The Three Judges

Carol J. Williams reports at LATimes.com the three judges who will handle the next phase of the Proposition 8 case.

The federal appeals court panel that will decide the legality of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California, represents a broad ideological spectrum of the judiciary.

The amendment to the California constitution is not a ban.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced Monday that Stephen Reinhardt, the liberal lion of the circuit, will decide the case along with Michael Daly Hawkins, a moderate appointed by President Clinton, and N. Randy Smith, a conservative named to the court by President George W. Bush.

I'm less concerned about the labels of "liberal", "moderate" (which probably means liberal, given who is using the term), and "conservative". I'm more interested in their views on separation of powers, federalism, and whether men and women are different (and if this is demonstrated in their personal lives). Men and women are treated differently by the federal government, after all. Hopefully, the court will see that Judge Walker erred as a federal intruder in overturning the vote of Californians amending their own constitution to reinforce the Constitutionally-sound principle that different kinds of voluntary associations can be treated differently.

More Poll Dancing Tricks in Los Angeles Times

There is no doubt that California's population centers, the counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles, are heavily influenced by the Left in general, and that includes marriage neutering advocates. But a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll has some flaws - or at least the way the paper is reporting about its own poll is misleading. Cathleen Decker has the story. Early in the piece, we get this:

Their support for same-sex marriage outnumbered that opposing any legal recognition by more than 3 to 1.

To the casual reader, that sounds so dramatic, as if those who support Proposition 8 are now outnumbered 3 to 1. But the important wording is "opposing any legal recognition". California currently has a domestic partnership law for same-sex couples, and California law treats domestic partners the same as married spouses. How many people answering the poll knew that? Yes, a great many people in California who recognize that marriage unites a bride and a groom do not oppose domestic partnerships, or would be fine with some other form of civil unions for same-sex couples.

You have to go further into the artcle to get more explanation:

Asked their views on same-sex relationships, for example, 49% of California voters backed the [neutering of] marriage, 29% favored civil unions and 15% said there should be no legal recognition at all. Among nonpartisans, support for same-sex marriage rose to 54%.

Nonpartisans? Why didn't they list what Democrats - especially the African American and the ever-so-important Latino voters the pollsters are so obsessed with - think? Anyway, I'd still like to see the result of this poll.

But what do you expect when the article has lines like this one:

When asked whether government regulation of businesses protected the public or caused more harm than good, Californians defended regulation by a 15-point margin.

"Government regulation of businesses" is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes, most people, including many people identifying as libertarians support some government regulation of some businesses. But what about specifics? I'm surprised the poll didn't ask:

"Do you:

A. Favor same-sex marriage

B. Want to personally carry out public stoning of gays and lesbians.

Pick one."

The article then goes on to cite fauxmentum:

Among voters under age 30, [neutering] marriage was backed by 64%, 15 points higher than among votes overall.

Again, a lot of these people will think differently once they have married and have children of their own, and more experience with life in general. We should help them in their understanding by making our case. I'd say it is good news, given the marriage neutering advocates' control of the state legislature, academia, and media, that 36% of younger voters have retained the understanding that marriage unites a bride and a groom. We need to let more of them know that it is okay to affirm the obvious.

Have the Judges Already Decided?

Maura Dolan had this entry on the LATimes.com blog reporting that C-SPAN is going to be televising the hearing on the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. Remember that Judge Walker was shot down in his attempt to televise his personal "stick to the people/death to marriage" moment. I wonder if this means that the notorious 9th Circuit folks want everyone to see just how great they are when they stick it to the people? No witnesses will be testifying. It will be arguments by lawyers.

A federal appeals court Wednesday authorized the televising of a Dec. 6 hearing on whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, should be struck down.

It's... not... a... ban. It really is disgusting how biased the media coverage has been all along.

The hearing is supposed to start at 10 a.m.

The 9th Circuit is hearing an appeal of an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial that examined such questions as whether homosexuality could be changed and whether same-sex parenting harmed children.

Neither one of those needs to be true for Prop 8 to be Constitutional. All that needs to be true is for the court to recognize what the people, nature, all major religions, and all of the great moral thinkers throughout history have recognized – that the pairing of a bride and groom is objectively different than the pairing of two men or two women. Homosexual people know there is a difference. That is why they identify as homosexual.

[A look at comments after the jump.]

"Ironman Carmichael" at November 17, 2010 at 05:27 PM:

People are actually going to be televised making those silly hypocritical arguments about procreation being the basis for marriage

The ability to naturally procreate is one reason why the state has an interest in marriage that it does not have in other kinds of relationships. We know a couple that excludes one of the sexes won't naturally procreate.

and how same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy

It's really more the arguments used that will. What reason compels us to extend marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, which have not historically been recognized as forming a marriage, that does not also apply to the historically sanctioned practice of polygamy? Both kinds of relationship categories involve consenting adults who desire to make a life together based on love, sex, attraction, etc. Just as with same-sex couples, there are children being raised in homes that are polygamous. polygamy isn't going away, and there are polygamous relationships that have been going strong for decades.

Conversely, the other people are actually going to say that the majority can't set the requirements of licenses issued on their behalf (who, pray tell, can?), and hypocritically say there's no difference between the pairing of a man and a woman, which is how we all got here, and the pairing of two men or two women, which does not add anything to society that a platonic relationship wouldn't.

"Tony" at November 17, 2010 at 06:24 PM:

Straight, gay everyone should have the SAME rights or then there is an 'inequality' of rights.

I agree! Everyone has the same rights whether or not Prop 8 stands. So that can't be a reason to overturn the amendment.

The Brave are those who 'stand up' to those who scream religion or morality or funny as it sounds 'unnatural' .

One need not invoke religion to support Prop 8. We are all invoking morality, including you. You said "everyone should have the SAME rights". That is a moral claim.

Date Set By 9th Circuit Court

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled a hearing on the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. It will be December 6. Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked attorneys on both sides to devote the first hour of the hearing to arguments on whether anyone has legal authority to appeal the August district court ruling that found the measure unconstitutional.

We know neither the current nor incoming Governor (who is the outgoing Attorney General) will appeal. The Attorney General's race, as of this writing, has not been determined but it is possible that supporters of Prop 19 (further legalization of pot), which failed but still brought out more voters likely to vote for Democrats, have made the difference and our next Attorney General won’t appeal, either.

However, the same people who were allowed to defend the marriage amendment in the lower court should be allowed to appeal. And how about every California voter who supported Prop 8? Our voting rights – you know, actual things mentioned in the Constitution – are being denied.

The second hour will be spent on questions of the measure's constitutionality.

It is Constitutional to treat different behaviors and different kinds of associations differently. That is what Proposition 8 does.

California voters resurrected the state's ban on same-sex marriage in November 2008.

It... isn't... a... ban.

[A look at a reader comment after the jump.]

"steveMD2" at November 15, 2010 at 08:04 PM:

Almost always it has been the courts that have ended evil discrimination against groups not in power.

This is not evil discrimination, and sometimes, majority votes do win and are valid. Why would it be better to have a minority determine state licensing requirements?

And almost always it has been the "anything but" christians who want to keep their rights of discriminating against minorities and others they despise.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.? There have been many more, inspired by their Christian faith, to fight for rights of all. But one need not invoke religion, Scripture, God, or whatever to see that there is a difference between the paring of a bride and groom and other kinds of pairings.

These are the same people who would turn this country into a saudia arabia - christian style. Where hands are lopped off for stealing, and heads are lopped off for gay activity.

Name one popular American Christian teacher, speaker, writer, leader, or theologian who advocates that. I want a direct quote from the source.

I've met hundreds of gay people, and am close friends with about 8 of them. They have enlightened our lives, and at the same time horrified us with the relevations of how they and their friends suffered horribly. And every last one of them knew gays who committed suicide, and most of these people were close to at the same time.

How would getting state-issued marriage licenses without a bride or without a groom, especially given California's domestic partnership law, reduce or eliminate this?

And understand that marriage is not just about legal benefits, but its about respect.

If the majority of voters do not respect a brideless or groomless pairing as marriage, forcing them to issue a license that says otherwise does not really change their respect.

Something we were all supposed to learn from someone who commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thyself"

Wait, are you trying to impose your religion on the electorate?

Its time for all of us to put this sad chapter of American history in the trash heap along with the other so similar crimes.

Distinguishing and valuing the only kind of pairing that unites both sexes and can naturally create new citizens as a legal, financial, and social unit, providing children with legally obligated, present, and cooperating parents and role models of both sexes – that is a crime? This "sad chapter" has been going on in all of human history for all of human history.

And embrace our gay friends, family, etc as just another part of humanity.

I do that. Okay, so that is why Steve would or did vote against Proposition 8. But that doesn't require the rest of us to vote like him, nor a court to overturn our vote.

California's Relative Caregiver Law (2007)

This is from a blog from an adult who was adopted as a infant. Her mother died at child birth, and the father was 'coerced' to give up his parental rights. It's a good account to protect a child's right to know one's identify and to be raised by family even if the biological mother and father are unable to do so fully. Under this law, there is a preference to have a relative to have legal guardianship over an adoption by non-relatives.

California's Relative Caregiver Law (2007)

Tea and Coffee Are Both Water-based and Caffeinated

But they're not the same because their ingredients are different.

I have maintained that if California's Domestic Partnerships are Constitutional, so is the California Marriage Amendment, Proposition 8. DPs are only available to same-sex couples or to couples including someone over a certain age (in the 60s, if I recall correctly). While California law mandates that DP participants be treated as spouses, DPs are not the same thing as marriage and aren't supposed to be the same thing as marriage. While there may be some man-woman couples who want a DP rather than a marriage, it is okay for the state to tell them "no" – just as it is okay for the state to tell a brideless or groomless couple, or three or more people, that they can't get a state marriage license. This is because a bride+groom pairing is objectively different from the pairing of two women or two men.

Associated Press writer Jill Lawless reports that a British man+woman couple, Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, is seeking a civil partnership, or perhaps more precisely, they are seeking a courtroom battle. (From what I understand, coffee caught on in America due to protest against tea's British connection.)

The 26-year-old Londoners think they should be allowed to have a civil partnership, a form of legal union available in Britain only to same-sex couples.

On Tuesday, after having their application to form a civil partnership rejected by officials at their local town hall in Islington, north London, they said they will go to court to win the right. They are being backed by gay rights activists, who hope a ruling that allows straight couples the right to a civil partnership would mean, in turn, that gay couples have the right to wed.

I'm not too familiar with British law, and so I wonder if it would be likely for a court to "engender" civil partnerships without neutering marriage.

[Much more after the jump.]

"The titles of husband and wife and all the things that pop into people's heads when you say you're getting married don't appeal to us," said Doyle, a student. "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners — we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that."

This is understandable. I think fornication and unmarried cohabitation based on fornication are morally wrong, but shouldn't be illegal, and I can understand this being a possible position for a couple in today's culture.

Marriage and civil partnership are virtually identical in law, and activists argue both should be open to all couples.

No, we should have a different word for something that unites a bride and groom, because marriage should hold a special place in the law and the state is most concerned about the kind of pairing that may produce new citizens.

Some legal experts think there is a strong case, because discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation infringes Britain's human rights law.

It isn't on the basis of sexual orientation. It is on the basis of behavior and sex. Men and women are not identical, nor are heterosexual or homosexual behaviors indentical. If they were, the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" and "transgender" would be meaningless nonsense.

Britain introduced civil partnerships in 2005, giving [same-sex] couples the same legal protection, adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual married partners - but not the label of marriage.

It only took five years for the Trojan Horse to serve its real purpose.

The Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Portugal and Spain have [neutered] marriage, while Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland have laws similar to Britain's.

And many, many other countries don't.

"We really appreciate the civil partnerships," said Sharon Ferguson, a pastor in the Metropolitan Community Church who hopes to wed partner Franka Strietzel but has been turned down for a marriage license. "But particularly because of my Christian faith, it's marriage that I want."

Which Christian faith is that? In both the Bible and the history of Christianity, marriage has always been presented as something uniting a bride and a groom.

As I've said before, I lean towards support for domestic partnerships or civil unions, though their use as a Trojan Horse means I can’t advocate them, because I care about marriage more than making things more convenient for adults who choose to share their life with someone of the same sex. I also can see why some marriage defenders think that they devalue marriage aside from the Trojan Horse thing, but if they encourage stability in same-sex relationships, that might be enough of a positive to outweigh the negative.

In conclusion, I want to see the British courts recognize that a pairing inclusive of the diversity of both sexes is different than a pairing that excludes one of the sexes, and thus laws making a distinction are just.

Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate

Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate via Associated Press

HOUSTON – One recent day at Dr. Natalie Carroll's OB-GYN practice, located inside a low-income apartment complex tucked between a gas station and a freeway, 12 pregnant black women come for consultations. Some bring their children or their mothers. Only one brings a husband.

"A mama can't give it all. And neither can a daddy, not by themselves," Carroll says. "Part of the reason is because you can only give that which you have. A mother cannot give all that a man can give. A truly involved father figure offers more fullness to a child's life."

Statistics show just what that fullness means. Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.

Marriage Neuterists, what they know that isn't true; part 1

A recent commenter noted the biggest of the big lies told by marriage neuterists, saying that "same-sex couples have the same needs as opposite-sex couples".

The thrust here is that there is no difference between a same-sex couple and one that integrates both genders. It is constructed keeping focus clearly on the adults, with the children put in the margins (if mentioned at all). Lets see how this works if we can keep the adult focus, and only look at gender disparities. Read on to see how this works...

One of the greatest disparities there are between the two arrangements is that the latter has an intrinsic attachment between the man and the woman, in that they have a child who naturally exists as their blood and kin. That attachment makes the man and the woman blood and kin also, but also notes the physical reality of their relationship in the form of a child who needs to be raised. Only those two people can give to the child the realization of all their rights and entitlements to know and cherish their own heritage and identity.

Once that is severed, Renee has done a great job in noting how disproportionately the burden of having children weighs on women compared to men. Child birth (except in medically altered situations) always unites the child and the mother. Men are, sadly, all to often not present in a child's life by the time they are born. They have the easiest escape or abandonment route. And a woman, having had a child, becomes more likely to have health problems arising from complications of that pregnancy.

But even when a child is born a disparity begins between the pay that a woman gets and the pay that a man gets. As Feckless noted,

When I did the research for Why Men Earn More in 2005, I discovered that nationwide never-married women who had never had children earned 117% of the wages of never married men who had never had children.

What Feckless and others have suggested is that the gender gap is a manifestation of how women are more naturally attached to their children. They want jobs that give them the liberty of staying home more, and having more flexible time. They take more stable jobs, that involve fewer risks to their health. All so that they can be there for their children when their children need them. And women who want job stability while planning to get pregnant for the first time will chose these jobs even before they have children.

So how does this point to a need that a couple with the potential of children is different than the same-sex couple? With gender differences, the easiest way to draw this line is to simply group the two genders into each same-sex couple. That would show that one set is unequal to the other, but then we already know seperate but equal is not equal. No that is just tip-toeing up to the point that gender disparities that exist are best dispelled by integrating them, then any extra earnings a man might make is shared by the woman. And so is the housework, etc...

Simply put, the need for couples with both genders is based in equality. They need to have their relationship recognized because the equality between them needs to be encouraged. Often this has to do with the burden of responsibility for the children they create together, but it is even more intensely understood when you go to the child's perspective -- something all to often marginalized or forgotten.

Iowans dismiss three justices who backed gay marriage

Iowans dismiss three justices who backed gay marriage via USA Today

The Opposing View of Marriage, The Sequel

This comment just had to be brought to the front page to show exactly what is behind the movement to neuter marriage. Sean, aka Royal Oaker, a recent and highly repetitive advocate for neutering marriage shows exactly what the real purpose behind neutering marriage is.

[See inside...]

Honestly? Marriage can’t be “harmed” at all. If people don’t want to get married, what difference does it make?

Ask any community where marriage rates are low and illegitimacy rates are high.

If they want to get married and divorced several times in their lifetimes, what difference does it make?

Ask the children of those divorces.

If marriage has worth, then it’s just in the mind of the people who want to get married what that worth is. Marriage is no more and no less than any given married couple wants it to be. [emphasis added]

No worth at all to society. No worth at all to children. Marriage, or at least the neutered version of it, has no worth at all outside the minds of those asking for a license. If that is truly the case, then for what reason is society involved, let alone should it stay involved?

For those who think Sean can't really have meant what he just said, he continues:

I don’t know if marriage is resilient or not resilient. It’s just a tradition, and if its time is past, then so be it. [emphasis added]

I have long said, scratch the surface of an advocate of neutering marriage and you will surely find someone who is just as happy if marriage is done away with. If anybody advocating for "same-sex marriage," doesn't agree with Sean's ultimate goal, below, they are free to say so in the comment trail.