William Duncan: New York marriage bill suffers from procedural infirmities

As a part of "Where's the Threat?" series, we look at what democratic protections and discourse was thrown under the bus in New York. It seems all to common. A good recap of this is from William Duncan:

Putting aside the merits of the recently enacted law creating same-sex marriage in New York, the way it was approved raises some important legal questions; specifically about the application of two constitutional provisions to the unconventional process of the amendment's passage in the Senate.

“The mistake that straight people made was imposing the monogamous expectation on men."

“The mistake that straight people made was imposing the monogamous expectation on men." Says Dan Savage (in a big NYT Magazine story about him):

In their own marriage, Savage and [his husband Terry] Miller practice being what he calls “monogamish,” allowing occasional infidelities, which they are honest about. Miller was initially opposed to the idea. “You assume as a younger person that all relationships are monogamous and between two people, that love means nothing can come between you,” said Miller, who met Savage at a club in 1995, when he was 23 and Savage was 30. “Dan has taught me to be more realistic about that kind of stuff.

It's clear what he is asking for isn't the same thing I'm asking for, so why in the name of civil law are we treating these differences in the same matter? If my husband and I have permission to be open, or whatever, why even bother to call it a relationship? We really don't have anything.

Dan Savage is right, marriage is hard, including the monogamy part. It's tempting to cheat. It's tempting even if not to cheat, to walk away when a relationship is stressed by outside factors. The reality over rides these temptation. We value couples who don't give into temptation and don't abandon their vows.

Marriage needs to be monogamous to be stable as a part of it's function, why? Because of the children.

Dan Savage himself, was a child raised with a married mother and father. As an individual he has benefited from marriage in ways children who don't have their mother and father in their lives have.

Obama Says it is Good When His Position is Opposed

James Oliphant at the Los Angeles Times reported the latest on President Obama's position on neutering marriage.

While saying that gays and lesbians deserve to be “treated like all Americans,” President Obama at a press conference Wednesday came short of endorsing gay marriage.

Of course homosexual people should be treated equally with everyone else, and whether or not the bride+groom requirement is included in state marriage licensing, they are.

If one wants to argue that a brideless or groomless pairing deserves to be treated equally to marriage, I ask why? This is a mere assertion. If one wants to argue that same-sex couples "deserve to be married", I don't think that works, either. There are bride+groom couples I don't think should be married. Deserve has nothing to do with it. We have objective criteria for issuing marriage licenses. Either those criteria are met, or they aren't. The people can be stupid, immoral, selfish... whatever, and they can still get married. This isn't about how nice people are. The law deals with objective facts, not personalities.

The president has been on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, but Wednesday, he attempted, as he has previously, to attempt to carefully navigate a middle position.

His position has been that be believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Why doesn't Oliphant say that Obama is on record as opposing polygamy?

At a news conference at the White House East Room, he lauded the recent move by the New York Legislature to legalize the practice, calling it "a good thing."

How can it be a good thing if marriage is something between a man and a woman? A cynic might say that Obama has not been honest about what he really thinks.

At the same time, Obama said that the question remains one for states to resolve, not the federal government.

I wonder how he came to that conclusion?

"MaryWaterton" at 10:29 AM June 29, 2011:

30 states currently have constitutional amendments defining marriage as "one man, one woman". 11 more states have statutes (but not yet constitutional amendments) banning homosexual marriage. Iowa will be back in the traditional marriage category by 2013 or 2014. Do the math folks! That's 42 state moderately to strongly against "homosexual marriage". Only 38 states are required to write an amendment to the US Constitution. It's time to pass that amendment and put an end to the bickering with liberal activist judges and corrupt liberal democrat politicians that can bought for cash.

"Patrick F NY" at 10:55 AM June 29, 2011:

Traditional marriage has evolved, dear.

Through all of the changes in marriage and all of the variations, it has always been about uniting the sexes.

Reactions at the Los Angeles Times

At LATimes.com, they printed some comments on their editorial, which had received the most comments in comparison to other recent editorials. Samantha Schaefer gathered these. Letters printed in today's edition are included further down.

LAzyPD 2011:

Quick post on language

Not for nothing, but I do cringe when I see the word matrimony referencing a marriage made of two grooms. Shouldn't that be a patrimony? If you read through anthropological definitions, many times they want to make a distinction of a maternal line and a paternal line which suggests the marital relationship has the ability to create descendants through natural means of human sexuality. Yes, language changes and does evolve. There's a point when changes make such a leap there is no connection from one to the other. It's impossible to share ideas and thoughts, because we're literally talking to different languages.

Some Reaction the Neutering Marriage in New York

The columnists featured at Townhall.com often write about subjects relevant to this blog. I usually don’t get around to calling attention to such columns. Today is different.


Michael Medved sees evidence the even marriage neutering advocates know it is isn't a matter of civil rights.

Advocates for so-called “marriage equality” define their cause as a “civil rights” issue – equivalent to overturning bans on interracial weddings in the 1960’s. Then how could the New York law permit churches and other religious organizations to reject gay unions? Any church that discriminated against interracial marriages would violate civil rights laws. Preventing a white man from marrying a black woman is unacceptable, because there’s no legal difference between races. But saying a man can’t marry another man is a distinction based on gender, and the law allows different treatment –like separate restrooms, or draft status – based on gender. If gay advocates really believed discriminating against gay unions compared to discrimination against inter-racial unions, how could they possibly permit the religious exemption?

The answer, of course, is tactics. Even in a state as far to the Left as New York, the only way the legislature was willing to neuter marriage licensing is if they had the cover of certain religious protections as part of the legislation. However, the marriage neutering advocates will attack those protections. "Interracial" marriage was banned in some states, interfering with a historical practice. Neutering marriage is a new attempt at engineering human behavior.

From Bill Murchison:

What New York has done, amid much trumpeting and self-congratulation, is create a secular-political institution and give it, spuriously, the name of marriage, according to whose regulations two men may join themselves to each other as may two women.

It's a sad and shabby charade, with consequences that will likely prove proportionate to New York's size, population and megalomania.

New York's lawmakers have taken upon themselves an authority that all previous generations ascribed to God. The legislature's calculation was that the 21st century has needs beyond the comprehension of generations that failed to see [neutering] marriage as a matter of social justice.

For some, the state is their god, and so they mistakenly believe that legislation, or more often a court decision, will change the fundamental core of human nature. Or, their genitals are their god, and they use the power of the state to try to force everyone else to honor their god, while somehow simultaneously insisting that half of humanity having the other set of genitals doesn't really mean anything.

At my namesake blog, I note that "Delusional Marriage Neuterists Stroke Cuomo's Ego". They're talking about Cuomo as President in 2016. I hope they give him a lot of their money.

Quiz time. Can you tell me when the last time a New York-based politician won a major party’s Presidential nomination, let alone the Presidential Election? It’s not for lack of trying, as the Cuomos can tell you. And the Clintons. And the Gulianis, and so many others. I know New Yorkers and many Leftists think New York is the center of the universe, and it is a very important city in a lot of ways. But there are 49 (not 56) other states.

And that's another reason to believe that New York's neutering of its state marriage licenses is not predictive of the rest of the country.

A Ware of an Appeal

The ProtectMarriage.com people have filed an appeal of Ware's decision. There will be howls of protest against this by the very people who themselves use every legal system tactic they can, and invent some, to try to get things their way. They will portray filing an appeal as some sort of outrageous move.

Dan Levine reports for Reuters has a story entitled "Gay Marriage Foes Appeal Ruling on Gay U.S. Judge". First of all, it is same-sex "marriage". I know this is a widespread mistake, but let's be accurate. Secondly, their focus is on preserving the monogamous bride+groom requirement in marriage, not on being "foes" of anything.

The story is the expected mischaracterization of the case, complete with biased language.

Oh, and despite how the biased media always writes these stories, the existing bride+groom requirements, are NOT a "ban on same-sex marriage." I can correct them as often as they make that "mistake".

The Los Angeles Times Supports Neutering Marriage

I know, I know… why hasn't their editorial board ever told us this before?

Same-sex marriage is a matter of common sense –

Really? Then how did the very idea of it escape so many people, including all of the great civil rights leaders in history?

there is no good reason to withhold the legal and social advantages of marriage from a group that has long suffered every sort of discrimination.

So because someone has been victimized by undue discrimination, we need to neuter marriage licensing? How does this follow?

The main social advantage of marriage is that it unites both sexes. It's like saying you want the educational benefit of a Doctorate, and if someone just passes one out to you, you'll have it. It's either self-delusion or a deliberate lie.

And there is good reason. It is a good idea to legally distinguish marriage (that’s bride+groom) from other kinds of associations to signify the importance of marriage in perpetuating society.

It's our fervent hope that the federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 will ultimately succeed, because we believe that such marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution by singling out homosexuals as unworthy of equal protection under the law.

Wrong. Homosexual people should be equally protected, and the California Marriage Amendment didn’t change that. However, it is Constitutional, moral, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently.

New York's historic vote should help speed things along. With its large population — third in the nation, behind California and Texas — there will be more [brideless and groomless couples with state marriage licenses] than ever and more opportunity for Americans to observe and grow accustomed to them. Many of those couples will move to other states where they will press to have their [licenses] recognized.

I'll be curious to see how many children they produce.

It is also significant that the legislative road to marriage rights for New York's gay and lesbian couples was paved in part with major lobbying donations from Republican billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay. Several of the politicians who supported the bill also have gay and lesbian relatives. As gays and lesbians have emerged from the closet, more Americans have learned that these are their friends, neighbors and loved ones.

The editorial goes on to praise the support in New York of "Republican billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay." If neutering marriage is a good thing, it is a good thing regardless of whether someone in our family is a homosexual person or not. Likewise, if it is a bad thing, it is a bad thing regardless of whether someone in our family is a homosexual person or not. This identity politics thing is so absurd.

California should learn lessons from New York's victory and quickly put itself back on the right side of history.

Readers of the Los Angeles Times can think of dozens of other legislative moves by other states that the Los Angeles Times somehow failed to encourage Californians to follow in order to be on “the right side of history”. But you know, neutering marriage is extra special.

Oh, and despite how the biased media always writes these stories, the existing bride+groom requirements, are NOT a "ban on same-sex marriage." I can correct them as often as they make that "mistake".

Dear Same-Sex Couples: Welcome to Marriage

Now that New York has joined five other states in the overwhelming momentum towards neutering state marriage licensing (we’ll ignore the fact that almost all of the rest of the 57, er, uh, 50, states have recently reaffirmed their bride+groom requirement), I wanted to welcome you with open arms to this wonderful and universal human institution.

First and foremost, I want to apologize on behalf of the New York lawmakers. I remember how hurt you were while suffering the indignity of having Californians "vote on your marriages", so you must have been hurt when the New York legislature did the same. Remarkably, you've held in your pain about that so far.

Secondly, I know you want equality, but you're still going to be missing the key benefit of marriage; uniting with the other half of humanity. I'm so sorry that you’re still being denied that full measure of equality, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.

During your struggle, you correctly derided the high divorce rate, people with multiple divorces, adultery, and sham and stunt marriages. So I know that means you will have a lower divorce rate than bride+groom couples, a higher rate of fidelity, and will not be making a mockery of weddings or marriage. I'm looking forward to these improvements to marriage.

Also, since you have appealed to conservatives by saying you want to strengthen marriage and value marriage and monogamy, and to raise your children within marriage, it is time to remember everything that entails. Not only does divorce and adultery harm marriage, but so does shacking up and sex outside of marriage. So, no more of that, okay? Or, at least, you'll have to permit some shaming or endure some secrecy to at least have a sense of decorum and propriety. For example, there are some heterosexual people who fornicate but keep quiet about it. Most people assume they are fornicating, but it isn't talked about because "sex is for marriage". By the way, monogamy means no sex with any other person, even if your spouse is approving, even if your spouse is present. If you can't handle that, then move to Europe. Also, no more having children out of wedlock. You should be in a stable marriage and your spouse should he just as responsible for any children you have. So, if your partner turns up pregnant, then if you're not already married, then "do the right thing" and make an honest woman out her. Oh, and any child born to her during the marriage will be considered yours, too, even if you didn't support (and obviously didn't cause) the pregnancy. You did want to join the existing marital norms, right? Good.

Please be aware that if your partner is paying child support, and you marry your partner, your income can then be included in determining how much child support should be paid. Also be aware that should you divorce, in many states, the spouse who earned more during the marriage will have to pay alimony to the other spouse. In some states, ten years of marriage obligates the higher earning spouse to pay alimony for life, or until the other person remarried. Also be aware that should your partner bring children into the marriage, and then leaves the marriage, you may be obligated to pay child support for those children or share custody.

I do not support my heterosexual friends when they fornicate, shack up, have kids out of wedlock, commit adultery, divorce for anything other than abuse/abandonment/adultery/addiction (which really are all the same thing), or neglect children to whom they took on obligations. If someone in my family married someone, they make that other person an in-law and bring that person into my life, which means even if there is a divorce, I may still keep that other person in my life. Conversely, a partner of someone in my family is not part of my family until they marry. I vow to treat you exactly the same.

Since homosexual people want to strengthen marriage just as I and many other heterosexuals do, I expect that a congruent percentage of homosexual people will now consider sex outside of marriage, adultery, raising children out of wedlock, shacking up, and divorce to be immoral. If not, you will skew the statistics and thus further devalue marriage, which you have previously assured me you don't want to do.

You weren't lying, were you?

In theory I would be for gay marriage.....

Recently I responded to a friend's Facebook posting in support of gay marriage. On my Facebook page, I like to keep it personal not so political despite most of my friends are political connections who disagree with me. I hope I don't lose a friend.

"Living in Massachusetts this whole time I've see what happens when we lose the civic value of family, the reality that each individual has a mother and father, and we want to value and promote the ideal that parents have a healthy relationship one another. When one parent is not in a child's life for good reason or not, it affects the child as an individual. Half of their family tree is cut off, including a connective kinship with extended family. That's a pretty big deal, and the old definition of marriage protected the child.

I have nothing against gay people, this isn't about hate. In theory, yes I would be for gay marriage, in practice it just doesn't produce the desired result. Homosexual orientation does need protection from hate, but acknowledging that heterosexual behavior results in pregnancy and that mom and dad are equally responsible matters to the common good of society. Living in a neighborhood with a lot of non-marital child bearing, my husband and I are the role models. The single parents who are doing their best, actually appreciate that their children see there is someone who 'can make it' married.

If you look at the demographics, Massachusetts is losing people, despite so many great qualities living here. People vote with their feet, Massachusetts population wise is losing their children, faster then San Francisco. People don't raise a family here, in fact many people relocate to North Carolina. Again in theory, gay marriage just seems like a nice thing to do, on the other hand there are consequences."

Is gender important or not? Make up your mind!

In recent days, there has been articles on the genderless preschool in Sweden. I found a bit of confusion that they make the claim to be neutral on gender in class, but in example fail. In one example "From a bookcase she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg." Now at four years old, a child may not be able to ask simple questions of biology, but wouldn't an inquisitive reader ask "Why are the male couple childless, what makes their gender significant to the reason they have no child?" Also, "Why is the egg abandoned, how did the egg get there, and who created the egg?"

Why is the book even referencing their gender, if it's a gender neutral preschool? Why not just say two giraffes?

Covenant Marriage as a way to save itself

The day the death bell rang was when the ACLU abandoned its plan for Domestic Partnerships, and instead decided to turn marriage into their domestic partner program -- thus leaving no more availability to the protections and rights that we associate with marriage. But, some argue, we still at least have an institution with the same name, that is good enough right?

But then again, maybe the death began with removing the underlying covenant from marriage. Perhaps we could really say that death of marriage is when it moves from an institution of reproductive responsibility (again protected under legal covenant) to sexual freedom, a change that arguably took place in large degree when no-fault (or unilateral divorce) destroyed the effect of "covenant" in marriage altogether.

Go ahead and read, Daffyd makes a solid point...

Now we're forcing people to marry in New York?

Via Ann Althouse

From the New York Times Op-Ed

What’s difficult to explain is that for some lesbians and gay men, having our relationships sanctioned and regulated by the state is hardly something to celebrate. It was only a few years ago that we were criminals in the eyes of the law simply because of whom we loved. As strangers to marriage for so long, we’ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.

Nothing to explain, you just like being roommates. That's great. First Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships were first argued 'separate, but equal', now they are considered more freeing then restrictive marriage? Marriage is restrictive for a reason. Why? Because you're held accountable and responsible for your family. So as a society we give you acknowledgment and support, which may include legal benefits.

If you think of me as an "anti-SSM advocate," you do not understand my concerns

Occasionally we highlight comments left in other posts. It seems a shame that some of the best writing, sometimes, is only read by a very narrow readership with the stamina to follow a thread for a long time. So here is one of our guests who is putting it all very well...

If you think of me as an "anti-SSM advocate," you do not understand my concerns, which are much broader than that issue. I understand why many have come to think of marriage as a "love license." Many of us are not concerning ourselves with society's need to encourage men to commit to women who give birth to their children and to the children they create. That trend started happening, to the detriment of children, long before we began to discuss how and whether to legally recognize same-sex unions.

Rutten Praises Process in New York

Tim Rutten once again used his Los Angeles Times column to pretend that neutering marriage is an obvious matter of civil rights. Funny MLK Jr. never mentioned it, nor did Mahatma Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, or any other major historical civil rights activist.

Rutten repeatedly uses the ridiculous phrase "marriage equality", but curiously never notes that first cousins can marry in some states, and not in others. Isn't that unequal?

The current debate over [neutering marriage] in the New York Legislature is a matter of importance to all, because at its heart it's about finally extending basic rights to those to whom they have been denied.

This is false. No person has been denied access to state marriage licenses based on their sexual orientation.

New Yorkers Need More Than Religious Protections

According to reports, marriage neutering (same-sex marriage, gay marriage) has been held up in New York because of concerns over protecting religious freedom. However, marriage neutering threatens much more than religious freedom.

When state-issued marriage licenses are neutered that so it is possible to get one without a bride, or without a groom, it becomes the official state position that:

1. Bride+groom pairings, which unite the two basic elements that comprise all of society, can naturally create new citizens, and provide children with a role model, bonding partner, and guardian from each of the two sexes legally, financially, socially bound to each other and the children (and usually biologically connected to the children) – are no different than the pairing of two men or the pairing of two women, which never naturally produce new citizens, always exclude one of the sexes, and produces nothing of benefit for society that couldn't be produced through mere friendship.

2. There is no difference between homosexual sodomy, which does nothing positive for society, but in certain forms is especially condusive to spreading disease and causing injuries... and heterosexual coitus, which is how all of us got here.

If marriage is neutered, homosexuality advocates will ensure that all state institutions and programs, including schools and adoption agencies, and any institution or program that receives any state funding, will operate according to, and promote these official positions.
Further, the message is that husbands and fathers aren't important, and that wives and mothers aren't important. The message is that creating a new human being is no different and shouldn't be regarded as any more serious than massaging a prostate. The message is that marriage is not about children, so men who impregnate women should feel no obligation to marry them, nor should married parents feel obligated to put the needs of their own children ahead of their desire to divorce.


Marriage, the uniting of a bride and groom, is demonstrably different from other kinds of associations. We should be able to reserve the word marriage, and we should be able to treat marriage differently.

Money

"NY GOP tables gay marriage; showdown looms" from AP Press

In 2008, gay marriage advocates gave a major financial hand to Democrats who won the state Senate, the first time Republicans were out of control in 50 years. Democrats promised to legalize gay marriage but failed in 2009, then lost the majority in 2010.

"Even though the gay marriage issue today is probably most analogous to the abortion debate, it is very different even from that," said Steven Greenberg, a former Assembly staffer who now works for the Siena College poll that tracks state issues.

Greenberg said the abortion debate didn't come with the legions of lobbyists and large cash infusions like today's gay marriage debate.

The difference between marriage and cohabitation.

From a research paper by "The National Partnership for Women & Families", sounds so nice, the paper's position is to normalize abortion. Still a great paper to read and understand the nature of the problem.

Married women accounted for 14.8% of abortions, while 29.2% of abortions were attributed to women who lived with a male partner at the time of the abortion. Further, married women had the lowest abortion rate (6.6 abortions per 1,000 women), while cohabitating women had the highest rate (52 abortions per 1,000 women).

In the course of discussing a woman's freedom, we fail to talk about the consequences of simply either hooking up or in this case 'shacking up' without marriage. Understanding consequences and sound decision making isn't an act of oppression by the patriarchy!

Marriage isn't an extension of cohabitation, it's a whole other creature. It's easy in cohabitation, simply spend the night and never leave. Marriage though is different, it has to be discussed and be consented to prior to being married. There has to be some form of cooperation (not coercion) to get both bride and groom down the aisle. I live in a society in which women can choose their husbands, and yet so many of us throw that choice away. While feminism focuses on our right to be recklessly be with any man willing and ready, and be free of the unwanted consequences of being pregnant with his child either by contraception or abortion. Feminism fails to see what marriage could do for women, please understand I only hope and pray that our sisters can realize what is missing.

New Yorkers Being Manipulated by MNAs

Most states have decisively reinforced the universally historical and natural notion that marriage unites the sexes; some more than once. The current battle has been in New York. Will the state be added to the handful that have neutered their marriage licensing? The stage is already set to get the question of forced marriage neutering to SCOTUS. So in the larger picture it may not matter what happens in New York.

By picking this fight, the marriage neutering advocates have unwittingly demonstrated their claim of overwhelming public support to be false. The public supports freedom for homosexual people, as we do with all people. The public may even support civil unions or domestic partnerships. But most of us do not support the neutering of state marriage licenses, because most of us know it is important and right to distinguish bride+groom unions from other kinds of associations. This is not hateful. This was demonstrated when California, while voting for Obama, also adopted a constitutional amendment via Proposition 8, and it is being demonstrated in how much of a struggle the marriage neutering advocates have had in New York, which is perhaps a more liberal state.

New Yorkers are being manipulated with the usual heavy-handed tactics, appeals to emotion, and logical fallacies.

After the jump, I look at some media coverage, which is mostly biased towards neutering marriage.

My Indispensible Father

One thing I always remember about my father was how easily he proved he was indispensable as an engineer. Where some people are afraid to take a vacation because it might show their employer how much they aren't needed, my father kept track of companies after he left them. He could show a very strong correlation to his leaving a company and a decline in their success. From large fortune 500 companies to small ones.

Sometimes I think that fathers might feel worried about how indispensable in some way about their jobs as fathers. If they grew up without a dad, and their mothers especially downgraded the idea of having a dad, (likely for the good reason of trying to convince the child they weren't missing out on something the mother felt incapable of providing) they might think they are not needed. If fathers are seen primarily as bread-winners and a paycheck, I could see where a guy might get the idea they have little value to a family until they can provide the six figure salary. But when you get down to it, societies where fathers are absent have many struggles. Dads are not a luxury of the rich, nor a should they be measured in success as a source of luxury.

Happy Father's Day

The Secret of Dads' Success from WSJ

As an estimated 70.1 million fathers prepare to celebrate Father's Day in the U.S., recent research shows that their distinct style of parenting is particularly worth recognition: The way dads tend to interact has long-term benefits for kids, independent of those linked to good mothering.

Gender, Science, and Humor

Marriage is serious, but I just needed something to laugh at in regards to gender differences.

Does Driving a Porsche Make a Man More Desirable to Women?

According to the researchers, women found a man who chose to purchase a flashy luxury product (such as a Porsche) more desirable than the same man who purchased a non-luxury item (such as a Honda Civic). However, there was a catch: Although women found the flashy guys more desirable for a date, the man with the Porsche was not preferred as a marriage partner. Women inferred from a man's flashy spending that he was interested in uncommitted sex.

The Egalitarian Model of Marriage

Adam and Eve are the center of the creation story we all know well. God creates a stage with everything we see naturally occurring. It isn't until a man walks across the stage, however, that the plot starts. And the first act is to create a woman. And unlike other stories that woman is not someone to save from a dragon or someone to clean a house as neither are yet introduced in the story.

Whether the man likes video games, or the woman likes sewing, or vice versa, is completely extraneous to the plot. It isn't worth even bringing in to fill out the characters on the stage. The story only progresses on one point, they continue creation together -- equally needed.

From the Ridiculous to the Sublime

Isn’t the Proposition 8 case fascinating? Don Barrett of Los Angeles wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Times that a straight judge might actually value marriage, and that is supposedly a problem.

The assumption behind Proposition 8 was that [neutering] marriage would damage the institution of marriage. Wouldn't then a straight, married judge have some investment in the institution of marriage? In fact anyone is likely to have had some personal deliberations about marriage and thus would not be entirely unbiased about the value of the institution.

You see, not only are courts supposed to apply the law equally (which, to these folks, means placing more value on homosexual people and their feelings and desires than other people and their votes), the courts aren't supposed to value our foundational institutions. Judges are supposed to sit there and be "neutral" about the institution of marriage itself, as if valuing marriage and devaluing marriage were equally valid considerations for a court of law. What's next? A court should be neutral about perjury?

Ed Whalen over at NRO's Bench Memos has been following the case and has much to say about Ware's decision. Here's a taste.

Ware’s “legal conclusion” makes no sense. I’ve previously offered the hypothetical of a judge who desires to enter into a series of polygamous marriages and who is assigned a case in which plaintiffs are challenging the anti-polygamy laws of the state in which the judge lives. As I stated at the time, legal ethicist Stephen Gillers “acknowledges that the judge’s recusal would be required,” and “I find it difficult to imagine that there would be any legal ethicist anywhere who would maintain otherwise.” But Ware evidently would. Under his “legal conclusion,” the hypothetical case “could affect the general public based on the circumstances or characteristics of various members of that public”—the relevant characteristic of those various members being that they are aspiring polygamists—and the fact that the judge “happens to share” that characteristic “and will only be affected in a similar manner because the judge is a member of the public” (rather than a party to the case) “is not a basis for disqualifying the judge under Section 455(b)(4)."

And…

Ware’s second contention is also wrong. To be sure, recusal questions may sometimes be difficult, but there’s nothing “unworkable” about Prop 8 proponents’ standard. The key to workability is full and timely disclosure of relevant facts by the judge facing possible recusal. And if the judge has privacy or other interests in not making such disclosure, the simple alternative is for him to have the case re-assigned to another judge.

Go read it all, and follow the links to the other pieces.

Roundup of Los Angeles Times on Ware and Walker

Let's start with columnist Steve Lopez, who knows where his bread is buttered.

I've tried my best, but I never did understand the legal logic of Prop. 8 supporters.

So what else is new? A lot of Proposition 8 supporters can't understand the "logic" of finding some previously undiscovered "right' to a state marriage license absent a bride, or absent a groom... a "right" so strong it trumps the right to vote, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the freedom of association.

But Ted Boutrous, a Los Angeles lawyer who tried to beat back the challenge in court, said you could take the Prop. 8 supporters’ argument to ridiculous extremes.

So? You can take just about any argument to ridiculous extremes. Marriage neutering advocates would have nothing to say without taking arguments to extremes. Okay, that's not fair. They'd also have "But I want it!"

For example, if a judge presiding over a rape case had herself been a rape victim, should she disclose that before hearing the case?

Boutrous said that to his surprise, when he asked this in court, the attorney representing the Prop. 8 crowd said yes, a judge who’d been raped should disclose such a thing.

"I found it remarkable," said Boutrous.

Wait a minute. If the previous rape victim was a potential juror instead of a judge and failed to disclose it before the trial, wouldn't that exclude her from the jury if she was found out? And she'd only be one juror out of twelve, in a criminal case, which has a higher standard of protection for the defendant (beyond reasonable doubt, etc.), meaning it would be more difficult for the earlier rape to influence the outcome of the trial.

Boutrous, taking the logic of his opponent to another absurd extreme, offered this argument:

If a straight judge had heard the Prop. 8 case, he should have disclosed it up front, because surely he might have been biased in favor of heterosexual marriage, perhaps for religious reasons, or because he saw gay marriage as some kind of threat to children.

Fail. The overwhelming majority of people will enter into (bride+groom) marriage at least once in their lives, and identify as heterosexual. The analogy doesn't work for that and many other reasons.

So if you'd have to disqualify a gay judge, and you’d have to disqualify a straight judge, who’s left to hear the case?

I refer back to this post of mine:

Searching for a needle in a vat of hay and acid

I remember watching my first episode of CSI, and I thought how wonderful a vehicle it could be to introduce science to people who otherwise saw it as a waste of their own personal brainpower. The ability to deduce, with enough scientific knowledge of how one thing can affect another, to rewind the clock and produce a streaming video of what must have happened, is attractive to most people. Its an almost godlike sense to understand the world to that degree.

Ware & Walker on the Newswires

The biased Reuters coverage is here, if you're interested.

From Lisa Leff's Associated Press report:

"We all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right," Ware wrote.

You mean like how the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, or the lack of it, applies to all, and is therefore not discriminatory on the basis of an individual's sexual orientation? You mean like how we all have equal access to marriage licensing regardless of whether the requirement is in place or not?

The one-way "walls" and paradoxes just keep coming... rights aren't reserved for the people, states, or individuals, but rather special groups. The only way they can force us to neuter marriage is through a toxic brew of Trojan Horses, bait and switch, judicial activism, propoganda in mainstream media, redefining terms in the middle of arguments, using bad arguments they scoff at when used by others, and establishing bad precedents that they will howl in protest over when they are used by others. I don't know why they bother with the pretenses anymore. Just have President Obama issue an executive order neutering state marriage licensing nationwide. California’s "leaders" wouldn’t challenge it and would comply, and the same might happen in other states. Lawsuits would be filed, but so what? They can find judges who will go with the executive order. I mean they will do that if it comes to it; that’s clear now. At least that way, some good precedents and procedures along the way that will otherwise be trashed would still be intact.

(Fixed those last two links.)

Note to dads: Good parenting makes a difference

ScienceDaily (2011-06-14) -- But a new study by researchers at the University of Arizona shows just how important dad's job as a role model actually is.
The study, "Impact of Fathers on Risky Sexual Behavior in Daughters: A Genetically and Environmentally Controlled Sibling Study," is due to be published in the journal Development and Psychopathology.
When it comes to girls and their decisions about sex, it turns out a father's influence really does matter," says Bruce J. Ellis, the study's lead author and the John and Doris Norton Endowed Chair in Fathers, Parenting, and Families at the UA Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences.

As Expected: Walker Walks

Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com:

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to invalidate last year's ruling against Proposition 8, deciding the gay jurist who overturned the [state constitutional amendment restoring the bride+groom licensing requirement] had no obligation to step aside because of a possible conflict of interest.

The decision by Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco left the ruling by retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker in place. Walker’s decision remains on hold pending a separate appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Remember, the California Supreme Court has been asked to review standing in the case, probably because the 9th Circuit folks want to delay the case from being taken up by SCOTUS until Obama can change the court more.

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Ware wrote in his ruling.

Great. Let's all remember that when a Mormon judge with a position at his stake (if I'm not using the correct terminology, I apologize) gets a case that could impact the finances of the LDS church.

Oh, and despite how the biased media always writes these stories, the California Marriage Amendment, adopted by a majority of the voting governed, was NOT a "ban on same-sex marriage." I can correct them as often as they make that "mistake".

Decision on Judge Walker Expected Today

From the later blog post at LATimes.com by Maura Dolan:

"You can be in a long-term relationship without being in it for the purposes of marriage, right?" the judge asked.

Ware noted he was not being asked to determine whether Walker had a duty to disclose his relationship, only whether the Walker should have disqualified himself once he was assigned to the case.

From her print story in today's paper:

Can a gay judge rule on same-sex marriage?

His identity is not the issue. His behavior is the issue. There's a difference, right?

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware, an African American, likened the case to challenges of judges based on race and gender, which have generally failed in civil rights cases. Ware noted, however, that while a jurist's race and gender are usually obvious, litigants may not know whether a judge is gay.

*sigh*

"You can be in a long-term relationship without being in it for the purposes of marriage, right?" Ware asked Charles J. Cooper, the lawyer for the sponsors of Proposition 8.

Cooper conceded that was true, but said Walker should have removed himself because he stood in "the exact same shoes" as the gay and lesbian couples who filed the suit. Like them, Walker was in a committed same-sex relationship, Cooper said.

In a sign of the sensitive nature of the conflict-of-interest allegation, Ware told the packed courtroom that he had married a same-sex couple during the brief period when such marriages were legal in California in 2008. Cooper did not raise any objections.

Well, it was a longshot anyway.

Federal law says jurists can be disqualified from hearing cases because of financial interests, however slight, strong personal friendships with litigants, or a personal bias or prejudice, among other factors.

No financial interest here. Nope. Riiiiight. On the one hand, marriage neutering advocates have told us it is vital for same-sex couples to get state marriage licenses, in no small part due to financial benefits. On the other hand, Walker, in a long-term (notice they never say monogamous) same-sex relationship, couldn't possibly have financially gained from his own decision. Got that?

Cooper argued that a judge must step down if a reasonable person could conclude that he or she might have a personal stake in the outcome.

"If a reasonable person thought a black judge should recuse himself or herself from a civil rights case, would that be sufficient to recuse a judge?" Ware asked.

Identity vs. behavior. Look, we're not saying a white judge can't rule on a case involving country music. But maybe he should disclose the fact that he plays in a professional country music band?

Cooper replied that it would not, nor would the mere fact that Walker was gay be enough to disqualify him. Cooper said Walker should have stepped aside because his relationship put him in the same situation as the plaintiffs who wished to formalize their commitment.

There. Was that so hard? Why was this buried in the article???

California Marriage Amendment Back in Courtroom

Today was the day the question of retired Judge Walker's actions were brought to court in light of his public coming out as being in a long-term same-sex relationship. Lisa Leff of the Associated Press reported. The first sentence uses the bogus "ban" language, as does the next sentence, and elsewhere in the article. This is a deliberate, calculated move on the part of journalists who are letting their biases overtake them.

Ted Olson, one of the couples' lawyers, said he is unaware of any other cases in which a ruling was challenged because of the issuing judge's sexual orientation.

How many cases have there been in which a federal judge has struck down a state constitutional amendment with a bride+groom requirement in a way that could personally benefit him, without stating before the trial that he could personally gain from the outcome?

Leff gives the judge this around an easy out:

Many legal scholars have said they do not expect Ware to overturn Walker.

And here's something I don’t think I saw before:

Ware also is scheduled to hear arguments on whether he should unseal videotaped recordings of the trial. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, after Walker proposed having the proceedings uploaded on a YouTube channel, that the trial could not be broadcast beyond the federal courthouse in San Francisco. Lawyers for the gay couples that sued to overturn [the state constitutional amendment] and for the news media are asking Ware to now make those recordings public.

Why not just do a Broadway musical instead? That way, we can know what will win big at the Tonys next year.

Here's Maura Dolan's take at LATimes.com, which also uses the "ban" language. She also gives Ware an out.

Legal scholars interviewed by the Los Angeles Times last month predict that the effort by Proposition 8 sponsor ProtectMarriage will fail.

And Dolan provided this update.

A federal judge questioned Monday whether the judge who presided over the Proposition 8 trial had a duty to disclose his same-sex relationship if he did not intend to marry his long-term partner.

U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware said during a court hearing that there was no evidence that retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker ever wished to marry his partner, a physician.

I wonder exactly what would be discoverable?

Charles Cooper, who is representing the Proposition 8 campaign, maintained that Walker should have stepped down because he was “similarly situated” to the gay and lesbian couples who brought the suit in that he too was in a serious, committed relationship with a same-sex partner.

Over at my namesake blog, you may be interested in:

A Los Angeles Times editorial on "gay rights"

AIDS Wasn't Reagan's Fault

Really, Tina Fey?

Playing Dumb About the Traditional Family

Under the headline of "How traditional a family?", Michael McGough blogs at LATimes.com...

When conservative politicians talk about the "traditional family," it's usually by way of denouncing same-sex marriage. But former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (though no supporter of marriage equality) uses the concept for another purpose: to critique contemporary child-rearing practices.

In 2005, Santorum was criticized for suggesting in his book "It Takes a Family" that working women should give up their jobs and stay at home with the kids.

Actually, the offending passage was gender-neutral: "In too many families with young children both parents are working when, if they took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do."

Yes, that silly Santorum thinks that raising children actually means being present to parent, rather than letting hired help be the primary caretakers. Silly him! What's next? Expecting employees to actually work for their paychecks?

The idea that mothers are superior caregivers for young children is politically incorrect these days, but it's widely held by the social conservatives to whom Santorum appeals.

I don't know, I agree with the idea that is generally preferable that mothers do the early primary caretaking, but maybe it is because my breasts did not inflate with milk. Maybe it is different for other men? Seriously, there are many ways women are, literally, naturally more suited -  everything from bone structure to hearing to smell to hormones and so many more. You don't have to be a social conservative to hold such an idea, though when you realize that the social Left's insistence that there's no difference between mothers and fathers is a lie that denies such an obvious reality, it may lead you to social conservatism.

Those who fight against idealizing the traditional family play dumb or act like we can't define a "traditional family" or that only a minority of families were what we call traditional at any given time in history.

Talking about marriage, without talking about marriage.

Over at Family Scholars, there was a post "Wanna Support Marriage....", which dealt how drug use creates the neglect of children and unemployment places stress on parents to provide for their children. How can I support something in public policy, if I'm not legally allowed to even define it though?

And this is our struggle, we do spend a lot of time discussing what defines the word marriage and what doesn't. I would love to devote all of my extra time talking about all the things that relate to marriage.

There are a lot of great resources I would love to write about, but I'm afraid of dragging other individuals into this debate. For instance, I'm an avid reader of Dear Wendy and her relationship advice. This is what women (and men) talk about. Relationships, primarily marriage. Dealing with the reproductive parts, how to get pregnant or not is really just straight forward. Relationships on the other hand, that isn't.

There's really no chart or guideline on how to establish and create a relationship that can sustain the potential of having and raising children. I love how she helps out, it's not yea or nay, but rather asking the writer to figure out what she needs and the information to know does one invest in this relationship or 'MOA' (Move On Already!).

Now that being said, all sorts of relationships have importance in our lives we have friendships and other non-marital adult relationships that may benefit from discussing healthy relationships, but at what point does a relationship matter so much that public policy steps in? If public policy steps in, then why? And can we as a matter of public policy, realize people have a mom and a dad? Can we value the ideal they should have a united relationship with one another for the benefit of a child without being considered a hatemonger?

Why does it have to be so hard?

Poll Dancing With a Walker

Carol J. Williams had this piece in the Los Angeles Times to follow up on their touting of recent polls, so they could re-tout those polls and try to convince people, especially judges, they belong in museums if they think that marriage is about uniting a bride and a groom.

A series of recent polls suggesting a majority of Americans support the right of gays to marry may influence the outcome of the legal dispute over California's ban on same-sex marriages, some legal experts and gay rights advocates predict.

They hope. Gays have just as much right to marry as anybody else. So let's rewite that opening line:

A series of recent polls that that were nothing like this one are going to be used by marriage neutering advocates to try to unduly influence the courts.

In the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe vs. Wade opinion on abortion rights, late Justice Harry Blackmun is said by historians to have kept polling data in the case files and relied on it to help shape his decision, said Loyola Law School professor Douglas NeJaime, an expert on sexual orientation law.

So are we to believe Blackmun would now overturn his own decision? Somehow I doubt it. Actually, come to think of it, he probably now wishes he could.

"It's now unquestionable that the majority of the American people support the freedom to marry and that those who oppose respect for gay families and fairness under the law are in the minority," said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, campaigning for same-sex marriage rights across the country.

Of course the majority of Americans support the freedom to marry - marriage means uniting a bride and a groom. But notice his slight-of-hand here. He presents those who are not in favor of neutering marrige as opposing respect for gay families and fairness under the law. I respect gay people, their freedom of association, and prefer everyone engage in stable monogamy over other relationships and behaviors. I am thankful for same-sex couples who rescue children from orphanages and give them individual parental attention, albeit lacking a mother or a father, as a father or a mother is better than a government guardian. And the bride+groom requirement for state marriage licensing is fair. But what do we expect from someone who claims to fight for the "freedom to marry" but either ignores or ridicules concern over the lack of the freedom to polygamous marriage, given the fact of the historical and worlwide practice of polygamy, including in the USA?

Advocates with ProtectMarriage.com, which sponsored Proposition 8, dispute that the polls have any significance in their legal battle in defense of the gay marriage ban.

"Gay marriage ban"? Not so much. I can point this out as often as they print it.

"Different polls come to different results all the time on this issue, but when voters are given a chance to vote, they side with traditional marriage despite what the polls say," said Andrew Pugno, the attorney arguing on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, adding that the majority that matters is the 52% that voted for Proposition 8 in the November 2008 election.

Exactly. It's very simple, marriage neutering advocates. Persuade others that neutering marriage is a necessary thing to do, and then you'll be able to do it... either by direct votes in states that have that, or by electing lawmakers who will do it. All of this "but all the cool kids are doing it" is tiresome.

Chemerinsky and others said the polls may have some relevance if the matter goes to the high court.

"I think that Justice [Anthony M.] Kennedy wants very much to be on the right side of history, and an opinion poll like this could matter in his thinking of the issue."

You mean like Blackmun?

Some gay rights advocates have been pondering whether to ask voters to repeal Proposition 8 in next year's election, citing the encouraging shift in public opinion. But many prefer to let the litigation over Proposition 8 and other gay marriage restrictions make their way through the federal courts so the justices in Washington can make a definitive ruling that would settle the matter nationwide.

Just like Roe v. Wade settled the abortion issue nationwide, right?

Although opinion polls are supposedly going to encourage judges to neuter marriage, debates over the fact that Judge Walker could have personally benefitted from his insulting decision and that he didn't disclose that should not have any effect, according Maura Dolan's piece in the Los Angeles Times.

Rights Aren't Determined by Majority Vote

Way back on May 20 (or thereabouts), a Gallup poll result was released showing increased support for neutering marriage. I'm finally getting around to looking at a couple of the resulting articles. This one is from Reuters, written by Alex Dobuzinskis.

Fifty-three percent of Americans support making gay marriage legal, a Gallup poll showed on Friday, a marked reversal from just a year ago when an equal majority opposed same-sex matrimony.

Is that really how it was worded? Because "gay marriage" isn't illegal now. Nobody is arrested for getting "married" without a bride or without a groom. I would expect that most people would support this freedom of association – that people should be able to live with the person they want and have a ceremony.

The percentage of Republicans favoring same-sex matrimony held steady at 28 percent.

I'm thinking the writer doesn't know the meaning of the word "matrimony". Or maybe those Republicans only support two women raising children together.

Kingdom Animalia

Kingdom Animalia, as human beings, we're apart of it.

Mating Rivalry Among Furred and Feathered: Variety Is Spice of Life

Males also favour mate-guarding over traditional courtship rites during mate shortages -- bad news for females hoping to be wooed by multiple suitors.... Males are also more likely to stick around -- regardless of the level of interest from females -- when mates are scarce. "However, if females are abundant and encounters are frequent, males may abandon females who are not receptive to find one who is ready to mate," says Grant

Sort of explains how the hook up culture hurts women later on after college, when they want to marry.