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

I predicted this.

And now it begins.

With the passage of gay marriage in three states and the rejection of a constitutional amendment in Minnesota plus lots of polls showing that the majority of Americans now favor marriage equality, I knew it was only a matter of weeks before the "Let the states decide; let the people vote" crowd suddenly became born-again Federalist.

Today, however, Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) upped the ante.

He doesn't just want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, he wants the American populace to believe that gay marriage needs to be codified in the federal constitution, a rather smug idea considering such an amendment would never receive the vote of 2/3rds of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate and 3/4ths of the states. But that didn't stop Graham from trying.

GRAHAM: Can — can I suggest this? Slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. Go watch “Lincoln,” a great movie. The people decided. The question for us is who should decide these things? Should it be a handful of judges or should it be the people themselves? And I come out on the side of the people themselves. Different people will look at it differently. But slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. If you want to propose a Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage and it passes, that’s the law of the land.

There is so much dishonesty and disingenuity in his statement.

First, the idea that the federal constitution has to affirm something in order for it to be legal is ludicrous. We would have a million page constitution. Slavery, having not been abolished in the Constitution when it was ratified by the original 13 states, was perfectly legal as a matter of federal jurisprudence (although the states could impose their own limitations). It took an amendment to stop that God-awful practice.

Additionally, Graham needs to take a civics refresher course. Passing an amendment to the federal constitution is not up to "the people" to decide. There is no provision in the federal constitution for a popular vote in each state to decide to ratify an amendment to the federal constitution. The language is quite clear:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It is the individual legislatures of the states, not the people by ballot, who decide to ratify an amendment. Even a Constitutional Convention is not a popular vote scheme.

So, for years, all we have heard is that "the people" need to be heard. Now that four states have repudiated the attack on marriage equality, suddenly, we need to look to the federal constitution and the state legislatures - some of whom passed marriage equality bills only to have them overturned by the people at the ballot box - as the way to make sure those filthy homos don't have the freedom to marry.

Complete dishonesty from Graham.

Too bad just about no one is surprised by this.

I don't think Senator Graham himself understands why he's trying to compare slavery with gay marriage... or is he comparing abolishing slavery with allowing gay marriage? In one scenario, he's a raging hatemonger, in the other scenario, he's supporting gay marriage. It's so rare that you can draw such an easy binary on this, but I'm glad he did it for us this time.

GRAHAM: Can — can I suggest this? Slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. Go watch “Lincoln,” a great movie. The people decided. The question for us is who should decide these things? Should it be a handful of judges or should it be the people themselves? And I come out on the side of the people themselves. Different people will look at it differently. But slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. If you want to propose a Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage and it passes, that’s the law of the land.

Ummm... I think the honorable moron Mr. Graham may have missed a few pieces of the movie and history as a whole. Did he really try to use the civil war as an example of trusting the population with equal rights issues (because clearly that worked so well in the south during that time period... not to mention oh I dunno, the next century of institutionalized discrimination)?

And is he really using Lincoln as a support for further discrimination on a different group of people?

Wow... that... that is staggering right there. My mind is trying to work through the plot holes in his statement to even ragequit. Wow. Just... good lord.

Also, yeah, states are failing to keep the gays from marrying, time to rethink the strategy that they were so for before.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I don't think Senator Graham himself understands why he's trying to compare slavery with gay marriage.

I think it is possible Sen. Graham was making a comment about the nature of his own marriage.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Too bad just about no one is surprised by this.

I'm not surprised either, but still disappointed and frustrated by the constant and blatant hypocrisy.

Paleocon wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I don't think Senator Graham himself understands why he's trying to compare slavery with gay marriage.

I think it is possible Sen. Graham was making a comment about the nature of his own marriage.

Heyooooooooooo!

Farscry wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Too bad just about no one is surprised by this.

I'm not surprised either, but still disappointed and frustrated by the constant and blatant hypocrisy.

Disappointed, irritated to see other nations beat us to the punch on recognizing this as a simple civil rights issue that, yes, people may object to on a variety of reasons (religious, social... even though they're wrong there, etc...) but that doesn't change the fact that legal discrimination against them is still discrimination, even if you think you're doing it for the best of reasons.

As the United States embraces marriage equality faster and faster, you will hear the vitriol from the anti-gay people get more heated and outrageous as they become absolutely desperate to try and stem the tide of gay marriage becoming reality.

For instance, I give you Linda Harvey, an anti-gay activist who doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians:

Why should the equal protection argument be made in favor of homosexual behavior, which is changeable? People are not naturally homosexual, so the definition of "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment is being twisted to make this assumption.

"Person" should be understood based on historic, beneficial, or at least neutral and fact-based traits; it should not be twisted to incorporate behavior that most religions and most cultures have said a firm "no" to.

It's also behavior for which there's no recognized science demonstrating a genetic or hormonal origin. And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

This should still have some standing and it remains a fact that there are only two types of human in the world: male and female. Any other distinctions made are appearance, custom, and construction. So marriage is the lawful, orderly confirmation of what we already see in nature.

The Supreme Court says they will give their decision in June. Pray, friends, for truth to prevail.

No word on when Harvey will address the issue of Christian personhood under the 14th Amendment. After all this is just as valid as her argument:

Why should the equal protection argument be made in favor of Christian behavior, which is changeable? People are not naturally Christian, so the definition of "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment is being twisted to make this assumption.

I would literally pay $250.00 to drink her tears when SCOTUS rules against her.

....

That makes me a bad person, doesn't it.

Phoenix Rev, you've just uncovered our magic bullet. Homosexualism. Our Religion. If we get all of the gays to join, we could put up numbers that would challenge even the Mormons, percentage-wise.

NSMike wrote:

Phoenix Rev, you've just uncovered our magic bullet. Homosexualism. Our Religion. If we get all of the gays to join, we could put up numbers that would challenge even the Mormons, percentage-wise.

The infrastructure is already in place - high holy days, parades, accepted vestments of prayer, religious icons, and hymnals.

Oh, and the GOP secretly added another $500,000 to the fund to defend DOMA in the courts.

It has come to light that House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) secretly approved a $500,000 increase to a contract with a private law firm to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. While the increase was approved in September, neither the public nor the Democratic House minority was informed until this week, Roll Call reports.

The contract now authorizes Bancroft PLLC and former Solicitor General Paul Clement (R) to spend up to $2 million in to defend DOMA — the second increase to what was originally a $1 million cap.

Apparently, we need to slash federal spending except when it comes to stopping those filthy homos from getting married.

So says Speaker Boehner:

At a Thursday press conference — ironically focusing on his view that “Washington has a spending problem” — House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the expenditures. The Ohio Republican angrily responded that if the Department of Justice won’t defend the law of the land, Congress will.

Your tax dollars at work!

Phoenix Rev wrote:

So says Speaker Boehner:

At a Thursday press conference — ironically focusing on his view that “Washington has a spending problem” — House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the expenditures. The Ohio Republican angrily responded that if the Department of Justice won’t defend the law of the land, Congress will.

Your tax dollars at work!

There's a reason I make a point of mispronouncing his name in the most childish way possible.

Oh, don't worry, that's not an actual spending increase, since apparently the funds were raided from the DoJ's salary budget. That's the line of defense, anyway.

Those salaries, I'm certain, will not have to be recouped somehow else, actually ending up in a real spending increase. Nope.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

For instance, I give you Linda Harvey, an anti-gay activist who doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians:

And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

So if that's the definition of marriage used for millennia, can someone tell me for how long that's been the definition of "consummate"?

Bloo Driver wrote:

Oh, don't worry, that's not an actual spending increase, since apparently the funds were raided from the DoJ's salary budget. That's the line of defense, anyway.

Those salaries, I'm certain, will not have to be recouped somehow else, actually ending up in a real spending increase. Nope.

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

Nevin73 wrote:

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

DUDES BANGING IS A CRIME, COMMUNIST.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

DUDES BANGING IS A CRIME, COMMUNIST.

If dude banging is a crime, THEN LET ME BE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

DUDES BANGING IS A CRIME, COMMUNIST.

If dude banging is a crime, THEN LET ME BE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!

I think that ship has sailed.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

I think that ship has sailed. ;)

You just had to bring up seamen... guilty by association!

Rezzy wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:

I think that ship has sailed. ;)

You just had to bring up seamen... guilty by association!

RNG? Association.. umm...

Phoenix Rev wrote:

If dude banging is a crime, THEN LET ME BE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!

This is so sig-able.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Uh, so they'd rather pay lawyers to defend DOMA than to actually prosecute crime? Unbelievable.

DUDES BANGING IS A CRIME, COMMUNIST.

If dude banging is a crime, THEN LET ME BE GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!

I think that ship has sailed. ;)

Quite. *grin*

January 1st is World Peace Day.

And what would World Peace Day be without a missive from the Bishop of Rome to let us know about peace and justice?

Probably better, considering this little gem in the middle of his letter to those seeking peace and justice:

There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union; such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society.

These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity. The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation. Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace.

Perhaps I was asleep that day in Justice and Peace Studies in seminary, but I am fairly confident that there is absolutely not one scintilla of evidence that my marriage to Rubb Ed brings serious harm to justice or peace. In fact, I would claim that it actually promotes justice and peace.

But I have to give the pontiff credit for his statement.

After all, who better to lecture us on justice and peace than someone who aided and abetted one of the largest pedophile protection rackets in history?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

For instance, I give you Linda Harvey, an anti-gay activist who doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians:

And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

So if that's the definition of marriage used for millennia, can someone tell me for how long that's been the definition of "consummate"?

According to Catholic canon law, consummation is an act suitable to produce offspring. Given her background I am pretty certain that is where she would be getting her definition. And it's no use arguing about it with her - Since it's written in canon law, no other interpretations or definitions would be allowable, basically.

imbiginjapan wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

For instance, I give you Linda Harvey, an anti-gay activist who doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies to gays and lesbians:

And it's also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millenia - that is, the act of consummation. It's another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.

So if that's the definition of marriage used for millennia, can someone tell me for how long that's been the definition of "consummate"?

According to Catholic canon law, consummation is an act suitable to produce offspring. Given her background I am pretty certain that is where she would be getting her definition. And it's no use arguing about it with her - Since it's written in canon law, no other interpretations or definitions would be allowable, basically.

Nice find!

So... those guys who bone a bridesmaid before the reception (i.e. before he and his new wife can consumate their marriage) are in the clear?

More seriously... what about a couple who is physically incapable of having kids. Their intimate act is one that doesn't lead to having children. Are they also incapable of consumating their marriage?

Demosthenes wrote:

So... those guys who bone a bridesmaid before the reception (i.e. before he and his new wife can consumate their marriage) are in the clear?

More seriously... what about a couple who is physically incapable of having kids. Their intimate act is one that doesn't lead to having children. Are they also incapable of consumating their marriage?

Following up on imbiginjapan's post, I learned that while infertility is not a bar to consummation, impotence is. So that kinda sucks if you got your junk blown off in Iraq by an IED before you got married and had the chance for P-in-the-V sex.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

So... those guys who bone a bridesmaid before the reception (i.e. before he and his new wife can consumate their marriage) are in the clear?

More seriously... what about a couple who is physically incapable of having kids. Their intimate act is one that doesn't lead to having children. Are they also incapable of consumating their marriage?

Following up on imbiginjapan's post, I learned that while infertility is not a bar to consummation, impotence is. So that kinda sucks if you got your junk blown off in Iraq by an IED before you got married and had the chance for P-in-the-V sex.

Back in the 1980s, a Catholic couple in England were prohibited by the their parish priest from getting married in the Church because the husband was a paraplegic and could not consummate the marriage. They appealed to the Bishop who also denied them the right to marry in the church. They ultimately appealed to the Vatican who went to great lengths to "educate" the couple about the importance of consummation but they finally granted their appeal and let the couple marry in the Church.

A similar incident happened in Brazil in the mid-90s and was the focus of a film made for the Sundance channel entitled "Forbidden Wedding." (In that case, the Vatican did not grant the appeal.)

BTW, here is the canonical citations on it:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

After all, who better to lecture us on justice and peace than someone who aided and abetted one of the largest pedophile protection rackets in history?

Of course he did - that would be bad publicity, and the church is all about the bottom line, really. Hence the family resemblance below:
IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/0b3bf71b75c2f0f6fc214fe89ed3c7d2/tumblr_mf5baqTnj01rpw5gqo1_500.jpg)

The pope is Benedict Shimerman?