"Women have all the power. Too bad they don't know it."

Women Have All The Power. Too Bad They Don't Know It. By Michael Lockwood The book was written for his daughters and how to deal with men, and real reason why to hold off sex until marriage. Answer: It's easier to weed them out. The author also writes quite bluntly from the male perspective on how they view women.

"A big chunk of the book is teaching young women to respect themselves and to own their power in their dating lives. Author Michael Lockwood believes that women have the ability to fix or balance out the negative patterns happening in young relationships. He's telling his daughters to get their power back and recognize the red flags they see in young men early in their dating lives. "

The Today show covered the book... here is an excerpt.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dafydd on the effect of Prop 8 trial on the California Governor's race

However, directly the show trial ended, Walker announced that in his august (and August) opinion, ProtectMarriage.com inexplicably lost the standing Walker himself had granted them, presumably on grounds that they're nothing but a bunch of bigots and homophobes... as proven by the fact that they dared defend Proposition 8. Consequently, Judge Walker has essentially ordered the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court not to accept any appeal of or writ of certiorari anent his Prop 8 decision... now that the urgent task of making a statement in favor of SSM is already accomplished.

This brings us, by a commodious vicus of recirculation, back to my prediction. In case you've forgotten in all the excitement, I predicted a fortnight ago that the ruling would terribly damage Jerry Brown's re-gubernatorial campaign, since he was one of those who said the people should not be represented in a case about -- the constitutionality of an amendment enacted by the people.

Today, the first post-Dreddnought Rasmussen poll was released... and Meg Whitman has leapt from -2 against Brown the day before the ruling -- to +8 today. That's a 10-point surge for the next governor of the Golden State.

Read the rest here...

Young Me/ Now Me

A website dedicated to submissions of people who post a picture of themselves from the past plus a picture of themselves now, in which they are in the same place, same position, and with the same individuals. Most common are siblings, cousins, and parents within a family home. Very funny.... plus drives the point of the stability of the family from a point of view of the individual as a child.

Young Me/Now Me

Bringing new meaning to "It's complicated"

From NPR:Housing Market Woes Bring Familial Strife

Among those frozen in place is Kelly Christensen, who was set to marry her longtime love, Joel Nerenberg. They bought a house in Burnsville, Minn., three years ago. They had wedding invitations printed. Then they broke up. Two years later, they still own their home. Christensen's wedding dress now hangs in her ex-fiance's closet. He lives across the hall.

Christensen and Nerenberg have made peace — with themselves, and with each other. Today, the two are still connected in all ways except marriage. They share a bank account for the house. They fix things together. They serve as each others' emergency contact. They're friends — and they even try to encourage the other's dating life, such as it is.

Really, still connected except for marriage? They're openly not in a sexual relationship though?

"Sometimes I see pictures of when we lived in an apartment together. And I think, 'Oh, if we still lived there, I could just drive away,' " Nerenberg says. "Right. Now."

A mortgage on a home underwater binds you to another in a way that even marriage can't.

Male Scientists Regret Parenthood Decisions More Than Female Counterparts, Sociologist Finds

Ecklund and co-author Anne Lincoln of Southern Methodist University measured the perceptions of career, life outside work and the intersection of work and family for scientists in two different scientific fields -- physics and biology. They chose physics and biology because the proportion of women is much higher in biology than physics, where women's representation has remained quite low.

When asked about "denied parenthood" -- having fewer children than they would have wanted, many more women (45 percent) than men (24 percent) said they had fewer because they chose to pursue a scientific career. However, Ecklund said, "Men are harder hit by this than women. Not having as many children as they wanted has a more negative impact on their life satisfaction than it does for women."

Read all about it.

What's wrong with weddings

What's wrong with weddings via UK's Guardian The modern wedding is a celebration of the ego, which is the biggest enemy of the subsequent marriage

Most clergy he knows, he said, would much rather conduct funerals than weddings, because they are so much more honest occasions. But in fact the modern wedding, if it does anything, shortens marriages rather than cementing them. Here's why. The modern wedding, with its stupendous cost (£20,000 on average) and duration, is really a celebration of the participants. They really are unique and precious snowflakes, just as they have suspected all along. In fact, they are each and both of them just the unique and precious people they would like to be. Everyone pretends that for the day the couple really are starring in their own film: following the conventions of modern films, that means nothing really bad can happen to them.

A few decades ago, it was acceptable to be engaged for a few months and have a pot-luck reception at a local hall/social club. Today (in Massachusetts) engagements are 18 months+ and most wedding have sit dinners at a upscale hall, specializing in weddings. 18 months of prep for one day, you can even cut it down to 6 hours of time. How is it when we began to value marriage less and less, the wedding industry began?

Skelton Calls Out Schwarzenegger, Brown

Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton, who covers California state politics, is probably getting all sorts of hate mail. Just check the comments on the website. And the editorial board is probably frowning. In today's column related to Proposition 8, he starts off his column with:

The will of the California electorate is being undermined by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The voters' rights are being denied.

Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman struck a blow for good government - maybe even scored a political point or two - at a Republican state convention last weekend when she announced that, if elected, she'll defend Proposition 8 in the courts.

It is important to note that Whitman's opponent is Jerry Brown. Should the next Governor have a chance to defend the state constitution (as amended via Proposition 8), we know Jerry Brown will not only not defend the constitution and the voters; he will try to undermine us. Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley is running to replace Brown as Attorney General. Cooley’s opponent is San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who refused to answer a simple question about a principle at at heart of the case. Cooley has said he would defend Proposition 8, and we know Harris will undermine it if given the chance.

Brown and Schwarzenegger both have refused to defend the ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage.

It's... not... a... ban.

Moot or not - and regardless of Prop. 8's merits - there's a principle at stake here. The pertinent issue is whether voters should be hung out to dry and ignored by the state after they pass a ballot measure.

[Much more after the jump.]

Yes. Still, Skelton makes it clear he opposed the proposition and opposes the amendment:

This isn't the same as courts thwarting the people's will. Many Prop. 8 supporters whine annoyingly that when a court throws out a measure passed by the voters, it is an affront to democracy. Nonsense. It's central to democracy.

I agree that courts should be able to block laws that are unconstitutional. However, Proposition 8 is not unconstitional.

And...

For the record, I voted against Prop. 8 and still don't like it.

The haters will ignore that part of his column, because he writes things like this:

But I think the will of the majority should be supported by the state.

And...

But whether a law is unconstitutional is a court's job to decide. The attorney general's job is to defend and enforce state laws. People didn't elect him chief judge. They elected him chief law officer.

Same with the governor. He can appoint judges. But he can't become one unless he resigns his office.

Good points.

Now the governor is arguing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry immediately, even before Prop. 8 runs its course in the courts - if, indeed, there's any running room left with both Schwarzenegger and Brown refusing to defend the measure.

Again, gays and lesbians have the same access to state marriage licensing as straights. Most apparently don't have the same desire for a state marriage license, however, becaue they don't like the requirements.

He questions whether or not Brown, if elected Governor again, will refuse to enforce other laws, then goes on to:

Well, yes, a governor or attorney general may refuse to defend a ballot measure. But it's very rare. The normal procedure then is to authorize an independent counsel to represent the state and electorate. That didn't happen with Prop. 8.

Skelton then quotes a deputy to two former attorneys general, who points out that Schwarzenegger and Brown's failure to provide a serious defense for the amendment undermines public confidence in the ultimate court decision. I think that's a good point. Are marriage neutering proponents willing to sacrifice public confidence in the judiciary itself?

Skelton concludes:

Democracy involves an electorate and three branches of government, each with separate, distinct roles. It works best when one institution doesn't confuse its role with another's - such as an executive playing judge.

Agreed, though I would also point out that means judges should not usurp the legislative role.

Hadley Arkes: Oh look, I found an 800lb gorilla

So reminiscent of our own Op-Ed, this has always been our main argument. We've survived many years unscathed in this battle in the trenches of the internet debate on marriage because this single argument has never been countered. (via NOM)

Archeologists of the law may one day come upon these words: “Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law.” Now imagine recasting the sentence in this way: “Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to beget children.” The first line was written by federal Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco as he struck down the constitutional amendment passed by the voters of California, a move to restore the traditional understanding of marriage as a legal relation of a man and a woman.  Judge Walker’s argument made sense only if the notion of begetting was conspicuously removed from the very meaning and purpose of marriage. Surely, marriage is not necessary for love: There is genuine love between grandparents and grandchildren, brothers and sisters, and in the nature of things they cannot be lesser loves because they are not attended by penetration and expressed in marriage.

Marriage is not necessary for love, but the law of marriage finds its deep justification as a framework for the begetting and nurturing of children.

Marriage Equality in the Post-Modern Age

Is this marriage equality? What can we do better?

"Although much research has examined the marital effects of women's work, relatively few studies have focused on the effects of working late shifts on marital dynamics," writes Maume. "This study updates and extends the rather limited and dated research on the link between schedule diversity and marital quality."

Overall, the study found that men felt that working the late shift negatively affected the quality of their marriages. However, the majority of women felt that rotating work schedules strained their marriages.

Oxytocin: It’s a Mom and Pop Thing

Oxytocin: It’s a Mom and Pop Thing

Corresponding author Dr. Ruth Feldman noted that this finding "emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for father-infant interactions immediately after childbirth in order to trigger the neuro-hormonal system that underlies bond formation in humans."

The neuroscientists also found a relationship between oxytocin levels in husbands and wives. Since oxytocin levels are highly stable within individuals, this finding suggests that some mechanisms, perhaps social or hormonal factors, regulate oxytocin levels in an interactive way within couples.

Finally, the findings revealed that oxytocin levels were associated with parent-specific styles of interaction. Oxytocin was higher in mothers who provided more affectionate parenting, such as more gazing at the infant, expression of positive affect, and affectionate touch. In fathers, oxytocin was increased with more stimulatory contact, encouragement of exploration, and direction of infant attention to objects.

"It is very interesting that elevations in the same hormone were associated with different types of parenting behaviors in mothers and fathers even though the levels of oxytocin within couples were somewhat correlated. These differences may reflect the impact of culture-specific role expectations, but they also may be indicative of distinct circuit effects of oxytocin in the male and female brain," commented Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry.

Ministers Will Not Be Excluded From Marriage Neutering

An apparent marriage neutering advocate has tipped her hand. Over and over again in the debate over neutering marriage, we have been told that removing the bride+groom requirement from state marriage licensing would not lead to a loss of religious freedom; would not lead any minister being forced to perform a same-sex ceremony.

While analyzing a Los Angeles Times article on the protestant denomination PCUSA for my namesake blog, I came across this statement from an apparent advocate of neutering marriage (not a marriage defender):

"More and more ministers are going to be put in a position where their church members are going to come to them asking for a wedding, and they're going to have to say yes," said the Rev. Beverly Brewster, Spahr's [church trial] defense attorney. "Not to do so would violate many constitutional provisions about non-discrimination in pastoral care."

As with education, marriage neutering advocates often try to deny the consequences of neutering marriage, or use slight of word or misdirection to deflect the concerns of those who are wary of marriage neutering. The marriage neutering advocates want churches and schools to treat SSM the same as marriage, and they will use the force of law to make sure they do. But most of them know that if too many people figure that out, they will actively oppose the neutering of marriage. For now, they focus on "let these couples do what they want" in an effort to force the rest of us to go along. If we do, then they'll use their new tool like a sledgehammer.

UPDATE: Reconsidering this, the quote may be referring to the church constitution, and not the Constitution of the United States, as I originally thought. The article should be more clear. It wouldn't surprise me if the person quoted means both.

Early Life Influences Risk for Psychiatric Disorders

For more than a century, clinical investigators have focused on early life as a source of adult psychopathology. Although the hypothesized mechanisms have evolved, a central notion remains: early life is a period of unique sensitivity during which experience confers enduring effects.

Its a fragile time, something that we protect through our responsibility in how we create children -- and right now marriage is the only institution devoted directly to creating children with equity and mutual responsibility and respect. And if marriage can't do that because that statement (by virtue of the biology of reproduction) is heteronormative (the pejorative) then what can?

Trees can't live forever without sex, study shows

Essentially, integrating the genders is better than not...

Dr Dilara Ally and her team at the University of British Columbia, Canada, found that the fertility of clones declines with age.

This means that a tree cannot clone itself indefinitely; it must eventually sexually reproduce, or it will die.

Eliminate entitlement attitude by teaching children ownership, education class says

To combat phrases such as "everybody else has one," "I deserve this" or "my friend always gets that," the Eyres used three little words: "In our family."

"Those words give kids more security than any other words in the English language," Richard Eyre explained Monday during an Education Week class on helping children take ownership of values, decisions and money.

A very interesting read.

GAY MARRIAGE FINALLY EXPLAINED Part 1

In order to clearly understand the debate over same-sex marriage, it is necessary to understand the theoretical framework in which the issues are framed. The following article aspires to do that.

TWO THEORIES ON MARRIAGE

The first theory that will be discussed is the theory of marriage as a “love license” which, in the words of Judge Vaughn Walker of California’s Proposition 8 notoriety, is granted by the state in “recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”

The love license theory emphasizes and puts first the happiness and fulfillment of adults and the state’s important role in helping to achieve this. It holds that the maximum achievable number of happy adults is best for the general well-being of society, that this will have a positive effect on the future of society, and that the government’s role must be to promote this goal. This theory is wholly embraced by the advocates of same-sex marriage and is their foundational premise.

The second is the theory of responsible procreation. This theory holds that the union of a man and a woman is an important part of responsible procreation and raising children because, among other things, it also sets the important example for children to follow what is historically recognized as the best relationship for procreation and parenting. It holds that well adjusted citizens, which are essential to a successful and enduring society, are the product of good parenting and that this is best achieved by a mother and a father in a monogamous relationship. It holds that the government has an important role in promoting this ideal and that this will best serve the well-being of any society that hopes to endure.

Evidently, if the opposite-sex union is the best model for procreation and parenting, then same-sex unions and others must occupy some inferior place for that purpose. This may be perceived by same-sex couples to mean that their unions are not as good as opposite-sex ones, which for the purposes of procreation and parenting is true.

click to continue reading article

Gallagher, Knight Write More About Perry Decision

Yes, there's even more on the Proposition 8 decision by Walker. I found Maggie Gallagher’s latest column over at Townhall.com.

Walker tried to pretend, in essence, that the only form of evidence a trial judge may consider is expert witness testimony in court. He even ignored expert witness testimony when it clashed with his own views. Harvard professor Nancy Cott, a historian of marriage, favors [neutering] marriage, but even she freely admitted in trial that [neutering] marriage represented a momentous change in the public meaning of marriage, and that the effects of this change would be impossible to determine in advance.

Walker's ruling, on the other hand, creates a fantasy alternate reality in which it is simply a "finding of fact" that [brideless or groomless] marriage has always been part of the "historical core" or our marriage tradition. Walker ignored the evidence presented from distinguished social scientists, as well as previous court decisions, that "responsible procreation" has always been considered a core purpose of marriage, in addition to evidence that children benefit by being raised by married mothers and fathers.

And...

To give you an example of how extreme Walker is, he ruled that orientation is a protected class subject to strict scrutiny -- ignoring no less than 10 higher-court decisions to the contrary.

He doesn't contest, distinguish or disagree with these binding precedents. He literally ignores their existence.

[More after the jump.]

And as for poll dancing...

In the latest poll from Public Policy Polling conducted Aug. 6-9, Americans who were asked whether they believed gay marriage "should be legal or illegal" opposed gay marriage almost 2-to-1 -- 57 percent opposed, 33 percent in favor.

I'm always interested in the wording used in these polls. By legislature or direct vote of the people, most states have reaffirmed the definition of marriage. People seem to be most strongly in favor of keeping the definition of marriage the same if domestic partnerships or civil unions are included in the polling. I can honestly say I don't want to make "gay marriage" illegal, because I would never want to use the force of government to stop two (or three, or four, etc.) men or women from having what they think of as a marriage ceremony, a reception, a honeymoon, and then living together and asking others, including their employers, to consider them married. Nor do I want a government employee asking those who are applying for state marriage paperwork (or domestic partnership paperwork, for that matter) for their sexual orientation. But I would vote against proposed legislation to remove the bride+groom requirement from marriage licensing, and I am strongly against a court imposing that removal on a state, especially one that has voted to keep that requirement.

Also, Robert Knight speculates about what would happen if SCOTUS imposed Walker's decision nationwide. He compares the hypothetical decision to the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts.

I think the most serious fallout from such a decision would build up gradually rather than immediately. Certainly, as we have seen, adoption would be immediately impacted. I also think custody issues and third party reproduction would be as well. In academia, the workplace, media, and any public accommodation or government program/agency, it could easily get to the point where simply saying things like "men and women are different", "fathers and mothers are different", or "children need a mother and a father" are considered "hate speech" and grounds for firing or a lawsuit. Also, look for polygamists to grain ground in their quest to be legally married to more than one person. (I wrote more about the possible effects here.)

Hopefully, though, SCOTUS will get this case and rule in a way that prevents states from being forced to neuter their marriage licensing.

The benefits of marriage, outside of marriage

For a while we've been arguing whether or not "marriage" is required to get the benefits of marriage. Well?

Unmarried people in a committed, romantic relationship show the same reduced responses to stress as do married people, said Dario Maestripieri, Professor in Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago and lead author of the study, published in the current issue of the journal Stress.

The trafficking of babies in a post-modern society

My mother told me this story of a relative of my grandmother’s first husband. When the relative was young she lost her parents, and for some time my grandmother and my aunt raised her. My grandmother (widowed) and my aunt left for America in the 1940s, the cousin stayed in Greece. Her relatives though soon married her off to an old man against her choosing, my mother says the family was paid for the marriage.

With this old man, she had two daughters and again pregnant for the third time. The old man arranged that if the baby was a girl, that the girl would be sold off. And indeed that baby was female and pried away from her mother’s arms to be sold. Decades later after the old man died, the mother and two daughters search for the girl. They found her, but only to be rejected by her. She knew she was sold, it didn’t matter to know it was against the mother’s will.

Human beings are not made via contract and can not be sold, like they are with sperm/egg donors and surrogacy. Individuals are to be conceived freely through mutual love, not just agreement. People aren’t property, they’re people.

I will certainly agree one can not legislate love, but obligations arise from heterosexual expression of love that does not in any other any other relationship. The law has every right to promote an obligation by protecting the mother and father’s relationship with one another, since we know though logistics how babies are made. What makes it even more significant that even if one chooses not to marry, illegitimacy can not null out the obligation of supporting your own children in which the state will step in and take the extra steps to ensure that parents are being parents.

Civil law allows contracts for babies to be sold on the fertility market, but not a baby conceived from the conjugal act (married or not) to be contracted out to another for money and instead requires social services to have a guardian ad litem represent the needs of the child if adopted.

Clinics, donors, and surrogates are no different then the old man buying his wife and selling his child.

Los Angeles Times Tried to Tell the Court What to Do

I couldn't let this editorial in the Los Angeles Times slip by. They express hope that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sees things their way from what scant information was provided in issuing a stay. I'm not sure why they saw a need to run this, seeing as how we already know their opinion, but they did.

The appellate courts should recognize the undeniable merit in Walker's opinion: Homosexuals as a group have long suffered from many kinds of discrimination and thus require the fullest protection of the courts.

I agree that homosexual people, as human beings, should be protected under the law. Marriage licenses aren't needed for that. Or does the editorial board also think that unmarried heterosexual people not fully protected by the law, either?

There is no reliable evidence that [neutering] marriage is harmful to children or that it is a threat to social stability.

It hasn't been implemented in more than a handful of places, recently. I have no proof that jumping into a pool without water will hurt me, because I haven't done it. But it should be intuitive that it is harmful to deny the difference - and the importance in that difference - between the sexes. And I know it wouldn't be good to jump into a pool without water, even though I've never seen anyone do it.

Marriage is a fundamental right, and the attempt to withhold it from a particular group — whether mixed-race or same-sex couples — is irrational, immoral and unconstitutionally discriminatory.

There is a fundamental right to freedom of association. Laws against cohabitation and fornication helped to form an actual ban on "interracial" marriage in the states that refused to license that old-as-time tradition. And those were marriages because they brought together a bride and a groom. Things are different now as far as the freedom of assocation, but marriage has always been something involving both a man and a woman. People have their freedom of association. They can go ahead and make vows and commitments and homes and plans together, and the government will not stop them. But forcing the rest of us to break with all of the great moral thinkers in history, to allow a minority to dictate what our position is going to be is too much.

Whenever the higher courts have cited marriage as a fundamental right, it has always involved uniting the sexes. But the editorial board and Walker want to force the people of California to license something else as marriage.

Fundamental rights can't be "withheld" from a group by government, because the government does not grant such rights. It only recognizes such rights and protects them (when functioning properly) and infringes upon them when overstepping authority. Same-sex couples have their fundamental right to association.

There is a fundamental right to vote, but only to vote in the confines of the existing system. There is a fundamental right to privacy, but shy people can't keep their picture and identifying information off of their driver's license. There is a fundamental right to free enterprise, but certain conditions have to be met for a business license. The fundamental right to these things, as they are regulated by the state, come with certain conditions. Who sets those conditions? Lawmakers. And sometimes, we are the lawmakers.

But notice that the editorial board says it is immoral to hold back from issuing brideless or groomless couples marriage licenses. Aren't we supposed to keep morality out of this? But since the Los Angeles Times has cited morality, I'd like to ask where these morals come from? Or is this a matter of "immoral" simply meaning "something we don't like"?

Dennis Prager Defeats Kamala Harris on Marriage Neutering

Larry King ended his show last night with a discussion with four people – Dennis Prager, Stephanie Miller (little-heard radio talk show host), Kamala Harris (San Francisco District Attorney and candidate for California Attorney General), and Bishop Harry Jackson. They were discussing Proposition 8 and marriage neutering.

KING: Dennis, why are you opposed to two people who want to share a life together being together?

DENNIS PRAGER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I'm not. I'm opposed to one thing and only one thing. That is the redefinition of marriage. I don't think that every society in history, including ours, every religion, every secular society was evil and hate filled and had it wrong when they defined marriage as a man and a woman. That's all that any of us are opposed to.

We want gays to be happy. We don't want them ever harassed. They are created in God's image just like a heterosexual is. However, redefining marriage means that from now on, gender doesn't matter. It does -- man, woman, who ever you marry, it doesn't matter. That has never been the case. No one ever advocated it prior to now. And all we ask is to keep marriage as it is, male/female.

KING: Camilla, what's wrong with that argument?

KAMALA HARRIS, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Because it just belies the very fundamental basis of the founding of this country, which we said in 1776; we are going to assume and treat all people as equals. It's a fundamental American value.

People are treated equally with the bride+groom requirement.

And it its about fairness. It's about fairness under the law and under the Constitution of the United States.

Notice she didn’t address Prager’s argument.

[Much, much more after the jump, including Kathy Griffin.]

King asks Jackson about why the government is involved in marriage at all, then asks Miller about Jackson’s statement. Miller ignores Jackson’s statement.

Prager responds to King’s question about whether or not this is like “interracial” marriage.

I will tell you why they're not similar. There is nothing in common between race and gender. This is a massive confusion of all advocates of same sex marriage. I respect them. Some of them I actually love personally. I know they're in my family. But it is dishonest to compare race and gender. No one of different races is different. I am identical to a black to a yellow to a red. I am not identical to a woman. There is no comparison. We have men's rooms and women's rooms. We do not have black rooms and white rooms. We once did. And that was evil. It is not evil to separate sexes. It is evil to separate races. This is a massive act of confusion that is sown, not deliberately -- I think people believe it, but it is wrong. Race and gender have nothing in common.

KING: Kamala, how do you answer that?

Harris goes into other talking points before she finally says:

The Constitution of the United States says explicitly that we are entitled to equal protection. Let all people be free to marry. It does not -- it does not have anything to do with the differences in the sexes. Of course, there are many books that have been written about that. Of course there are differences between the sexes.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: The point is that people should not be deprived of their basic constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation. It's a very simple point. Don't take rights from people.

That doesn’t counter Prager’s argument. Miller doesn't counter Prager either.

PRAGER: Are you saying then that since the inception of the United States or the Constitution we have done something evil by having marriages man/woman.

MILLER: This is like any other civil rights battle. We did not used to let women vote. We didn't used to let black people marry white people. There are a lot of things we didn't use to do.

But when women did get their right to vote – an existing right, it wasn’t to vote for Supreme Court Justice – which would be a new right.

PRAGER: But we have always recognized racism is wrong.

MILLER: If you look at a poll out here in California, if you want to go to polling, people in California are for gay marriage now. You are going to be on the wrong side of history, Dennis.

Fauxmentum.

PRAGER: Let people vote. Why have a judge do it?

MILLER: We don't use mob rule. We don't put people's rights to mob rule.

We vote on many things. Why not this? Why should a judge get to set the requirements for licenses issued on our behalf?

KING: Bishop Jackson, how would society be harmed? Is society harmed in Massachusetts because gay people can marry there?

JACKSON: I think so. First of all, the right to vote is an essential civil rights. My father was threatened at gun point by an out-of-control state trooper because he weighed in on this issue of voting. So we're trumping one group's civil rights in the name of civil rights. There is something backwards there.

Number two, I think it is about the kids. You are not just changing marriage; you are changing everything that relates to marriage.

Jackson then get sidetracked by the idea of legalizing prostitution.

HARRIS: It is a mistake to suggest that when you give rights to one group, you are taking rights from another. It is not a zero sum game.

She’s right in theory (except for the word "give" - government doesn't create rights, it recgonizes them). But there isn’t a right to a state marriage license on new, different terms. There is a right to vote. And when you can only create the former by tossing out the latter, then that is taking away rights.

She then falls back on “fairness”.

PRAGER: I ask the women a question. Do you believe that there is any difference in having a father, or not having a mother, or not having a mother? Is it identical to you, two mothers as a mother and a father, or two men and a mother and a father? Is it identical? You have to say it's identical or you agree with me.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Most kids end up in foster care because some straight couple screwed up somewhere, Dennis.

PRAGER: It doesn't answer my question.

(CROSSTALK) HARRIS: I'll answer the question. I'm happy to answer the question.

PRAGER: I want an answer to my question. Is Catholic Charities -- Catholic Charities was kicked out of Massachusetts in the adoption industry because they prefer a man and a woman as parents. Do the two women --

HARRIS: The call of your question --

KING: Kamala, go ahead.

HARRIS: There's a point that has to be made here. And I am a career prosecutor. I specialized for a long time in child sexual assault and child abuse cases. I created the first child abuse unit of my office in the history of the office.

I'm going to tell you something. What's most important -- what is fundamentally most important for a child to become a healthy and productive adult is that they are raised by loving parents. And whatever --

PRAGER: So it doesn't matter?

HARRIS: Whatever role they take on, I'm supporting that. I'm supporting that.

PRAGER: So it doesn't matter, having no father or --

HARRIS: In the foster care system, in the juvenile delinquency system, who had a heterosexual parent and a couple -- married couple who were heterosexual who could not take care of their child.

(CROSSTALK)

Notice Harris didn’t answer Prager’s question about whether there is a difference between what a both-sexes couple can offer a child and what same-sex couple can. Instead, she points out that some both-sexes couple have been bad parents. This is like asking someone if there is a difference between a pickup truck and a bicycle, and a sailboat, and they say that they’ve seen a smashed up pickup trucks.

Miller, avoiding the question, goes off on a talking point tangent.

MILLER: One of the other main reasons I did this, a dear friend of mine was the homecoming queen in high school, came out, lost all her friends. She works on the Trevor Project now, on the suicide hotline for gay kids. There is a gay kid somewhere tonight watching in Iowa that thinks -- that's going to kill himself because he thinks there's no one else is like him. There's a teacher somewhere who takes Pepto-Bismol because she's afraid someone is going to ask her what she did that weekend. There are kids at risk. There are kids killing themselves in this country. And it's important, you know, to step forward and tell them that they're not alone.

What’s the connection? If getting a state marriage license would solve those problems, then there wouldn’t be heterosexual teens committing suicide, or heterosexual teachers with anxiety.

KING: Kamala Harris, what was your question, again, for Dennis?

HARRIS: Whether he believes that it is -- that the issue for a child is more important whether the parents are a heterosexual or homosexual couple versus whether the child is being raised in a loving home, where they are being supported and nurtured, so they can become the productive human being and adult we want them to become? If you have to take it on balance, I think most reasonable people would agree what is most important is that that child -- if the focus is truly on the child, that that child is raised in a family where they are loved.

The law knows sex – male and female. It’s on official state documents. The law has no idea if someone is going to be a loving parent, but can step in if someone has demonstrated neglectful or abusive behavior towards children.

PRAGER: I fully agree. Now I'll ask you a question.

HARRIS: OK.

PRAGER: You have a loving male/female and you have a loving male/male or female/female, you have a child to give for adoption. Would you flip a coin or would you prefer the male/female? All of them are loving, kind and good.

HARRIS: I would never engage in that simplistic an assessment when you're talking about if --

PRAGER: You asked me a question and I answered. Why is that simplistic?

HARRIS: Because I would need to know more. I would need to know more. Any person who deals with children -- I would want to know if there are other siblings in the home, I would want to know whether --

(CROSSTALK)

So she dodged the question. It’s not a fair fight, because neither of those women can hold a candle to Dennis Prager when it comes to making logical arguements.

Earlier in the show, King interviewed Kathy Griffin.

Larry asks Kathy Griffin why she’s so strong on neutering marriage. She says it is a civil rights issue, but doesn’t explain how.

KING: How about those who say marriage is a sacred thing for man and woman, about procreation?

GRIFFIN: Well, it's not because, first of all, the divorce rate is high.

What does that have to do with it?.

GRIFFIN: But the point is, we've learned that, you know, when it became legal in Massachusetts, the sky didn't fall down, everybody is fine, everyone is fine in Iowa.

Everybody is fine in the vast majority of states, where marriage licensing hasn’t been neutered.

And so, I think, you know, just like Brown versus Board of Education, people were scared about the ruling.

Brown was about using the force of law to force people, based on their skin color, to go to inferior schools. A black child could not go to a better school like a whie child based on something irrelevant to education - skin color. That is different, because nobody has told a homosexual person that they can’t get married, but the core of what makes marriage what it is is the uniting of the sexes. Sex is the question, not a meaningless characteristic.

About having duct tape over her mouth in a picture, tied to Proposition 8:

That means that gay people should not be silenced.

Where and how are gay people being silenced? Certainly not by Proposition 8.

But more importantly, the symbolism is: lots of people are doing them, it's the duct tape which is that, obviously, a ruling like yesterday's ruling is a way to silence the gay community, put them on hold, well, we have to think about this more, let's decide in December. And so, the duct tape just simply represents the gay community and not really having a voice.

Oh right. There’s no voice for the gay community. None. Not most of Hollywood, not the APA, not much of academia, not major newspapers and magazines, not liberal temples, synagogues, and churches (including those pretty much organized around homosexuality), not HRC or the rest of the alphabet soup. And a court doing the ROUTINE step of putting a hold on a ruling is silencing people... how?

Is Prop 8 is about gay marriage being equal for everyone as opposed to civil unions? Or, well, we're going to give you some rights and the 14th Amendment isn't about some rights or some equality. We don't get to pick and choose. We have to be equal.

Yes, we do get to pick and choose about relationships and behavior. Laws treat different kinds of relationships and different kinds of behaviors differently.

KING: What is the essential difference between a civil union and marriage?

GRIFFIN: Well, what I didn't understand is that civil unions and marriage, there's 1,100 different rights that you don't get under a civil union, and that if you cross state lines, that's what makes me nervous. So, let's say that it's legal in Massachusetts, but then you cross state lines and then you're not recognized and then your partner -- God forbid -- goes to the hospital and then you can't visit them because they say, well, in this state, we don't recognize you as being married.

The difference is: The federal government doesn’t yet recognize domestic partnerships for most purposes. Pass federal legislation to change that. If I get a gun license, business license, hunting license, or any number of other licenses in one state, another state may not recognize it.

They then cited fauxmentum.

Marriage Neutering Advocates Look For Silver Lining

Not happy with the stay on Judge Walker's ruling, marriage neutering advocates cling to a silver lining: this keeps SCOTUS out of it for now. Maura Dolan has today's article in the Los Angeles Times.

A federal appeals court decided Monday to put same-sex marriage in California on hold at least until December, interrupting the wedding plans of scores of gay couples who were hoping to exchange vows later this week.

They can still exchange vows. What the court put a hold on was state licensing of brideless or groomless couples as marriage. The state did not create marriage, though it certainly appears that same-sex "marriage" is a state creation (in this case, a federal judge's creation) when articles are worded this way.

The brief order by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prevents an early showdown on the marriage question at the U.S. Supreme Court. Challengers of the marriage ban said they would not appeal Monday's order.

It's... not... a... ban.

Loyola Law School professor Richard Hasen said Monday's order was strategically advantageous for supporters of [neutering] marriage, no matter how disappointed many couples may be. If the panel had refused to place a hold on Walker's ruling, the supporters of Proposition 8 were prepared to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. The court is believed to be divided on the question of gay marriage, with Justice Anthony Kennedy considered a swing vote. A vote on a hold might have pushed the justices into taking an early position on the question.

Hasen then explains why people of every state should keep fighting to defend marriage.

"If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion."

So keep it up. Let your elected leaders and candidates know you do not want state licensing of marriage to be diluted. Tell them the bride+groom requirement should stay. Register to vote and vote. If you can vote on judges, research them and do so.

Another Roundup of Commentaries on Perry Ruling

Here's another roundup of commentaries on Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the trial over Proposition 8. Most were found on Townhall.com. Ken Connor denounces Walker’s activism in this case.

Judge Walker's ruling is the height of judicial arrogance because the judge treats the word "marriage" like wax which can be shaped and molded into whatever form the judge chooses. He does the same thing with the words "due process" and "equal protection."

After citing Humpty Dumpty, he goes on to write:

Will they be ruled by a constitution whose words have objective, propositional meaning or will they be ruled by judicial despots who strip the words of their meaning and twist them to accomplish a social agenda never envisioned by the Founding Fathers and not sanctioned by the American people?

Debra J. Saunders chides Schwarzenegger and Brown.

When 52 percent of California voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008, Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would defend the measure during the inevitable appeals. Then, as is his fashion, Brown changed his mind.

Ditto Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed same-sex marriage bills passed by the Legislature in deference to California voters who passed an earlier same-sex marriage statute in 2000.

But after Proposition 8 passed, both refused to defend the measure.

[More after the jump.]

Schwarzenegger is no doubt thinking ahead to his return to Hollywood.

The conservative website http://www.flashreport.org/ is working to push the governor to defend the measure. "You took an oath when you became governor to uphold the Constitution of this state, and that includes the duty to see that the law is faithfully executed, including the constitutional right of the people of this state to amend their Constitution by initiative," explained constitutional law expert John C. Eastman.

The heat, however, really should be on Brown, who now is running for governor. As AG, it's Brown's job to represent the people in court.

As former state attorney general and now Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, put it, "I defended laws that I voted against. That was my obligation. You do your best job. You try to find the best arguments that you can, irrespective of the subject matter."

And...

Problem: The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a 6-1 vote -- which tells you there's a lot of room for debate. At least, Brown could have hired outside lawyers to represent the voters if he found defending Proposition 8 so discomforting.

Dennis Prager provides his observations:

Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called "gender") no longer matters for society's most important institution, it no longer matters in general.

For some activists, that is the goal for which neutering marriage provides the means.

Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column -- the "T" has been added to "GLB:" "Transgendered" has been added to "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual." "T" does not represent transsexuals -- people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people. "Transgendered" refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women's clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left's primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn't matter.

I do not think it is unreasonable for the law to ask a person to stick with identifying with one sex, and to allow employers to ask employees to dress appropriately to that sex, or for property owners to ask people to use restrooms appropriate for that sex.

Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that "proved" that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.

These newer "studies" of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies -- studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers' own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is -- only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept "studies" in place of common sense.

He then suggests:

Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

Some will say "no". Not because they really believe their answer, but because they don't like where "yes" leads. The ones who answer "no" and really mean it are delusional.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III had a commentary in the Washington Post.

By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings.

And...

Yet Walker's opinion pretends that the voluminous evidence introduced on the side of Proposition 8 does not exist. It neither acknowledges nor attempts to distinguish the writings of renowned scholars presented at trial in support of Proposition 8, including that of anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, history professor Robina Quale and social scientist Kingsley Davis. It ignores the writings of legal giant William Blackstone and philosophers John Locke and Bertrand Russell. It even refused to address the fact that Congress, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Walker’s Continuing Mischief on Videotaping Trial

In a nutshell from Ed Whelan...

And given Walker’s actions, the witnesses were correct to believe that the “potential for public broadcast” had not been eliminated.

As it turns out, he still had it video-taped. And now he's released the video tape, albeit a limited release. Read on for my take on this...

Intimidation is sometimes a dog-whistle, something that people understand as happening even if it is couched in the terms of plausible-deniability. The classic Hollywood shakedown, "it would be a shame if anything happened to it" ... meaning anything vulnerable to the intimidation that is of value to the person being intimidated, is purposefully vague as to not directly implicate the extorters. Threats, especially to intelligent people never need to be spelled out.

I've seen many (some fans of intimidation themselves) watch the witnesses who shied away from testimony for threat of public exposure, and call them cowards. I too wish they had more fortitude in this situation. However, the threat doesn't come from.. Having their ideas marched in front of the public. Their ideas are available via the public manuscript.

But line up the dots and you'll find that the video record makes them particularly vulnerable to one particular group. A group that is militantly promoting the idea of neutering marriage. A group associated with many vices, including some of the worst smear campaigns coupled with one of the largest bullhorns on the planet. Guess who I'm talking about yet?

Yes, Judge Walker who allowed all comers to help his cause -- wait... you don't think he had a cause in this? I've already mentioned how his unequal treatment of San Francisco vs Imperial County shows his bias in the matter. But his effort to broadcast the trial was his way of adding one other friend to help out his cause. A group of people who, like he did in his decision, edit out everything that doesn't fit the narrow narrative -- as if it didn't exist. Out of sight, out of mind.

Still guessing who?

Well, do you wonder why people giving testimony would not want to submit themselves to that entity outside the court? Do you hear the dog-whistle the judge blew or not?

Neutered Marriage Licensing on Hold in California

Kudos to a three-judge panal for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for imposing a stay on the issuance of Califoria marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, at least until they consider in December whether an appeal will move forward.

To recap, in the first level of federal courts, Judge Walker decided Californians did not have a right to vote in Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment; brideless and groomless couples have a right to state-issued marriage licenses. Now the question is, since California's elected leadership refused to do their jobs, do the defendents in that trial have standing to appeal to a higher court?

Infidelity When She Earns More

Even though Walker said otherwise, apparently men and women are still different and marital roles still matter. Randy Dotinga reports via HealthDay that when a woman earns more than her male partner, infidelity by either is more likely.

A new study finds that men are more likely to cheat if their income is much lower than what their wife or female partner makes, while women are more likely to fool around if they make more than their husband or male partner.

Most women marry men who earn more than they do. This could be another reason for women to continue do so.

Men who make less than their wives may lean toward infidelity because they feel a "gender identity threat," Munsch speculated.

What about the fact that in community property states, he has less to lose financially? If his higher-earning wife leaves him, she loses some of that money she earned and will be earning in the future. The less he earned in comparison to her, the more she stands to lose and he stands to gain.

I would also be interested if the study had a way of adjusting for sexual frequency between the spouses. Some women who are earning more than their husbands lose respect and sexual desire for him. Some are working long hours, or come home stressed or bothered from something at work and may not want to engage in lovemaking, whereas men are more likely to compartmentalize and not let a bad day at work keep him from enjoying making love to the wife. If he's getting sexually rejected from his wife, wouldn't he be more likely to stray? This is not to excuse infidelity. I don't excuse infidelity or spousal rejection, and I do think that for some couples, it makes sense for the wife to be the higher earner and for the husband to concentrate on keeping house, raising the children, and tending to his wife when she makes it home. But in general, men and women are different and marital roles still matter.

The role of women in society... according to Japan's Government

Made the feature on Yahoo on Friday. Shrinking Societies: The Other Population Crisis

A Japanese woman's role in society is to give birth, and "all we can do is ask them to do their best per head," said Hakuo Yanagisawa, Japan's former health minister. His remark, as reported by Bloomberg in 2007, drew criticism for being sexist, but it touches on one of Japan's most pressing issues: its rapidly aging and shrinking population.

The role of man's and woman's society is to LOVE!

Actually it's everyone's role in society to love, but we learn it first in how our father loves our mother. It's not something a government can 'create', it's something society is suppose to protect.

Childhood Memories of Father Have Lasting Impact on Men's Ability to Handle Stress

Sons who have fond childhood memories of their fathers are more likely to be emotionally stable in the face of day-to-day stresses, according to psychologists who studied hundreds of adults of all ages.

[...]

Men who reported having a good relationship with their father during childhood were more likely to be less emotional when reacting to stressful events in their current daily lives than those who had a poor relationship, according to her findings. This was not found to be as common for the women in the study.

Also, the quality of mother and father relationships was significantly associated with how many stressful events the participants confronted on a daily basis. In other words, if they had a poor childhood relationship with both parents, they reported more stressful incidents over the eight-day study when compared to those who had a good relationship with their parents.

Accomplished Actor, Poor Planning

Matt Donnelly reported on the LATimes.com gossip blog that "Neil Patrick Harris and partner David Burtka expecting twins". He began with...

There are two more trophies in Neil Patrick Harris' future -- he and partner David Burtka are expecting twins.

Babies are trophies?

The actor took to Twitter on Saturday to reveal the happy news for him and Burtka, the chef and sometimes-thespian he's been with for about six years. "So, get this: David and I are expecting twins this fall. We're super excited/nervous/thrilled. Hoping the press can respect our privacy," he said.

[More after the jump.]

Which one of these two men has the egg and/or womb? Or did they fail to mention an important detail in all of this?

"Tara" Aug 14, 2010 at 08:59 PM:

How dreadful...Baby buying and swapping for selfishness.

"Nick" Aug 15, 2010 at 01:14 AM:

I will agree that "baby buying" as you call it as not ideal, but for couples that cannot have children it is the only way, and I say hurray and congratulations to them!

Since there is no difference, according to Judge Walker, between same-sex couples and both-sexes couples, why is it that same sex couples always fall into the "cannot have children" category?

Neil Patrick Harris seems like a nice guy and I think he will make a great father.

Perhaps. But the first act of being a great father is finding a great mother with whom to set the foundation for raising kids. Neither of these men can be mothers at all.

"Sarah" Aug 15, 2010 at 09:24 AM:

I'm choosing to raise my children in a positive light, teaching the importance of acceptance and love. I have no doubt in my mind that Neil and David are going to do the same.

They are also going to teach the children that mothers (and quite possibly women in general) are not important. Actions speak louder than words, after all.

"Greg" Aug 15, 2010 at 09:47 AM:

Indoctrinating your children with silly mythological religious fairytales is child abuse. There is nothing objectively immoral about homosexuality. There IS something immoral about hating other people for a biological condition they cannot change.

And where does this morality you speak of come from, Greg? I don't see it in DNA or the fossil record or any telescope or microscope. Your personal opinion of what is moral or immoral carries no more weight than anyone else's right?

Shame on all of the adults involved for setting up a situation that will deliberately deprive two children of a mother. And if they intentionally killed any human beings (embryos) in the process, shame on them for that, too. Why not foster or adopt a teen who is in county custody? The desires of these two men to have a child to raise do not outweigh a child's natural right to a mother and a father.

Another Day, Two More Commentaries

The Los Angeles Times had a couple more opinion pieces on the - surprise - marriage neutering advocacy side of the Perrywalker fallout (Proposition 8 trial).

Michael Klarman, professor at Harvard Law School, has this one, asking if public opinion on marriage neutering is "ahead" of SCOTUS.

Today, 45 states do not [license] same-sex marriage. It would be unusual for the Supreme Court to turn a norm embraced by only five states into a constitutional command for the nation — unusual but not unprecedented: Roe vs. Wade in 1973 invalidated the restrictive abortion laws of 46 states.

And created a culture war that lasts to this day.

He then cites fauxmentum, which is interesting after citing Roe, because most Americans now support far more restrictions on abortion than currently allowed.

Next, he tries to get Justice Kennedy to believe he'd be on the right side of history if he voted in favor of a federal activist judicial imposition of marriage neutering on all states... on the basis that men and women aren't different from each other, no less.

What better way is there to win the plaudits of future generations of Americans than to author the Supreme Court opinion eradicating one of the last formal barriers to equal citizenship for gays and lesbians?

This is a lie that is repeated over and over again. As much as some people hate to hear it, homosexual people have legal equality with heterosexual people whether there is a bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing or not. Not wanting to use that equal access does not mean it isn't there.

[Much more after the jump.]

"gmanvv" at 11:28 AM August 14, 2010:

BOTOM LINE, it is illegal to deny any citizen of the United States ANY, civil right or FREEDOM that is freely enjoyed by any other faction IN this country.

The "right" to get a state marriage license with someone of the same sex is a newly "discovered" right that never existed in the USA or anywhere else in the world until very recently. That is in contrast to rights that have been recognized to exist since the founding of our union or thousands of years before. The right to vote, for example, was always a right - but it was denied to some people. That has been corrected. The right to be free instead of a slave, for another example, is something that has been talked about for thousands of years. The right to get a marriage license with someone of the same sex is a NEW "right" - one that nobody had until recently, regardless of sexual orientation. Somehow, this "right" escaped all of the great moral thinkers in history until very recently.

In the second piece, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, tries to make it easier for the Ninth Circuit to decline hearing an appeal, or at least decline to issue a stay.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts federal courts to deciding "cases" and "controversies." The Supreme Court long has held that in order to meet this requirement, a person or group pursuing legal action must have standing, a status conferred only on those who have suffered a direct, concrete injury. An ideological objection to a government action, no matter how strongly felt, is insufficient for standing.

And, what, pray tell, was an actual injury suffered by same-sex couples in the Perry case? That their Aunt Edna doesn't know what a domestic partnership is doesn't count.

That means the appeal will be brought by "intervenors" — supporters of Proposition 8 who entered the lawsuit in the federal District Court to defend it.

But because they are not in any way enjoined or covered by the injunction, they are not the proper party to seek a stay of it. Nor do they have standing to appeal Walker's ruling.

I fail to see how they could have been invited in to the federal case and allowed to stay through and after the ruling, and not allowed to continue it through to appeal. If that is permissible, then our justice system needs a new name. But it seems doubtful to me that a federal court (Walker) had jurisdiction in the first place.

The result of all this is likely to be that gays and lesbians will be able to marry beginning Wednesday, when Walker's temporary stay expires. There then will be consideration of the case, over the next couple of years, by the 9th Circuit and ultimately by the Supreme Court.

So... the parties that don't have standing right now will suddenly have standing later? What am I missing? Perhaps I'm not bright enough to follow the gymnastics here.

It is very interesting that people who want marriage licensing to be neutered nationwide are suddenly arguing for the higher courts not to take this case, even though taking the case could lead to nationwide marriage neutering. To me, that signals they suspect SCOTUS will overturn Walker. [UPDATE: See this comment by R.K.]

"jstanford" at 5:15 AM August 15, 2010:

I have grave doubts as to the authority of 7 million Californians to tell another group that they should not have the same rights. They have no right to tell a minority (or anyone for that matter) that two consenting adults can't marry, an act which harms nobody at all.

All laws tell people they can't do some thing.

"Brianb2970" at 8:34 AM August 15, 2010:

Second, by refusing to defend the case, both Brown and Schwartzenegger are in violation of their oaths to "defend" the state's constitution. Until and unless Prop 8 is ruled invalid by a proper authority, it still stands as a constitutional amendment, and thus part of the state constitution. They don't get to "choose" to defend only those parts of the state constution that they like.

Agreed. Shame on Schwarzenegger and Brown.

Pressing an Association

Here's an example of how the Associated Press has been covering the general marriage neutering issue and Proposition 8 in particular all along. (Other news services have been doing much the same.) This article is from Paul Elias. He starts off with the erroneous "gay marriage ban" language...

The sponsors of California's gay marriage ban have asked an appeals court to stop a federal judge's order allowing same-sex weddings to begin next week.

...and writes as though same-sex ceremonies are prevented by law.

The news raised hopes among gay couples that they soon could tie the knot after years of agonizing delays.

They can go ahead and make vows. With clergy. And keep the vows.

"We just want equal rights. We're tired of being second-class citizens," said Amber Fox, 35, who went to the Beverly Hills Municipal Courthouse on Thursday morning in hopes of marrying her partner. The couple wed in Massachusetts in June but wanted to make it official in their home state.

Ah yes, the "equal rights" language that is so misleading.

[More after the jump, including a short video.]

"It's sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it's been six years," said Teresa Rowe, 31, of Suisun City who went to San Francisco's City Hall on Thursday morning with her partner to fill out a marriage license application.

Scott Campbell, 41, and Scott Hall, 35, had to tell family members en route to the Beverly Hills courthouse for the ceremony to turn back. They vowed to return next week.

You know, I don't go to government offices hoping that things will be going my way later in the day - based on the decision of someone, somewhere else, who isn't even aware of my individual situation - when there is a good chance they won't.

"We're both very traditional. Our parents both gave their blessings," Campbell said.

Yes... very traditional... all except for missing bride aspect. But you know, women apparently don't matter enough to be mandatory to the marriage institution. I've said it before and I'll say it again - some of the same lawyers who have been trying to use the courts to create these new associations that exclude women have actually, in the recent passed, sued associations that excluded women to force them to include women. One named Gloria comes to mind. I'm not going to write her full name because I think she gets all tingly inside every time she gets a mention somewhere.

Walker said on Thursday that ban proponents didn't convince him that anyone would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to resume.

That's because he refuses to care that he is 1) devaluing both husbands and wives, and 2) disenfranchising voters, especially ethnic minority voters.

Gay and lesbian couples, however, would be harmed if the ban continued, according to the judge, who previously ruled that the ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

How exactly would they be harmed, given that California treats same-sex domestic partnerships the same as marriage, as required by state law? Citing social or cultural differences is not a good answer for a court of law, which is supposed to deal with... law. Walker is free to retire and write commentaries about culture, or try to infludence the culture through filmmaking or some other art, or write books on manners and how people should deal in a social setting with sexual orientation and different relationships. But as a judge, he is to stick to the law.

If they get a "person on the street" quote in defense of the bride+groom requirement, it is almost always from someone referring to the Bible, or their disgust with homosexual behavior. But a case can be made for the bride+groom requirement based secular facts that just about anyone who is honest and consistent must admit - without disapproval of homosexual behavior. For example, "There's a difference between men and women, and as such, the pairing of both is different from a pairing that excludes women or excludes men." Or "The pairing of a man and a woman is the only kind that can naturally create new citizens, and so that has greater state interest than other kinds of relationships." Or "I think two men should be free to commit to each other and share a life together, but I also think voters have the right to set certain requirements for licenses that are issued on their behalf. Proposition 8 allowed both."

Here is journalist/editor Jill Stewart, who I've found to be unusually perceptive and fair on other issues in the past, with a brief comment on how the news media has handled this...

Prop 8 Lawyers “Smackdown” Judge Walker in Appellate Motion Posted by Maggie

Folks, I highly recommend reading the Prop 8 request for staying Judge Walker's decision. It is written, for the most part, in everyday english. I also recommend all of the articles written by Playful Walrus on this topic. He has a keen sense of logic and reason which really shines against the legal perfunctory of Walker's decision.

NOM has also done a great job in condensing the important parts of the stay down to a quickly digestible outline...

Now, Walker is trying to insulate his opinion from judicial review by claiming Prop 8 proponents lack standing. No wonder. He knows this opinion is a stack of cards that will not stand up to serious scrutiny by higher courts.

Here's at least 8 ways – taken from the emergency motion filed by the Prop 8 lawyers today – Walker's opinion ignored facts that did not fit his thesis, acting more like an activist than a neutral referee:

There's no more here, read the rest at NOM.

More Columnists Skewer Walker and the Media

Over at Townhall.com, several more columns have run in reaction to Walker's ruling on Proposition 8.

Frank Turek's latest was broken into part one and part two.

Before we address the top ten false “facts” asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is:

“The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.”

Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage.

Oh, but words can mean anything that a judge wants them to mean, apparently.

1. “Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group.” (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker’s entire case collapses without it. The “fact” is false because it ignores the difference between desires and behavior.

And...

What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that’s a job for the people, not judges.

2. “California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.” (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason.

And...

3. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.” (FF 48) What does “successful” mean? It has nothing to do with children according to Judge Walker.

And...

In another instance of special pleading, Judge Walker ignores the evidence that at least half of committed homosexual relationships are open as even the New York Times reported. (Other studies found even higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity.)

[Much more after the jump.]

From Part Two:

6. “No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” (FF 46) I guess thousands of ex-gays just don’t exist in Judge Walker’s special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.

And...

But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable

He then has questions for Walker, including this point we have made:

Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain—if men and women are interchangeable—then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, “Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex”?

Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes.

Janet M. LaRue:

The good news is that Walker committed the supreme judicial faux pas by flipping off the U.S. Supreme Court in the process.

The case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger shouldn’t have gone to trial. It should have been decided with two sentences: “Judgment is entered for defendants. The Supreme Court held in Baker v. Nelson that a state law denying same-sex couples a marriage license does not violate the U.S. Constitution.”

Walker's 136-page opinion does support my general theory that the nuttier the opinion, the more trees die in order to explain it. Walker consumes 108 pages on his “findings of fact,” most of which are irrelevant suppositions, circular reasoning, erroneous and downright dippy.

And...

Note the double standard. Walker decreed that it’s wrong for seven million Californians to make a moral judgment about who can marry. But it’s proper for him to substitute his moral judgment about who can marry as the “law” of California.

And...

Kennedy limited Lawrence to the facts of the case—a Texas statute that criminalized homosexual sodomy in private, which is far afield from a civil law defining who can marry in California. Kennedy wrote:

“It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

Furthermore, Walker doesn’t mention the one “on point” case, Baker v. Nelson (1972), in which the Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman. The Court dismissed the appeal of a Minnesota Supreme Court case “for want of a substantial federal question,” which constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, binding on all lower courts.

The Supreme Court held in Hicks v. Miranda that a summary dismissal is binding precedent on all lower federal courts. "[U] ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial.”

Robert Knight addresses the "ban" wording that has been erroneously thrown around:

The media have turned the meaning of marriage on its head. Calling the law a “ban” says its only purpose is to discriminate against homosexuals. By this reasoning, any law or policy that defines something is a “ban.”

But a license to practice law or medicine is not a “ban” on those without law or medical degrees. It is recognition of the qualifications. A state’s requirements for a driver’s license are not a “ban” on the under-aged or the untrained. A college degree is not a “ban” on anyone who did not matriculate.

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman predates all other human institutions. It was not created to annoy homosexuals. Marriage laws exclude all but one man and one unrelated woman. Yet, I have not seen any media report the demise of the “incest ban,” or the “polygamy ban” or the “bestiality ban.” Just because homosexual activists have led the assault is not an excuse to pretend that marriage has only the purpose of excluding them.

Mario Diaz:

As the trial went on Judge Walker neither addressed his personal issues nor tamed his approach. At one point, he even allowed the trial to devolve into a sort of bashing of Christian doctrine. The official doctrinal statements from the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church were condemned as bigoted for holding to a Biblical view of marriage. This, of course, had nothing to do with whether Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, but Judge Walker found it amusing for, as we will discuss, he alludes in his opinion that it is those religious bigots and their distortions that are the real reason that seven million Californians voted so “irrationally” to protect marriage.

As you would expect, the decision itself is a reflection of this charade. Judge Walker dismisses any evidence put forth by supporters of traditional marriage as irrational, unreliable, and not credible, while declaring all the pro-homosexual “marriage” testimony entirely reliable. Judge Walker declares the testimony of David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard with a degree in Social Studies, wrote two books on marriage, fatherhood, and family structure and has co-edited another five books on the topic, “should be given essentially no weight.” Of Kenneth P. Miller, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, the “all-powerful” judge declares, “while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power.” You know, you can be a homicide detective, but if you have not killed anyone, how are you supposed to know anything about murder?

And...

But the Judge wants you and me to know he is not creating a new right. He specifically rejects the idea of a right to same-sex “marriage,” opting to redefine the word marriage by judicial fiat to include everything. While that is very convenient, it’s not very clever, as everyone can see that he is creating a new right. It would be like him redefining the word “tree” to include cars in a law protecting trees from removal in a certain land. Judge Walker would be very comfortable arresting you for removing junked cars from the particular land: “I’m not creating new law, the word ‘trees’ include cars, it is very clear.”

Today's Los Angeles Times Coverage of Perrywalker

The Los Angeles Times ran several articles and opinion pieces today that were mostly related to Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial over the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. Mike Anton had an article looking at how the discussion has moved into the principles of good governance.

What was once a moral argument has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters. It raises one of the oldest conflicts in the nation — the tension between "majority rule" and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority.

This has never been about individuals. It has been about associations and licensing.

Maura Dolan and Lee Romney had an article on the possibility of a higher court not even hearing an appeal, thanks to Walker's shenanigans, and Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown's spitting in the face of the people who hired them.

A private group that opposes same-sex marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, defended Proposition 8 during the trial Walker held earlier this year. The group wants to appeal but may lack legal standing to do so.

Seems to me that since Walker let them in, they should be allowed to stay in.

The case might still wend through courts on procedural issues for a considerable time, but Walker's ruling allowing gay marriage would stand as the law in California. It would not have the nationwide impact of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Coverage of opinion pieces after the jump.]

Jon W. Davidson, legal director of homosexual advocacy organization Lambda Legal, had a commentary in which he charges defenders of the constitutional amendment with using diversion in their response to Walker's ruling. That's a hoot, given that Walker's ruling was full of diversion.

Citing reports that Walker is gay, Proposition 8's supporters are insisting that their case didn't get a fair trial because someone who is gay couldn't rule on the case without bias.

Oh, certainly it is possible for someone who identifies as gay to rule without bias. However, he didn't. Those defending Walker need to ask themselves if they wouldn't question the impartiality of an "openly" evangelical Christian judge ruling that Christians have certain new rights regarding expressing their religion while working on the clock in government jobs, or having a new state holiday added based on the National Day of Prayer.

Meanwhile, Tim Wildmon, president of American Family Association, offered his take, which is that the federal judiciary has gained too much power.

The people of California spoke clearly at the polls in 2008 when they passed an amendment to the state Constitution that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The public debate was held, the media wars were fought, both sides spent millions of dollars and the people voted for Proposition 8 by a margin of 52% to 48%.

And the victory should have been wider.

The Constitution envisioned a system in which the judiciary would serve to check the excesses of the legislative or executive branches. But today, federal judges have far exceeded their intended role, becoming little gods in our republic. They have lifetime appointments, and their only accountability is the potential for impeachment.

But in the history of our country, only 15 judges have been impeached by the House of Representatives. Of those, four were acquitted, seven were convicted, three resigned and one is still pending. In other words, Congress almost never removes federal judges. For all practical purposes, the checks and balances of the federal government no longer exist. The judiciary trumps. Our country is basically now run by judges.

Thomas Jefferson warned about this possibility in a Sept. 28, 1820, letter to William Jarvis: "You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so … and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."

The paper's editorial board gushes over how wise and even they find Walker, and call for higher courts to allow the stay on neutered marriage licensing to expire on Wednesday. I'm impressed that they restrained themselves from demanding it expire sooner.

And finally, the paper ran another editorial, titled "Latin America Ahead of U.S. on Same-sex Marriage".

Hmmm, why don't they consider Muslim countries "ahead" of us on marriage?

Last month, Argentina became the first nation in the region to legalize such marriages, granting wedded gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as heterosexuals.

Uh, you mean... like California's Domestic Partnership law does?