The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

And, of course, today's DOMA hearing also gave us a peek into the good citizens of Crazytown.

First up, the grand cleric of Crazytown, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. wades into the fray with this lovely bit of nonsense:

God has given us a blueprint for how to have success in the earthly realm. He’s given us an architectural plan of how to heal the barren places in urban America. He says that marriage between a man and a woman will heal the desert places in urban America. Ghettos will be revitalized if one man, one woman families are the order of the day. When a man and a woman are in the house, poverty is lessened. When a man and a woman are in the house, kids don’t go to prison. When a man and a woman are in the house, there’s less domestic violence. When a man and a woman are in the house, sexual abuse does not happen.

Which, of course, is why every state in the union puts husbands in jail for raping their wives.

Here's the video:

Next up is chief homophobe Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who can't wait to compare gay marriage to polygamous marriage:

As you set up this package interview, people ought to be able to marry who they love. If love becomes a definition of what the boundaries of marriage are, how do we define that going forward? What if someone wants to immigrate to this country from a country that allows multiple spouses? Right now they can’t immigrate with the spouses, but if the parameter are simply love, how do we prohibit them from coming into this country? If it’s all about just love, as it’s being used, where do we set the lines?

Here's the video:

Of course, gay marriage is different because it is a slippery slope. And, of course, that is why it is so dangerous. It's not like interracial marriage because no one equated interracial marriage with polygamy and said it was a slippery slope.

Well, except R.D. McIlwaine III, an Assistant Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

----------

Then, there is the great matriarch of Crazytown, Jennifer Robach Morse, the head of the NOM's Ruth Institute:

Eventually, young people are going to see that redefining marriage sets aside the interests of children for the convenience of adults. Now in the unhappy event that the Court should redefine marriage, which we pray that they will not — we pray that they will allow us to continue this nationwide conversation and discussion that we desperately need to have. But if they do redefine marriage, 40 years from the young people of that generation will have one simply question for our generation, “What were you thinking?”

They’re going to say, “Dad, you and your partner are lovely guys, I love you Dad, but did you really think I would never need a mom? What were you thinking?” “Mom, I know you love me, you and your partner are nice ladies, but the biological connection that was so important to you — did you think it would never be important to me? What were you thinking? What were you thinking?” That’s what they’re going to ask us.

Here's the video:

No, Jennifer. What those kids - and their friends - are going to say is, "You mean there were people who said that you and Dad couldn't get married? You're kidding right? That's insane!"

Yes.

Yes it is.

I was going to type up a nice long response, but I can't stop shaking my head at the supidity... No sexual abuse in a house in which a man and a woman live? Preconceived notions about future generations' opinion? Monogamous and polygamous relationships in the same basket?
*SIGH*

Phoenix Rev wrote:

First up, the grand cleric of Crazytown, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. wades into the fray with this lovely bit of nonsense:

When a man and a woman are in the house, sexual abuse does not happen.

I've worked with the abused. This quote sends me into...uh...how you say...a blinding fury of existence-rending proportion? Serious, I'd unthinkingly and critically damage the toes of anyone who said such a thing in my presence.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Next up is chief homophobe Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who can't wait to compare gay marriage to polygamous marriage

Um. Polygamous marriage is sanctioned in the Bible. Hmm.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Today was the DOMA case, and things looked much better for gays and lesbians today than yesterday.

First up was Vicki Jackson, who was appointed by the Court to address the issue of jurisdiction and suitability of the case, especially since the U.S. government originally was defending DOMA and then decided not to. She says right up front that the case shouldn’t even be being heard. Sotomayor asks if they don’t take the case, then what happens to Edith Windsor, the plaintiff. Jackson says another plaintiff can start from the beginning and sue.

Scalia wonders how if the plaintiff doesn’t have standing now, how could she have standing in the original trial court and then proceeds to wonder why the original trial court didn’t just summarily rule against the government when the Obama administration said they would no longer defend DOMA.

Alito wonders if there is a legitimate case for the President saying that he thinks the law is unconstitutional, but will continue to follow the law until the courts decide.

For some reason, that bothers the justices. I don’t see why. Why can’t a president or governor or even a legislature decide to take a different position than they had before? It seems the SCOTUS is two-faced in this: they want society to evolve, but when it does, especially if it is represented by someone, then that’s a problem.

I do not buy this at the state level as much as the Federal. However, this would essentially grant the president a second veto power. There is also a strong argument for not carrying out the oath to uphold the laws of the United States. And what happens in 10, 20 years from now when a sitting president declines to defend the Civil Right's Act, or the Affordable Care Act? The Attorney General makes no appearance, and a default judgment is rendered against the nation? That is a scary precedent to set.

At the state level, there is not the strict separation of powers that the US Constitution has, so the state legislators can enact additional requirements for the executive or the judiciary. What irks me at the Prop 8 front is that no federal judge seemed to consult California's courts on whether a private citizen has standing to take up defending a state law.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

First up, the grand cleric of Crazytown, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. wades into the fray with this lovely bit of nonsense:

When a man and a woman are in the house, sexual abuse does not happen.

I've worked with the abused. This quote sends me into...uh...how you say...a blinding fury of existence-rending proportion? Serious, I'd unthinkingly and critically damage the toes of anyone who said such a thing in my presence.

Funny...my adopted son was abused and neglected in a house with a man and a woman. There must have been gay neighbors or something.

Nevin73 wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

First up, the grand cleric of Crazytown, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. wades into the fray with this lovely bit of nonsense:

When a man and a woman are in the house, sexual abuse does not happen.

I've worked with the abused. This quote sends me into...uh...how you say...a blinding fury of existence-rending proportion? Serious, I'd unthinkingly and critically damage the toes of anyone who said such a thing in my presence.

Funny...my adopted son was abused and neglected in a house with a man and a woman. There must have been gay neighbors or something.

The gaydiation leaked into his household, causing the abusive mindset of the parents. It's science.

Sri Srinivasan for the U.S. government steps up and states the Court has jurisdiction. Roberts goes on offense within 15 seconds and asks how this issue isn’t unprecedented, that the SCOTUS is being asked to take on an appeal where both the plaintiff and the defendant both agree that the law is unconstitutional. He says this isn’t just rare, but “unprecedented.”

Dear Mr. Chief Justice, there is a first time for everything.

I think Roberts is right. It's unprecedented and it highlights the reality. A vocal minority of angry bigots have hijacked this issue. Under saner circumstances Congress would just pass a bill to repeal it and that would be that. But they're so afraid of the politics of the issue and that vocal minority that now the government is wasting money letting the SCOTUS do Congress' job.

Now, of course, there is something to be said for the value of precedents being set, etc. but I think he's right. Gutless Congress could end this tomorrow.

DSGamer wrote:

I think Roberts is right. It's unprecedented and it highlights the reality. A vocal minority of angry bigots have hijacked this issue. Under saner circumstances Congress would just pass a bill to repeal it and that would be that. But they're so afraid of the politics of the issue and that vocal minority that now the government is wasting money letting the SCOTUS do Congress' job.

I think this is right on money.

Roberts then says he wonders why Obama just doesn’t go with the courage of his convictions and stop enforcing DOMA instead of waiting for the courts to figure it out.

...

Scalia jumps in and says that when he was in the Office of Legal Counsel, the only time they would not defend a law is if it involved presidential powers or there was simply no argument to make to defend the law and says that neither of those exist here. He then says he doesn’t want to deal with cases like that and complains that the government should either defend the law or stop enforcing it.

What a disingenuous set up. If Obama didn’t enforce the law, someone would sue and this would be right back at the Court and I am willing to wager a month’s pay that Scalia would be whining about how the President isn’t following the law until it is declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Ugh. What's to then stop the next president from enforcing it?

And whether enforced or not, the law itself is still a barrier to Full Faith and Credit recognition by states.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I think Roberts is right. It's unprecedented and it highlights the reality. A vocal minority of angry bigots have hijacked this issue. Under saner circumstances Congress would just pass a bill to repeal it and that would be that. But they're so afraid of the politics of the issue and that vocal minority that now the government is wasting money letting the SCOTUS do Congress' job.

I think this is right on money.

Unless you understand the House of Representatives, with their greater numbers, more frequent elections, and James Madison's own records to exist exactly to be the voice of minorities in congress. Otherwise what is the point of carving the states into districts and giving them representation in the first place? We could very easily have a single legislative body. The delegates from Virginia were very keen on that; just as they were about limited executive and judicial power. Massachusetts, the other big down in the fight has a bicameral legislature of , almost exactly like the federal system.

It is incredibly odd to me that in this debate it is both opposing sides making the same 2 headed arguments. For Prop 8 once side is stating that popular democracy put this law in place, when representative democracy and republicanism struck it down. For DOMA, we are saying that support is more and more popular, many states are democratically granting equal rights, and it is the representative government standing in the way. But then again, I have a heightened sense of cognitive dissonance.

KingGorilla wrote:

It is incredibly odd to me that in this debate it is both opposing sides making the same 2 headed arguments. For Prop 8 once side is stating that popular democracy put this law in place, when representative democracy and republicanism struck it down. For DOMA, we are saying that support is more and more popular, many states are democratically granting equal rights, and it is the representative government standing in the way. But then again, I have a heightened sense of cognitive dissonance.

I see what you're saying, and I think the dissonance-free explanation is that popular democracy is to be trusted far more in the case of granting equal rights than when it makes a distinction between classes of people--especially classes like "which gender of consenting adult are you in a mutually agreed upon relationship with"--and restricts rights based on those classes.

When did Michelle Shocked go off the f*cking deep end?

Matt Besser did an awesome send up of her rant on his podcast, Improv for Humans.

OG_slinger wrote:

When did Michelle Shocked go off the f*cking deep end?

Surprisingly a while ago: I know--I had the same "WTF?BBQ!" reaction as you to her rant.

That was quick!

Dr. Ben Carson, the man who decided to give Pres. Obama the "what for" during the recent National Prayer Breakfast, was seen as a possible rising star within the GOP and beyond.

Well, until he appeared on "Hannity" and revealed he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about:

HANNITY: All right, last question, we have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. I've asked you a lot of questions. I've never asked you that, what are your thoughts?

CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

Gays. Just like pedophiles and people who have sex with animals.

And thus ended the very brief presidential aspirations of one Dr. Ben Carson.

Good riddance.

Oh man, I was hoping it wasn't the same Ben Carson who wrote Gifted Hands that inspired me in high school when I was studying to be in medicine. But sadly, there goes another person I had admired. That was required reading for us in high school.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

That was quick!

Dr. Ben Carson, the man who decided to give Pres. Obama the "what for" during the recent National Prayer Breakfast, was seen as a possible rising star within the GOP and beyond.

Well, until he appeared on "Hannity" and revealed he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about:

HANNITY: All right, last question, we have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. I've asked you a lot of questions. I've never asked you that, what are your thoughts?

CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

Gays. Just like pedophiles and people who have sex with animals.

And thus ended the very brief presidential aspirations of one Dr. Ben Carson.

Good riddance.

You have a lot more faith in the general public than I do. This won't hurt him except with people who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

billt721 wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

That was quick!

Dr. Ben Carson, the man who decided to give Pres. Obama the "what for" during the recent National Prayer Breakfast, was seen as a possible rising star within the GOP and beyond.

Well, until he appeared on "Hannity" and revealed he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about:

HANNITY: All right, last question, we have the issue of the Supreme Court dealing with two issues involving gay marriage. I've asked you a lot of questions. I've never asked you that, what are your thoughts?

CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.

Gays. Just like pedophiles and people who have sex with animals.

And thus ended the very brief presidential aspirations of one Dr. Ben Carson.

Good riddance.

You have a lot more faith in the general public than I do. This won't hurt him except with people who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

I m not so sure, the venn diagram of people who live in the bible belt and those that really, really like their goats has a bit of overlap.

Dr. Carson is Seventh-Day Adventist. He would have the same issues in a presidential run as Romney did.

http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-li...

Rush Limbaugh has admitted that they lost on gay marriage. It's over. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court does they've lost.

It felt good listening to it.

Dr. Carson tries to "clarify" his remarks.

He actually doesn't.

CARSON: As a Christian, I have a duty to love all people — and that includes people who have other sexual orientations — and I certainly do, and never had any intention of offending anyone. What I was basically saying — and if anyone was offended I apologize to you — but what I was basically saying is there is no group…I wasn’t equating those things, I don’t think they are equal. If you asked me for an apple and I gave you an orange, you would say ‘well that’s not an orange.’ And then I’d say well there’s a banana…’that’s not an apple either.’ And there’s a peach…’that’s not an apple either.’ But it doesn’t mean that I’m equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way, I’m not equating those things.

Dear Dr. Carson,

JUST. STOP. IT.

What if he took the orange, banana, and peach and placed them in a nice basket with a ribbon and a card though?

LouZiffer wrote:

What if he took the orange, banana, and peach and placed them in a nice basket with a ribbon and a card though?

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/Fruits_zps8e835233.png)

If you asked me for an apple and I gave you an orange, you would say ‘well that’s not an orange.’

Dr Carson: ...why would I say that's not an orange if you handed me an orange? You failed your own metaphor within the first sentence. Then you rolled like five natural 1 skill checks in a row on bluff and diplomacy. At this point, you basically fell on your own sword and then tripped and fell off a cliff two miles away.

IMAGE(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/gay_marriage/gay_marriage.png)

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Dear Dr. Carson,

JUST. STOP. IT.

And this is why people should read prepared statements when they're trying to clarify their position. Though as a neurosurgeon I suppose no one should expect him to have any communication skills whatsoever.

Someone did a rather brilliant job of truncating the transcript of the DOMA case for those who don't want to wade into the 87 pages of the actual thing.

Here's the link.

Here's a sample:

SCALIA: I’m going to ask you a ridiculous question: When did it become unconstitutional to discriminate against gays and lesbians?

OLSON: It would be bad form at this juncture to say, “F*** you, Scalia, you just want to grandstand,” so I’m just going to say it’s a nonsensical question.

SCALIA: I’m a nonsensical person. Answer the question.

Hee!

That summary is pure gold.

KAGAN: So a state could pass a law refusing to recognize a marriage between people who are both over 55?

COOPER: No, because they could procreate!

KAGAN: I have checked with my girl parts, and they assure me this is not possible.

Jeez. Olsen's contention that society's interest in keeping marriage straight was to stop old men from porking younger women was particularly entertaining even without the translation.

Just a small correction, Paleo. That was Cooper's contention, not Olsen's.