Opine Editorials - is a great place to hone your arguments in this matter, but you can consider my piece to be an additional tool, if you need it.

Equal Protection

I have written about what I consider to be bad arguments that are frequently used to advocate marriage neutering, or against legislation that codifies again (or restores) bride-groom state marriage licensing.

But there is one argument that marriage neutering advocates make that seems to be their strongest, at least in the U.S.A. It is some variation of an appeal to "equal access/protection". It packs the most emotional punch, given the desire of the average American to support “equality”.

But law is about logic and facts, not emotion.

[Much more is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Equal protection is a concept found in the federal Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment. In Section 1, is this text:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine. Notice that this applies to individuals. A simple reading of the text reveals that it does not apply to couples or any groupings.

Under traditional marriage licensing, where both a bride and a groom are required, is there equal access (and therefore, protection) provided to homosexual individuals in relation to straight individuals?

Yes. Any man, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to be a groom. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, is allowed to be a bride. Both men and women have equal access to marriage licensing.

I understand that some individuals do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, and want to get a marriage licensing with someone of the same sex. However, that someone wants something other than what is available does not mean what is offered denies equal protection and must be changed.

It is worth noting that under neutered marriage licensing, where the bride-groom requirement is absent, it is still equal protection as heterosexual individuals are also allowed to get licenses with someone of the same sex. However, any domestic partnership or civil union law that excludes male-female pairings while applying to same-sex couples denies equal protection to some couples. I do not have a problem with this, as I note it is Constitutional to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, and thus marriage applies to bride-groom couplings while domestic partnerships and civil unions can be applied to other kinds of couplings.

If, despite the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, one argues that equal protection must also be extended to couples instead of individuals only, such a change would have profound effects on many areas of law beyond marriage licensing. Suddenly, pairings/partnerships will have rights previously only recognized as applying to individuals. Such a change should require implementation by Amendment, but sadly, I think it is possible a court will create it by decision.

If equal protection must be extended to pairings, then doesn't that also mean presumably platonic pairings, such as business partners, partners in crime (especially those who do not want to testify against each other), roommates, friends, and siblings? And where is the justification to limit the equal protection to pairings instead of trios or larger groupings? A businessperson can form two different partnerships with to different partners. Under "equal protection for couples", surely we can't deny a bigamist what he or she wants.

While appealing to "fairness" and insisting that it is what they want and it would make them happy may be emotionally effective in manipulating public sentiment, the "equal protection" argument does not stand up to scrutiny from a Constitutional perspective. Individuals are allowed to pursue what they want, as long as it does not compell someone else to provide something without consent. When someone applies for a state marriage license, she is asking the people of that state for something. While another woman may agree to apply with her, the people of the state may not agree to provide a license.

California Waiting

Tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time, California's Supreme Court will issue their ruling on the California Marriage Amendment. Will they uphold the constitution that binds them, or will they place themselves above the very constitution through which they are empowered? The Los Angeles Times had Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan check in with an assessment of the situation, with the article using the paper's usual biased language.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

But even before the court acts, gay rights activists -- braced for defeat -- are preparing to use the occasion to jump-start the next political campaign for marriage [neutering], which could come in 2010. They are planning news conferences, vigils and marches from South Los Angeles to the Oregon border.

Get ready for hysterics, whining, and endless badgering. Very little logic will be used. It will mostly be appeals to emotion and an insistence that you comply with the wishes of a friend, coworker, or family member, or otherwise you will be considered some sort of hateful bigot – despite the fact that they will not be at all concerned about your convictions.

Opponents of gay marriage said they were anticipating a court ruling in their favor.

Notice how that is framed. We are not people who esteem marriage, prefer tradition, prefer self-government. We are "opponents of gay marriage". I am no more an opponent of "gay marriage" than I am an opponent of dry water.

During the six months that the court has been reviewing the case, the national picture on [neutered] marriage has shifted substantially.

That should make no difference in the ruling.

"Whatever the court does . . . we have roughly half the state that doesn't yet believe that gay people are equal," said Jenny Pizer, Marriage Project director for Lambda Legal.

This is a lie. I believe gay people are equal, and so do most people who understand that marriage is something that unites the sexes. Don't let these professional manipulators try to saddle you with a guilt that does not belong to you. These are people who don't believe your vote should matter.

You can check out the Orange County Register article by Martin Wisckol here.

Apparently having exhausted their options in California courts, the marriage neutering advocates will finally do what they should have done all along, and try to take it to the ballot.

NOM Executive Director Urges New Hampshire Governor to Keep His Word

According to Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, "same-sex marriage advocates were shocked" when the New Hampshire House rejected the SSM Bill.

* * *

[Click here to read more below the fold.]

* * *

In a mailing, Brown asked marriage supporters to urge Lynch to veto the proposed legislation.

As one blogger wrote: "We were hardly even watching since we thought the vote was such a sure thing." State Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley has been pressuring legislators for weeks in an effort to push this bill through. I'm told the shocked look on his face after the House vote today was unforgettable.

There is already talk of the parliamentary wrangling to come as proponents seek to salvage the bill. More details will follow, but we need to keep the pressure on, urging Governor Lynch to keep his word and veto the bill today.

Working closely with CPR Action on the ground in New Hampshire, NOM has helped sponsor grassroots organizing efforts and hard-hitting TV ads that played a major role in today's victory. For the first time, supporters of same-sex marriage are feeling the heat from their constituents, and Governor Lynch knows that the people of New Hampshire oppose same-sex marriage -- because thousands and thousands have called or emailed to tell him.

Today's victory is further evidence of the success that we can achieve, even in the Northeast. But the fight is far from over, and we have other battles on our hands yet this year.

Brown asked marriage supporters to email Governor Lynch to ask him to veto the House Bill 436 which would redefine marriage in New Hampshire.

Now that the House rejected the religious liberty amendments [Governor Lynch] proposed, it's time [for him to keep his] word, veto the bill, and move on. We don't need to drag this out as same-sex marriage advocates pressure and arm-twist in order to switch votes.

The people of New Hampshire don't want same-sex marriage. That message came through loud and clear as pro-gay marriage candidates were trounced twice in special elections in recent weeks.

Email New Hampshire Governor John Lynch, click here.

* * *

See: Huge victory for marriage in New Hampshire.

Also see: New Hampshire: 64% Support Marriage as union of a man and a woman.

Pseudogamy

Anthony Esolen at Mere Comments has posted a blog entry on "Pseudogamy".

Our problem is pseudogamy, false marriage, and it assumes many forms. Same-sex pseudogamy is but the latest and most flagrantly absurd, but it is not the first. We find the most fundamental form, from which other corruptions rise up like diseases, when a man and woman go through the ceremony and utter the traditional words "as long as you both shall live," while harboring the mental reservation, "as long, that is, as I am happy," or "as long as the marriage 'works,'" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Click through to read the whole thing. It is mostly about divorce and harboring reservations when marrying. I disagree with him where he knocks pre-nups as either the bride, the groom, or both planning for divorce, and thus negating the spiritual aspect of the marriage. As long as divorce, especially no-fault divorce, is a legal reality (and I don't expect it this will change prior to the return of Christ), the laws and courts already amount to a de facto pre-nup. Why should a bride and groom let strangers decide for them when they can decide as a couple while on good terms?

Not today -- Prop 8 Court Decision

In case you had heard rumors, the CA Court has announced that its California marriage ruling won’t be released this week.

Falls Short, Stalled, Setback, Imperiled -- 'Gay Marriage' nixed in New Hampshire

Washington Post: Gay-Marriage Bill Falls Short in House.

New Hampshire lawmakers voted Wednesday to reject a bill that would have made the state the sixth in the United States to authorize same-sex marriage.

[Click here to read more below the fold]

* * *

New York Times: Setback to Gay Marriage in New Hampshire.

The vote made the bill’s survival less certain, but the measure is not dead yet. It will now go to a joint committee of the legislature, which will try to come up with language acceptable to the House and Senate. But it is unclear whether Governor Lynch, a Democrat, would sign it.

* * *

The Union Leader: Gay marriage bill stalls in NH House.

House dealt a blow to supporters of gay marriage yesterday, refusing to agree to changes Governor Lynch wanted in exchange for his support.

[...]

The governor's press secretary, Colin Manning, said Lynch spelled out the protections he would need in order to sign the bill.

"While he will continue to talk to lawmakers, these principles must be maintained in any final version of this bill," Manning said. "If the Legislature fails to do so, he will veto it."

[...]

Kevin Smith, executive director of the Cornerstone Policy Research Action, a group opposing gay marriage, said polls show the state is divided on the issue and the House is as well judging from yesterday's vote.

"The Legislature should move on and not waste any more time on gay marriage and, instead, turn its attention to the budget and the state's economy," Smith said.

He also called on Lynch to stay true to his word and veto the gay marriage bill as he said he would if the changes were not included in the bill.

* * *

The Concord Monitor: House vote imperils marriage bill.

Yesterday, the New Hampshire House nixed an amendment that Governor Lynch had termed crucial to winning his support for a bill that would merge SSM with marriage.

Last night, Lynch made clear he would not sign the original bill without an amendment.

Some opponents of the amendment said that

Lynch's language doesn't go far enough, saying it should protect private citizens who have wedding-related businesses, such as photographers or limousine drivers, but who find same-sex marriage anathema to their own religious beliefs.

The amendment, said Salem Rep. Marilinda Garcia, "provides no protection - and that's no protection whatsoever - to individuals based on their religious beliefs and faith."

* * *

Related story in The Union Leader: Veto gay marriage bill, focus on budget.

Republicans also called for a non-binding referendum on the same-sex marriage to go before voters in the 2010 election. New Hampshire forbids binding voter referendums.

“Now is the time to allow the citizens of New Hampshire to vote on a same-sex marriage referendum,” said Sen. Minority Leader Peter Bragdon, R-Milford.

Former House Speaker and current House assistant minority leader Gene Chandler, R-Bartlett, said the proposed budget is half a billion dollars out of balance and there is only six weeks to resolve it before the new fiscal year begins.

West Hollywood Whining

The City of West Hollywood, a relatively new city in Los Angeles County that promotes homosexual behavior, is dealing with pressing issues within the city via a unanimous, but nonbinding resolution demanding that a new local hotel "disaffiliate" with a San Diego hotel because the owner of the building in which Hyatt Hotels operates in San Diego gave money to support the California Marriage Amendment. From WeHo News.

Saying that "the use of economic boycotts is an effective nonviolent tactic in the civil rights movement," the resolution calls for the WeHo's newest hotel to sever its business ties with the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Despite that implication, the resolution does not call for a boycott of the Andaz Hotel.

It amounts to a scolding and a verbal bullying.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

One month ago, protesters came from outside the city to demand the same thing, leaving the Andaz management in the position of explaining that, as a subsidiary of the parent company, no direct business association exists, therefore the only options left open to Global Hyatt would be to 1) cease operations in San Diego (one of their most profitable locations), 2) spin the Andaz off as an independently-owned company or 3) close shop.

They actually quote someone with some sanity:

The Andaz general manager Michel Morauw, said he felt the resolution had purely political motivation. "We at the Andaz feel we should be judged by the acts of the Andaz," he said, "not [Doug Manchester's].

"There are no ties between Andaz [and Manchester Grand] except our parent company has a management agreement to operate in San Diego," he said.

Ah, but we can't let logic come into play. This isn't about logic. It is about feelings, and being angry about not being able to force other people to validate those feelings.

West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran joined Tom Walsh, President, UNITE HERE Local 11 from San Diego, Cleve Jones (long-time gay activist) from San Francisco, Rick Jacobs of the Los Angeles Courage Campaign, John Cleary, President, Los Angeles Stonewall Democrats and Lisa Powell, Organizing with America (San Diego) in condemning the association between the Hyatt and the Andaz and demanding the business connections between the two be severed and Global Hyatt wade into California politics.

Their demands of the hotel in West Hollywood:

"One: publicly take a stand and come out for marriage [neutering]; two, sever all ties with Doug Manchester."

The irony is that they generally like Hyatt:

"Hyatt has a history of inclusiveness and has received a long list of accolades from the LGBT community, including the Human Rights Campaign, Planet Out, Advocate Magazine and DiversityInc.com, for its commitment to diversity and as one of the most respected and admired companies among the LGBT community.

Employees at Hyatt properties are offered domestic partner benefits and Hyatt has a strong record of non-discriminatory policies in all Hyatt Hotels."

See a statement here.

See the resolution here.

It's all rather silly. If everyone who opposes the neutering of marriage boycotted business where someone has supported marriage neutering, things would get rather dire for most of those businesses. But this is like asking a fast food franchise to change into something else because the owner of a shopping center where where one the chain's other franchises operates donated to something.

(H/T: Shelby Grad at LATimes.com)

Core Meaning of SSM

A commenter at the blogsite, Secular Right, kindly responded to my request for a plainly stated core meaning for SSM (Same-Sex Marriage).

Read his comment, here. The comment section there is now closed.

I'll quote Carlo in full below. I'll respond in a subsequent blogpost here at Opine and will invite Carlo to discuss his viewpoint further in our comment section.

Carlo said:

[Click here to read more below the fold]

I believe that the meaning of marriage is ultimately owned and defined by its participants in myriad ways for different reasons, so I reject the assumption that some social institution or policy has to be defined by some bullet-pointed list of “core” sociological principles or desired effects in order to be justified. However, I do think the question is interesting enough that I’d like to attempt an answer. I don’t think it’s the sort of answer you’re looking for, but in my opinion it strikes at the heart of the matter under discussion.

I think that, at it’s core, same-sex marriage is the attainment of equality for same-sex couples. That is, its full meaning cannot be derived independently, or only from universal features of human nature, but instead stems from three things: 1) the historically established existence and nature of opposite-sex marriage (including the privileged status and benefits that this institution confers), 2) the discrimination and inequality experienced by gays and lesbians throughout practically all of human history, and 3) the presumption that citizens in a democracy should enjoy freedom and equality under the law.

In the same way that, as you said, the nature of humankind is two-sexed, and the nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed, it is also the nature of humankind to have a minority of members that are attracted to those of the same sex. That minority, due perhaps in part to an orientation that was not conducive to procreation, but due also to ignorance, bigotry, and religious dogma, has suffered a vastly inferior social status throughout nearly all of human civilization. Its sexual behavior was considered obscene (and often criminal), its relationships unspeakable, its members invisible.

But with the advent of concepts such as “democracy”, “human rights”, and “equality”, there finally arrived a time when members of that minority sought to gain a status fully equal to their peers. This sought-after status comes in different forms, such as legal protections (i.e. employment nondiscrimination) and social acceptance (i.e. being “out” to friends and family). But a large part of what defines this minority is their relationships, and for this minority to be fully equal, their relationships have to be equal as well. Hence same-sex marriage.

You’re correct: at its core, same-sex marriage is not about love, sexual orientation, or attraction. It’s not unique or independent; in the absence of opposite-sex marriage, there would probably be no push or desire at all for same-sex marriage. And it’s definitely not foundational, since it relies on certain civilizational developments that occurred only recently in human history. It is, at its core, about equality. The true meaning of same-sex marriage is that it corrects a historical injustice by granting to its participants a status that is equal to that enjoyed by their heterosexual peers. Gaining that status, however, requires that it meaningfully resemble its counterpart in every possible way. Thus, it seeks to adopt the values and traditions that have become part of opposite-sex marriage: love, sexual attraction, weddings, monogamy; for the same reason it also seeks the same legal benefits and responsibilities. The only difference, as far as its advocates are concerned, is that its participants are couples of the same sex. And thus, as you requested, it becomes both “gay” and “marriage”, distinguishable from other relationships.

* * *

I'll attempt to summarize and will request that Carlo confirm, correct, or elaborate so that we can be sure that my reading of his remarks is fairly accurate, thusfar.

1. The meaning of marriage is particular to the individual. There are no universal features of the social institution of marriage.

--

2. The heart of the issue of SSM is as follows:

A. The full meaning of SSM depends on the prior existence and nature of marriage (i.e.the union of husband and wife), the inequality experienced by gays and lesbians, and the democratic idea of freedom and equality for all under the law.

B. There is a minority among humankind. Its social status has been inferior, historically, due to percieved obscenity of same-sex sexual behavior. That perception is ignorant, bigoted, and dogmatic.

C. The minority seeks equal status with the majority. For example, legal protections that prohibit distinctions based on same-sex sexual behavior; also social openness or acceptance.

D. This minority is largely defined by relationships. For the minority to be fully equal with the majority, relationships must be equal.

E. The core of SSM is not love, sexual orientation, nor attraction. It is not foundational. It has no independent claim for a preferential social status.

F. The core meaning is equality of sexual orientations; it corrects an historical injustice suffered by homosexual people. Equality means that SSM resembles marriage in every possible way. SSM is the adoption of values and traditions of marriage. It means the same legal benefits and legal responsiblities.

G. The only difference between SSM and marriage is that in SSM the relationship is one-sexed.

H. In this way the relationship type, SSM, is gay and marriage, and distinguishable from nonmarital kinds of arrangements and nonmarital types of relationships.

* * *

Note that the request I made is as follows:

The task is quite simple, given your certitude: plainly state the core meaning of “gay marriage”, that is its essentials without which it would be neither gay nor marriage. Then, draw the lines around that such that this relationship, by type, will be distinguishable from others. If these lines are sustainable, provide the basics of how the lines arise from the core or the essentials around which these lines are drawn.

* * *

Possibly related posts:

"Family Formation (and The Replacement of Marriage)."

"Forming the basis of SSM."

"The Spousal Relationship."

"Following the Meaning of SSMers."

"To er or not to er."

* * *

The comment section here is open for your thoughts on Carlo's remarks.

Socioeconomic class and nonmarital trends

Justin Katz at Anchor Rising wrote about an analysis of the available statistical data from The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

"Society Is a Long-Term Project, and Marriage Matters."

Here are some highlights:

[Click here to read more below the fold]

A study following women born between 1957 and 1964 found that, among white participants, the overall illegitimacy ratio was 11%. Dividing the group roughly 10-40-40-10 by socioeconomic class, that rate breaks down as follows:

• Overclass (17 years of education and family incomes over $100,000): 1.7%
• Middle class (family incomes over $60,000): 4.0%
• Working class (family incomes less than $60,000): 10.2%
• Underclass (fewer than 12 years of education and family incomes under $20,000: 44.5%

Murray is in the process of completing updated research, but he describes his current estimates:

Today, the illegitimacy ratio for non-Latino whites is 28 percent. How do the classes break down now? As it happens, I've spent the last few weeks exploring that question. I'm not done, and want to save that discussion for a formal presentation in any case, but here are some tentative estimates: The illegitimacy ratio for the white underclass is probably now in the region of 70 percent. I think that the proportion for the white working class may be above 40 percent. The white middle class is approaching 20 percent—a scarily high figure when you think about all the ways that the middle class has been the spine of the nation. The white overclass? They're still living in the 1950s—their ratio is probably about 4 or 5 percent tops.

The relevance to same-sex marriage is that such an innovation hinders our society's ability to leverage the institution to arrest this downward slide by erasing the link between marriage and childbirth. Whatever definition of marriage rising generations absorb from our culture, the law will tell them that it has nothing to do with the spouses' ability to create children. Moreover, those toward the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder tend to be more susceptible to the broader culture than their better-off peers.

* * *

Read the rest of Justin's blogpost plus comments, here.

Read Charles Murray's blogpost on his statistical analysis, here.

Murray concludes that

while the elite may continue to live in its pleasant little world for a while, that world is not going to bear much resemblance to the rest of America. And, increasingly, the rest of America isn’t going to bear much resemblance to the America we used to celebrate.

"Gay marriage" litmus test for Supreme Court nominee?

William A. Jacobson of the blog, "Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion", has some thoughts on President Obama's priorities for his upcoming Supreme Court nomination.

Gay Marriage The New Nomination Litmus Test:

For the past several Supreme Court nominations, the hot issue has been abortion. [...] Abortion will not be the hot issue this time. [...] But there is another issue which almost certainly will come into play: Gay marriage.

[...]

There is no indication that Obama wants a fight over gay marriage, or wants his first Supreme Court nomination to turn on that issue. But he may not be able to avoid the issue, as much as he may like to do so.

[...]

Gay marriage may be the new abortion when it comes to the Supreme Court nomination process. But that litmus test will work only in one direction. No Democrat will have the guts to require a pro-gay marriage nominee, but many Democrats and all Republicans will disqualify a nominee on that basis.

In his blogpost, Jacobson describes a few examples of people whose names have been kicked around as potential nominees.

I disagree with issue-based litmus tests

But I'd favor a test for temperment and intellectual inclination toward judicial restraint. While the nomination process does not always produce an accurate picture of a nominee's judicial philosophy, if a potential Justice passed such a test, he or she would at least have indicated a strong appreciation for the correct use of lawyerly skills toward the interpretation of the law rather than a willfulness toward the abuse of judicial review.

Empty rhetoric that gives a metaphorical nod to judicial restraint but then forges ahead anyway is not of any value in our form of governance. Of the court opinions that have favored "gay marriage", none have resisted abusing judicial review. And each included the phoney nod.

Matthew Shepard or Jason Shephard

From a blogpost by Beetle Blogger:

Everyone has heard of Matthew Shepard, but have you heard of Jason Shephard?

[...]

Both Matthew Shepard and Jason Shephard were brutally murdered. One was gay, murdered by straight men, the other was straight, murdered by a gay man. Both sets of murderers received life in prison, without parole, both got what they deserved, regardless of race, color or sexual orientation.

[...]

The two miserable human beings who killed Matthew Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so. That being said, can I ask the obvious question?

The rest of BB's blogpost is, here.

Gov. 'Flinch' lets down New Hampshire

Here is today's editorial by the publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, Joseph W. McQuaid:

As this newspaper has pointed out, Lynch has said repeatedly that he believes the institution of marriage is and should be preserved for one man and one woman. Civil unions, which Lynch signed, cover any legal question of equity for homosexual couples. Protecting marriage is not a question of equity.

Neither Lynch nor the Democratic legislative majority embraced gay marriage as a campaign issue. The legislators were largely silent. Lynch gave every indication that he was opposed, as a matter of deep-seated belief.

Now, he has decided there are votes on both sides of this issue and he is trying to get them both, giving himself cover with his request for changes in the bill. But the fact remains that he thinks he can get away with this waffling position and still win a record-breaking fourth term next year.

We don’t think so. We think Gov. “Flinch,’’ as we heard him described the other day, has just lost, big time.

New Hampshire Governor Will Not Sign "gay marriage" Bill - UPDATES

Also see here.

Governor John Lynch announced that unless stronger religious protections are provided, he will veto HB 436 which would redefine marriage within the state of New Hampshire. The "gay marriage" bill was passed by a close vote in the legislature so the prospect of a veto will likely prompt legislators to make changes before sending the bill to the Governor's desk.

[Updates below]

[Click here to read more below the fold]

* * *

He has provided legislative leaders with wording that will satisfy him and is leaving it to the House and Senate to move next.

“If the Legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the Legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it. We can and we must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain religious traditions with respect and dignity.”

Lynch said he modeled his suggestions based on same-sex marriage laws that are in place in Vermont and Connecticut. He said the Legislature has time to act before the end of this session in June.

“The ball is in their court at this point,” Lynch said in a session with reporters.

The alternative wording that Governor Lynch has proposed is quoted in full at the bottom of this blogpost.

From the Union Leader:

The marriage bill would replace the state’s civil unions law, which took effect January 2008. It allows couples in civil unions now to convert their relationship to marriage beginning January 2010. All civil unions will be converted to marriage automatically on Jan. 1, 2011. The bill also says New Hampshire will recognize same-sex marriages legally contracted in other states. It requires anyone entering a same-sex marriage to be 18.

In a statement, Governor Lynch said:

"This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

""If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it.

* * *

Governor Lynch's proposed changes:

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire.

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

* * *

Text of the "gay marriage" bill:

AN ACT relative to civil marriage and civil unions.

SPONSORS: Rep. Splaine, Rock 16; Rep. McEachern, Rock 16; Rep. Butler, Carr 1; Rep. B. Richardson, Ches 5

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

ANALYSIS

This bill eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage, affirms religious freedom protections of clergy with regard to the solemnization of marriage, and provides a mechanism by which same gender couples who have entered into a civil union prior to the enactment of this bill may obtain the legal status of marriage.

[...]

AN ACT relative to civil marriage and civil unions.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Marriage; Marriages Prohibited; Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. RSA 457:1 - RSA 457:3 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:1 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to affirm the right of 2 individuals desiring to marry and who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements of this chapter to have their marriage solemnized in a religious or civil ceremony in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

457:1-a Equal Access to Marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated “bride,” “groom,” or “spouse.”

457:2 Marriages Prohibited. No person shall marry his or her father, mother, father’s brother, father’s sister, mother’s brother, mother’s sister, son, daughter, brother, sister, son’s son, son’s daughter, daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter, brother’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s son, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s son, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s son, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s son, or mother’s sister’s daughter. No person shall be allowed to be married to more than one person at any given time.

457:3 Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. Every marriage legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire, which would not be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire, shall be recognized as valid in this state for all purposes if or once the contracting parties are or become permanent residents of this state subsequent to such marriage, and the issue of any such marriage shall be legitimate. Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.

2 Marriageable. Amend RSA 457:4 to read as follows:

457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.

3 Marriage; Solemnization of Marriage. RSA 457:31 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:31 Solemnization of Marriage. A marriage may be solemnized in the following manner:

I. In a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace as commissioned by the state and by judges of the United States appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, by bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution, or by United States magistrate judges appointed pursuant to federal law; or

II. In a religious ceremony by any minister of the gospel in the state who has been ordained according to the usage of his or her denomination, resides in the state, and is in regular standing with the denomination; by any member of the clergy who is not ordained but is engaged in the service of the religious body to which he or she belongs, and who resides in the state, after being licensed therefor by the secretary of state; or within his or her parish, by any minister residing out of the state, but having a pastoral charge wholly or partly in this state.

4 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. RSA 457:37 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:37 Affirmation of Freedom of Religion in Marriage. Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.

5 New Subdivision; Civil Unions; Other Jurisdictions; Obtaining Legal Status of Marriage. Amend RSA 457 by inserting after section 44 the following new subdivision:

Civil Union Recognition; Obtaining Legal Status of Marriage

457:45 Civil Union Recognition. A civil union legally contracted outside of New Hampshire shall be recognized as a marriage in this state, provided that the relationship does not violate the prohibitions of this chapter.

457:46 Obtaining Legal Status of Marriage.

I. Two consenting persons who are parties to a valid civil union entered into prior to January 1, 2010 pursuant to this chapter may apply and receive a marriage license and have such marriage solemnized pursuant to RSA 457, provided that the parties are otherwise eligible to marry under RSA 457 and the parties to the marriage are the same as the parties to the civil union. Such parties may also apply by January 1, 2011 to the clerk of the town or city in which their civil union is recorded to have their civil union legally designated and recorded as a marriage, without any additional requirements of payment of marriage licensing fees or solemnization contained in RSA 457, provided that such parties’ civil union was not previously dissolved or annulled. Upon application, the parties shall be issued a marriage certificate, and such marriage certificate shall be recorded with the division of vital records administration. Any civil union shall be dissolved by operation of law by any marriage of the same parties to each other, as of the date of the marriage stated in the certificate.

II. Two persons who are parties to a civil union established pursuant to RSA 457-A that has not been dissolved or annulled by the parties or merged into a marriage in accordance with paragraph I by January 1, 2011 shall be deemed to be married under this chapter on January 1, 2011 and such civil union shall be merged into such marriage by operation of law on January 1, 2011.

6 Documents. Town clerks shall make any changes necessary to marriage registration forms and licenses, and the secretary of state shall make any changes necessary to documents issued by their respective offices in order to effectuate the purposes of this act.

7 New Hampshire Retirement System; Civil Unions. RSA 100-A:2-b is repealed and reenacted as follows:

100-A:2-b Marriage. RSA 457 shall not apply to this chapter to the extent that such application will violate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or other federal law.

8 Reference Deleted; Marriage of Step-Children and Adopted Children. Amend RSA 5-C:46, II to read as follows:

II. The division shall issue a marriage certificate to an adopted brother and an adopted sister in the same family, unless they are also related biologically as specified in [RSA 457:1 and] RSA 457:2.

9 Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed.

10 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2010.

[...]

METHODOLOGY:

This bill eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage, affirms religious freedom protections of clergy with regard to the solemnization of marriage, and provides a mechanism by which same gender couples who have entered into a civil union prior to the enactment of this bill may obtain the legal status of marriage. The Secretary of State states this bill will increase state expenditures by the one time costs associated with the necessary software changes, revision and printing of new forms, and mailing costs associated with the distribution of the new forms in FY 2010. The Secretary estimates costs of $44,000 for necessary software changes, $8,000 for printing of forms, and $500 for costs associated with the distribution of the new forms ($44,000 + 8,000 + 500 = $52,500).

The Secretary also states that the proposed legislation would reduce state and local revenue by an amount less than $10,000 in FY 2010 and FY 2011. According to the Secretary, the reduction in revenue would result from the provision contained within the proposed legislation allowing two consenting persons party to a valid civil union entered into prior to January 1, 2010, to convert the civil union to a marriage, waiving the $12.00 fee, until January 1, 2011. The Secretary’s estimate is based on an assumption that all 602 Civil Unions entered into since the start of the Civil Union legislation on January 1, 2008 would be converted into marriages.

The New Hampshire Retirement System states this bill will increase state restricted expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. The Retirement System attributes the increase in restricted expenditures to the inherent conflict with the federal Defense of Marriage Act which states; marriage means only the legal union between one man and one woman and spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. The Retirement System states the treatment of a same gender spouse as a spouse under some provisions of RSA 100-A would result in a violation of IRS Code Section 401(a). This violation would terminate the retirement system’s status as a qualified pension trust and resulting exemption to federal taxation. The resulting tax liability would increase state restricted expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each year thereafter.

The Insurance Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Administrative Services state this bill will not have a fiscal impact on the departments.

The Judicial Branch states this bill will not have a fiscal impact on the Branch.

This bill does not contain an appropriation.

[More updates:]

Lynch Statment on Gay Marriage.

Welcome to the New Moral Order ...

New Hampshire Governor Will Not Sign "gay marriage" Bill

More details in a few minutes.

Carrie Still Carries the California Crown

The various sections of the Los Angeles Times, including their news, opinion, and entertainment blogs, have been all over the Carrie Prejean/Miss California USA situation. Considering the paper's editorial board has vehemently advocated marriage neutering and their hard coverage has definitely been biased in support of marriage neutering, and that the paper focuses on the entertainment industry in general, it comes as no surprise that they would be all over this story. I found a couple of pieces I wanted to discuss. The first is this article by Carla Hall. In the description under the headline, it refers to Prejean as a "symbol of the anti-same-sex-marriage movement", instead of, say, a defender of tradition, or, say "someone who agrees with the President of the United States of America". That language is repeated in the first line of the article (and throughout), before we move on to this...

What got Prejean into trouble with the pageant organizers was not her answer to the question, but rather her failure to perform her duties as Miss California after she emerged as a darling of the anti-same-sex-marriage movement.

That's what some of the organizers have claimed. Interesting that the Los Angeles Times prints it like it is fact. Do they really buy it?

The paper even ran this editorial, seemingly about Trump's ability to get attention. But it starts out with...

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Behold Carrie Prejean, every inch a product of the new beauty pageant aesthetic. Compliments of the Miss California USA organization, her breasts have been enhanced, and now, compliments of the religious right, her mildly anti-gay-marriage sentiments have been augmented as well.

Notice that, even though a majority of California's participating voters adopted the California Marriage Amendment, the editorial board is trying to make seem as though only the "religious right" supports preserving marriage. Prejean's comments are erroneously framed as "anti-gay-marriage".

The editorial throws in another mention of breast implants and even drops Anita Bryant's name while going on to correctly note that Trump is a master at getting hype. I wouldn't be surprised if Prejean ends up on the next season of Celebrity Apprentice.

The website is taking comments about the editorial.

"Stubenville" wrote:

I wonder how Ms. Prejean would have been treated had her comments been anti-Semitic in nature rather than opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians? Somehow I doubt Mr. Trump would have kept her around.

Nice try, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Prejean did not disparage "gay" or "lesbian" people in her answer, nor advocate against their equal rights. She simply said that she believed marriage unites the sexes. That should be no more controversial than saying that circles should be round.

If you get there in time, you can leave your own comment.

While Prejean was willing to take the heat, others won't, and the marriage neutering advocates know that. They will take advantage of that. They will continue to demand others tell them where they stand on the issue, and then equate any opposition to marriage neutering they uncover as bigotry, hatred, stupidity, and a personal attack on them in hopes that enough people will simply accept such charges as true, rather than bothering to think the issues through. They will continue to try to frame your opinion on the matter as an attack on their personal relationship and private choices, perhaps even as violence, trying to deflect your attention away from the fact that state licensing is done on your behalf and you should have a legitimate say in the matter.

Universally Honoring a Behavioral Minority Poses Problems

Robin Wilson, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, had a commentary that ran recently calling for certain protections for those who object to recognizing a brideless or groomless relationship as marriage.

It's possible to legalize gay marriage without infringing on religious liberty.

Such is the premise of the piece. The problem is, religious liberty is just one of our concerns. In almost every case, if not every case, neutering of state licensing of marriage in the United States has been done against the will of the people of that state. The problem with this is that it is the people of the state who are supposedly issuing the licenses to begin with. When a court usurps that authority from the people, then it is also a concern about representation and how government works at the most basic level.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage. But once it is recognized legally, all kinds of people -- clerks in the local registrar's office, photographers, owners of reception halls, florists -- might not have the legal right to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, even if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs. Religious organizations could be affected too. For example, a Catholic university that offers married-student housing might have to rent to married same-sex couples or risk violating state law.

I see this as a larger issue of liberty for property owners, employers, and the freedom of association. In my understanding of rights, a photographer should be able to refuse to be hired for a ceremony for any or no reason. These days, a photographer runs afoul of the law if he says, "No, I will not do your wedding because you're not white," but not "No, I will not do your wedding because you're ugly." Both moves are stupid business decisions, but only one is illegal. And in more and more places, it is illegal for someone to turn down a gig because he or she does not want to participate in what he or she believes is a mockery of something sacred.

In Iowa, the state's attorney general told county recorders that they must issue licenses to same-sex couples or face criminal misdemeanor charges and even dismissal.

Public servants are supposed to do the work of the public. If the people of a state have decided to neuter their marriage licensing, then the office needs to accommodate that. However, I have no problem with an individual being able to refrain. Surely, we do not force observant Muslims to handle pork products when passing out a government-subsidized meal, do we?

Conscience protections are a thoroughly American idea. Since Colonial times, legislatures have exempted religious minorities from laws inconsistent with their faith. Such exemptions allow Americans with radically different views on moral questions to live in peace and equality in the same society.

This is a good point.

In the Los Angeles Times, there was a response by Alan Brownstein, a professor at UC Davis School of Law.

The more serious problem with Wilson's analysis is that it never considers the impact of religious exemptions on gay and lesbian couples.

In my opinion, religious institutions should be granted an exemption from having to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages most of the time. But at some point, the cost of these exemptions becomes unacceptably high. For example, should a religiously affiliated hospital have the right to deny gays or lesbians the same rights of visitation and decision-making that are provided by law to opposite-sex families?

Good question. Hospitals are a little different from other facilities because someone may be taken there in an emergency or otherwise unable to consent or object.

The basic idea here is straightforward: We can and should work hard to accommodate the rights of same-sex couples and religious individuals and institutions. Doing that right, however, requires government to take account of the actual and legitimate needs and interests of both groups.

I don't like where this is going. It smacks of way too much power and intrusion by the government, especially if it is operating counter to the consent of the governed.

There were also some letters responding to the first piece.

Kevin T. Freeman of Rancho Cucamonga wrote:

Separate cannot be, by its very nature, equal.

Sure it can. For example, we have separate restrooms for men and women. We have separate designations on birth certificates and many other forms. These things are still true, even though I know some of the more radical GLBTQQ activists are trying to change these things.

The famous court decision being paraphrased said things (note: not marriage related) were separate AND unequal, not that things couldn't possibly be separate and equal. Nonetheless, same-sex pairings, either male or female, not the same thing as a bride-groom pairing. This is demonstrated all over the world, every day, and has been through all of human history.

Are gay people citizens or aren't they?

They are citizens, of course, and have (as they should) the same rights and protections as anyone else – no more, no less. That shouldn't change even if two gay people get together.

We have the right to be religious; we do not have the right to impose our religious views on others.

And coincidently, you have freedom of association, but you don't have the right to force us to change our marriage laws to bestow a marriage license upon your different kid of voluntary association.

Why is this different than anything else? Why do some people seem to see the need for a religious exemption in this matter, but not so many others?

Perhaps it is because we're dealing with something so basic and fundamental to humanity – how we perpetuate our society by creating and raising the next generation. I wonder if even a lot of people who are pushing marriage neutering recognize that it is entirely rearranging the fabric of society, and some of them are willing to concede that forcing this into every aspect of our lives is a bit much. I suspect others are willing to provide the exceptions, cynically, because they are counting on it being easier to get their goal of neutering marriage, and then a court will subsequently remove the religious protections later. It's another Trojan horse.

Religious freedom in the United States is not absolute For example, people aren't allowed (strictly speaking as far as the law goes, anyway) to molest children or murder a 20-year-old, even if their religion calls on them to do it. There are certain rights that those who wrote the Constitution saw as basic natural rights that each of us have, regardless of who we are. While the culture was generally nominally Christian, it was inconceivable that one day we'd be having a debate about whether or not two men could be married. But now, we're in a place where we may see the rights and liberties of anyone who doesn't recognize that two men could be married may face some sort of legal sanction.

On the other hand, equal access is not guaranteed to groups, but rather indivuduals. Under bride-groom marriage licensing, access is equal.