...its blatant unconstitutionality becomes so apparent that it trumps the bigotry and prejudice that we rationalize as acceptable mores and folkways.And:
On Tuesday in Harrisburg, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican, ruled the commonwealth's laws banning same-sex marriage violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and permanently enjoined their enforcement. “(T)hat same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional,” wrote Judge Jones. “Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection.”And here's what the editorial board of the Post-Gazette had to say:
Astutely, the Corbett administration will not appeal.
Yes, there comes a time. And that time has come in Pennsylvania and the nation.
Americans who were told that gay marriage would subvert traditional marriage have seen for themselves that this isn’t true. They have seen the unfairness of fellow citizens living ordinary lives refused the fundamental right to marry because they happen to be gay. In language both eloquent and practical, Judge Jones concisely sums up why Pennsylvania’s law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.And:
Some will resent that it was a judge, not the Legislature, who caused this momentous change. But fundamental rights are not for a majority to veto.I am guessing they'd both agree with how the P-G tied up it's editorial, namely that "history is now on the side of those whose definition of freedom is inclusive of all Americans."
Same-sex couples across Pennsylvania could begin tying the knot on Friday or Saturday under a landmark federal court decision in Harrisburg that had some people celebrating and others crying foul.Daryl Metcalfe defined the problem a few paragraphs later:
An order on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III overturned the state's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, positioning Pennsylvania to become the 19th state in which same-sex couples can marry legally. Jones declared the 1996 act a discriminatory violation of the Constitution that belongs in “the ash heap of history.”
“We now join the 12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage,” Jones wrote in a 39-page opinion.
“We're not going to stand by silently while an activist judge tries to strike down an institution that has been preserved throughout history,” said state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry. He introduced an earlier impeachment resolution against [Attorney General Kathleen] Kane, who refused to defend the marriage law.Here's the decision if y'inz wanna read it.
...highly qualified to assume the important role of Judge and the duty of protecting the Constitution and ensuring the effective operation of our judicial system.But Rick had more to say about Judge Jones (h/t to the Washington Blade). Take a look:
Santorum said he was excited about Jones' federal judgeship because Jones "understands our values and traditions."But did you see the date on the endorsement? March 1, 2002. That means that it was during George W. Bush's first administration. He was also confirmed unanimously by the Senate. That means that every Republican member of the United States Senate in 2002 voted for the guy.
Now that one county in Pennsylvania will issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, the question is who will marry those folks?In discussing Mayors Fetterman and Forgie, Mike Pintek presented his own views (which are shockingly close to mine). Basically, he said that:
It turns out that there’s one mayor right here in this region who would be happy to do the honors.
“The government has no place in deciding who you can love as a person, and I would just welcome the chance of performing a same-sex ceremony,” Braddock Mayor John Fetterman told KDKA political editor Jon Delano on Friday.
Fetterman says some rights trump the law.
“Whether that’s civil disobedience, or breaking the law, it’s doing the right thing,” adds Fetterman.
A member of FreedomToMarry.Org, Mayor Adam Forgie of Turtle Creek supports same-sex marriage, but he won’t marry gay couples yet.
Forbes contributor Jerry Bowyer relied on shoddy logic and baseless assertions to attempt to debunk the well-supported claim that marriage equality has a variety of economic benefits.It's a silly argument Jerry's making but I'll let this commenter sum things up:
In his July 4 blog post - touted by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) - Bowyer claimed that the Supreme Court's recent marriage equality decisions would hurt businesses by adding to "paperwork" for same-sex couples.
Yeah, because excess paperwork is always an awesome reason to deny people their civil rights.Awesome.
The times they have a-changed. Witness two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings issued Wednesday regarding same-sex marriage.It's about fucking time.
In one 5-4 ruling, the high court said a provision of 1996's federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “is unconstitutional as deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment,” which guarantees equal protection of the laws.
“The avowed purpose and practical effect of (DOMA) are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, wrote for a majority joined by the court's liberals.
In a second 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by an odd union of conservatives and liberals, the court held that the private party that stepped in to defend California's gay marriage ban lacked standing. Thus, gay marriage once again is legal in The Golden State.
We agree with the Supreme Court's rulings. For, and particular to the DOMA case, those married in the 12 states (and District of Columbia) that recognize same-sex marriage no longer can be discriminated against for a host of federal benefits, privileges and rights enjoyed by heterosexual marrieds.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day to release opinions on two landmark cases (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor) that, should the court overstep its authority, threaten great violence to the age-old institution of marriage – society’s fundamental cornerstone.Ah, so there's a statement, now. We'll touch on it later. Back to teh crazies at WND:
Also at stake is the high court’s already fragile legitimacy.
Lest there be any doubt as to where the Bible-believing Christian community stands, scores of Christian leaders and clergy – Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike – have released a statement in anticipation of these rulings entitled: “We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them.” I was honored to have my name included among the list of signatories that, collectively, represent tens of millions of Christians.
The central reality behind the statement is this: Marriage is what marriage is, has always been and always will be. Marriage predates civil government. Mankind can no more transmute marriage to something it is not than can we reverse the earth’s rotation or gravitational pull. Despite an evidently contagious delusion to the contrary, not even the United States Supreme Court is capable of overruling the laws of moral and biological physics. Any attempt to do so is illegitimate. It’s moral alchemy. [Emphasis added.]But by this same argument, slavery predates civil government as well. And it's encouraged in The Bible - both the Old Testament :
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Deut 20:10-15) [Emphasis added.]And the New:
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Colossians 3:22-24) [Emphases added.]So I guess it was also moral alchemy when this nation declared:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Allowed in The Bible and yet banned by the The Constitution. Huh.
We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society; the first church, first school, first hospital, first economy, first government and first mediatin g institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.So this "Natural Moral Law" is the final say. Funny how the Constitution disagrees:
Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman was not an idea manufactured by the Christian Church. It precedes Christianity. Though affirmed, fulfilled , and elevated by Christian teaching, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Moral Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason.
This claim of the existence of such a Natural Moral Law is the ground upon which every great civilization has been built. It is the source of every authentic human and civil rights movement. This Natural Moral Law gives us th e norms we need to build truly human and humane societies and govern ourselves. It should also inform our positive law or we will become lawless and devolve into anarchy.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.So if the Supreme Court is to decide on the Constitutionality of those laws, "Natural Moral Law" (whatever that is) has no authority over and above the Constitution.
He is also the director of publications at the Cato Institute and a member of Log Cabin Republicans.I was endnoted by a Log Cabin Republican/Cato Institute sort of guy??
Gary Van Horn: Today I think it's been a roller coaster, up and down...Then comes the other half of the frame:
Mike Clark: Gary Van Horn has been keeping a close eye on what's happening in DC. The President of Pittsburgh's Delta Foundation, encouraged by polls showing the majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex couples getting married.
GVH: 57% of people say they have a relative or close friend that's gay. So the country's really changing. People's hearts and minds are changing. It's a very emotional moment.
MC: Opponents, though, say it's not about emotion, it's about faith.It's interesting to see how each side appeals to authority in supporting his argument. Van Horn appeals to the collected opinion as shown in some recent polls. LaPietra, on the other hand, would have none of that. His authority is The authority - "all mighty God." Popular opinion in a democracy doesn't matter. Rule of Law doesn't matter. The Constitution doesn't matter. All that matters is how God has defined an institution.
Reverend Gary LaPietra: We have no right to tamper with what God has already said.
MC: Reverend Gary LaPietra says God makes the law, not man.
GLP: Doesn't matter what my opinion is, the president's opinion, the Supreme Court's opinion. We have the Supreme Allmighty God who has spoken in the matter. He has defined marriage and God forbid that we change it.
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.But let's get back to TAE:
23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters,
24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Colossians 3:22-24)
MC:La Pietra says this is a moral issue, though. A matter of right and wrong, not in the hands of Justices.Wait. So if the Word of God is immutable and if Paul's letter to the Colossians allows for slavery, then something like this:
GLP: I believe that there is an absolute good, and that good is God. And that final authority is what he says in his word. That word is immutable, cannot be changed and will not be changed, no matter what laws are written by men.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Must also be against the Word of God, right? I mean it's a moral issue, right? An "absolute good" that cannot be changed "no matter what laws are written by men", right?
On March 26th & 27th, The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Join with us in Pittsburgh to support the repeal of this unconstitutional legislation. Support marriage equality!Light the Way to Justice Vigil
Government impermissibly interferes in private lives by telling Americans whom they can marry. The high court must weigh in on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention the right to be let alone — by making marriage an institution in which all can participate fully. [Emphasis added.]You just won't believe it.
Americans who value individual liberty, limited government and the right to contract freely must hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to take up two gay-marriage cases, will rule that they can marry whomever they please.Hear Hear! To my friends on the braintrust, I offer my sincerest congratulations. You got this one absolutely right.
Presenting the better opportunity for — but no guarantee of — such a sweeping ruling is an appeal of lower courts‘ rulings that California‘s voter-approved Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional. The other case, involving a widow whose $363,000 federal estate-tax bill would have been $0 had she married a man, not a woman, concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act denying legally married gay couples benefits that straight spouses get.
Banning gay marriage — which polls suggest most Americans support and which is legal or soon will be in nine states — violates the Constitution‘s equal-protection and due-process clauses as egregiously as did slavery or interracial-marriage bans. So does penalizing gay spouses.
And with UCLA‘s Williams Institute saying just 4 percent of Americans, not Alfred Kinsey‘s 10 percent, are gay, claims about gay marriage — a minor societal factor overall — harming heterosexual marriage ring hollow.
Government impermissibly interferes in private lives by telling Americans whom they can marry. The high court must weigh in on the side of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention the right to be let alone — by making marriage an institution in which all can participate fully.
Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state.And then uses that to assert that a community has the right to ban a mosque's construction in that community.
CW: Here's what you said in the New Hampshire Debate, let's put it up.She then says that the issue will end up in the courts but she doesn't want judges who'll legislate from the bench.
MB [at the debate]:I do support a Constitutional Amendment on...between a man and a woman but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.
CW: That's why I'm confused. If you support state rights, why do you also support a constitutional amendment that would prevent any state from recognizing same sex marriage?
MB: That's entirely consistent. The States have, under the 10th Amendment, the right to pass any law they like. Also federal officials, at the federal level, have the right to also put forth a constitutional amendment.
CW: Do you want, say, it's a state issue and the states should be able to decide or would you like to see a constitutional amendment so that it's banned everywhere?And she answers:
MB: It is, it is...both. It's important for your viewers to know that Federal law will trump state law.And then after a lot of nothing from Bachmann, Wallace almost nails the jello to the wall at about 3:44:
CW: So briefly, you would support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the New York state law.As Jonathan Capehart points out:
MB: Yes, I would. I would. That is not inconsistent because the states have the right under the 10th Amendment to do what they'd like to do but the federal government also has the right to pass a federal constitutional amendment.
So, Bachmann is fine with what New York did. That’s what states do, thanks to the 10th Amendment. They’re allowed to determine their own laws without interference from Washington. But in the next breath, Bachmann is also in favor of the federal government trumping a state law legalizing same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman through a constitutional amendment.And you thought her John Wayne Gacy stuff was funny.
That didn’t make sense when Bachmann first made this argument at the New Hampshire debate two weeks ago. And it made no sense yesterday. You can be for a state’s right to determine the definition of marriage. You can be for an amendment banning same-sex marriage by etching discrimination into this nation’s founding document. But you can’t be both.
You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing. I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.Thanks to everyone who did the right thing!
