Not Even Wrong

On Friday morning instead of work (shh), I read this article that was linked to SCOTUSblog:

Correcting Six Mistakes from the Same-Sex Marriage Oral Arguments Last Week by  James Phillips at the Witherspoon Institute.

I thought it was going to be interesting and soon discovered that it was in fact interesting, but for the wrong reasons.

To get the discussion going in the right direction I want to lay out some terms. Before I dissect this article, I want to quote Black's Law Dictionary on marriage: "The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting marriage, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law."


Section 1. "Error Number One: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same"

Alright, let's do this. Whatcha got:

"During the questioning of Michigan’s attorney, John Bursch, Justice Sotomayor commented that 'In Massachusetts, we’ve got data that it’s—the rates have remained constant since they changed their laws...' Justice Sotomayor is only correct if Massachusetts includes same-sex marriages in that number."

Sorry that's not an error. What she said was factual.

"The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage, and they likewise have seen declines: Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent)."

Over the same period of time based on CDC figures the average change in marriage rate for states that did not allow same-sex marriage is -13.07 percent. Even assuming all of these numbers are correct, the declining marriage rate is still slower in the pro-gay states. Has same-sex marriage led to the appreciation of marriage among heterosexuals? No, there is no mechanism for this to occur. If you want to understand long term marriage trends look to anthropology and economics for the answer.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that at least your first point should be valid, particularly when you are calling people out for being "wrong."


Section 2. "Error Number Two: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around"

True, Justice Sotomayor makes a logical fallacy; however a logical fallacy does not make an assertion incorrect. For example the non-sequitur statement "if there are 2 apples and 2 oranges, and ass-fucking is fun, then there are 4 pieces of fruit" does not discount the truth of 2+2=4.

My point being prove the correlation or shut the fuck up.It doesn't matter that Justice Sotomayor made a logical fallacy, since the base statement wasn't proven to begin with.

Further, this section is pointless as it has little bearing on anything. It would possibly have meaning if the first section were correct, because if same-sex marriage caused a decrease in straight marriage, and marriage "keeps fathers around"... I would dig up some facts to find out the truth of the assertion made by Michigan, but it is absolutely pointless. So, I'm moving on.


Section 3."Error Number Three: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples"

I actually agree with this entire section:

"Justice Kennedy expressed surprise when Mr. Bursch argued that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity. Justice Kennedy responded: 'I don’t understand this is not dignity bestowing. I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage. It’s dignity bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that—that same ennoblement. Or am I missing your point?'Yes, Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.

The funny thing is that this bit undercuts pretty much every argument against same-sex marriage.If marriage doesn't bestow dignity, then it's a bundle of rights and obligations.

And what constitutional basis would the government have to deny a class of people rights and obligations?

See where I'm going with this. Good. If marriage bestows dignity the government cannot take it away, and if it is an institution that bestows rights and obligations the government cannot take it away.


Section 4."Error Number Four: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered"

Another laughable section. Even the title is funny as no one argued this.

The rest of the section is conservative butthurt over changing social mores. To paraphrase Heraclitus, go suck a dick change is the only constant.

Get fucking over it.

Also, way to be total fucking dick bags towards adoption.

And thirdly, no-fault divorce is a problem? Nice can o' worms ya got there.

PS. This is section is largely opinion... not really a subject to error.


Section 5. "Error Number Five: There Is a Parallel between Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell"

Yes, yes there is a definite parallel between civil rights cases.

"At the time of Loving, state prohibitions on inter-racial marriages had been in existence in only some of the states, and then at most for about 300 years if we go back to colonial times in Virginia and Maryland. But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia."

Umm... so gays have it had it historically worse and this proves that it's not discrimination? I'm not following your point. Not really even a point I guess. Further more the parallel was established and the article only affirms it.


Section 6. "Error Number Six: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman"

This is another dumb one to argue. Age restrictions are constitutional; by disassociating age restriction from the definition you're only hurting your position. But that's just the title.

Let's look further:

"Several of the justices questioned whether there was a difference between recognizing exceptions to age restrictions and recognizing same-sex marriages.In short: yes, there is. Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage."

Umm... consent isn't apart of the definition of marriage... funny. It's like a someone said something contradictory earlier... like in the actual definition of marriage...

The main reason age is a restriction to marriage is because of consent. The concept of consent makes the restriction rational.

****

To sum up the article, ignore every economic reason for a falling rate of marriage to pin it on Griswald, Loving, Roe California adopting No-Fault Divorce, queers getting hitched. It also unquestioningly assumes that a declining marriage rate is bad. It ignores human history and the constant flux of morality.In short the article is sloppy, ignorant, and fails to make a coherent point.


Ok I'm bored now.

Check out the other article linked to SCOTUSblog, which is Lisa Keen's article on Obergefell v. Hodges.


Laim '15

Puppet Theater: Obergefell v. Hodges Part 3

Part 3 of 3.

Liam '15

Puppet Theater: Obergefell v. Hodges Part 2

Part 2 of 3.

Notice how there is no Thomas puppet.


Liam '15

Puppet Theater: Obergefell v. Hodges Part 1

Liam '15

Oops, Wrong Side

Sometimes I hear someone, and my mind reels at the lack of self-awareness. Often times it comes in the form of cognitive dissonance.

Case in point Mat Staver.

As shown in this video posted to YouTube via Right Wing Watch, on Saturday April 25, 2015 Liberty Council founder Mat Staver addressed a march organized by NOM:

As someone who's argued before the United States Supreme Court, I certainly have respect for this court, but I have no respect and cannot respect a lawless decision. This court has not always been right on the issue of marriage. 

In the 1800s it issued the infamous Dred Scott decision, and Justice Taney said, “sorry Dred, no rights for you here at this high court,” because they said blacks were inferior human beings.

How racist and bigoted was that? How contrary to the natural law of God is that decision?

It is no decision worth respecting today, and It was no decision worth respecting then.

In 1927 the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the infamous words, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Saying to Carrie Buck, the Commonwealth Virginia can forcibly sterilize you to get rid of your population, because you have low IQ.

That was a racist bigoted decision flies in the face of the dignity of every person created in the image of God.

No one will defend it now and no one should have defended then.

I say now as we are standing on the precipice this major decision before the United States Supreme Court, these leaders that came together in this marriage pledge, that I hope you sign on it at defendmarriage.org are saying this, “Supreme Court of the United States with all due respect, we warn you, do not cross this line.”

As much as I am an attorney, and I respect the rule of law, I also respect a higher law. And when an earthly law collides with a higher law, we have no choice to obey higher law. We cannot comply Caesar's demands that are in direct conflict with a higher law, and that's what the Doctor Martin Luther King wrote in a letter from a Birmingham jail. There are two kinds of laws just and unjust. You have to obey the just laws, but the unjust laws are no laws at all, and we cannot obey those.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. As a policy matter any other union says that God’s design is flawed. As a policy matter any other unions say that boys don't need fathers and girls don't need mothers, and we know that God’s creation the divine architect that infused into the natural created order, knows what's best for the family. Children need mothers and fathers.

This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage.

Mat, honey, the connection between Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, and Baker v. Nelson was an unjust denial of the Due Process Clause. Or in other words, Americans are afforded the rights to life, liberty, and property.

In fact, the denial of the 5th Amendment in Dred Scott was a major point for the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that all people are afforded due process protections by both the States as well as the Federal Government.

I know in 2014 your Liberty University had a first time bar passer rate of 50% in Virginia: so I have a feeling you might not be teaching this, but based on the concept of substantive due process the right to marry is a condition of life, liberty, and property as enumerated in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley.

In your own analogy, you are on the wrong side of history. You're not arguing for Dred Scott or Carrie Buck. You're on the side that wants to deny liberty and substantive due process. But thanks for playing and proving why your school is garbage.

If I were a betting man, I would be willing to bet that Mat knows that he is on the wrong side of history, as much of his speech reads nearly perfectly as a pro-LGBT. But quite frankly in the end I don't care.

I am curious though how Mat is going to perform civil disobedience in regards to same-sex marriage.
For civil disobedience, which MLK, Jr. prescribed, the government has to be doing something and your non-compliance is therefore disruptive. For example not paying your taxes. Or sit-ins in Government or public locations.

The only thing I can think that vaguely would qualify, is that Mat won't get married to a dude. Not much of protest there as not getting married affects nothing.

Or perhaps he will get a boyfriend and then won't get married as some sort of fucked-up, bizarro, psycho-sexual protest that only Mat Staver knows about or would makes sense to.

I have heard of people doing weirder things.

The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates

It's either that or impotent rage. And impotent rage is never attractive.

The very last point I want to touch on is when Mat says, "This United States Supreme Court, nor any governmental entity, does not have the authority to redefine God’s natural created order of marriage."

You do realize that gay people exist, right? And that many of us have kids? And that would be a part of god's order, right? I'm not saying existence is right or wrong, but I am saying that existence is nature. If god didn't want gay people, then why do we exist.

Where do they get off speaking for god. That's pretty fucking arrogant.


Liam '15

Time-Warp

Forever ago (second post) I wrote about Barack Obama's evolution towards supporting same-sex marriage:

I believe that President Obama has lied to the American People. It's en vogue  to call the President a liar.  It's fashionable to call any president a liar actually, but that's a different subject for a different day. Despite his policy positions, he has to be a Socialist-Marxist-Kenyan-Muslim-Secularist-Atheist-Christhating-SOB, because he is lying.

The basic history of Obama goes like this. He has been in the closet for the last eight years. He experimented with supporting Gay Rights in college like so many do, but then was scared back in when he realized  people might judge him for it. Finally his conscience caught up with him and after he outed himself, he looks like the weight of the world has been taken off his chest. 

However I think President Obama was actually lying to the American Public in 2004 when he stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman religious-blah.  His comments were in contradiction to his 8 year old (law professor) statements that he supported ultra-gay marriage. And once again he said it was his personal religious convictions that made him no longer support gay-marriage.

[...]

In 2004 Obama upgraded to Obama 2.0 and became a real politician. Like any real politician his position crapped on the 14th Amendment. His official stance was the issue was separate but equal (because we all know how that worked out the first time).  I can only conclude that this was a position taken because at the time Guns, God, and Gays.  Even at this time he supported Civil Unions thus supporting the freedom to love and live with whoever you want. The moral of the story is apparently politics are stupid and make good rational men make terrible decisions for no real reasons.

Then in 2012 crazy eyes Uncle Biden blurted out in front of the whole family on Thanksgiving that President Obama is gay for gay-marriage. Interestingly his policy shift happened 2 months after the Ninth Circuit issued their decision on Perry v. Brown and after it was announced it would be heading for the Supreme Court in the not too distant near. 

I never understood the whole "evolving" phrase. If you know where you are heading intellectually why not just go there and cut out all the bullshit. Anyway, recently in his book, David Axelrod has back up my hunch.

Because of Axelrod's statements, it forced the President to respond via BuzzFeed, naturally:

“I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue,” Obama said. “I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there.” 

Obama said he believed at the time that civil unions were “a sufficient way of squaring the circle,” but that “the pain and the sense of stigma that was being placed on same-sex couples who are friends of [his]” changed his mind. 

“I think the notion that somehow I was always in favor of marriage per se isn't quite accurate,” Obama said. “The old questionnaire … is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is, how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account?”

Busted. One thing that probably should be mentioned again, the President campaigned in favor of same-sex marriage for his second term. So while I half heartedly call him a liar, it should not delegitimize either his authority on the subject or the progress gained due to his support.

The only portion of the President's statements that I really take issue with is "The old questionnaire … is an example of struggling with what was a real issue at the time, which is, how do you make sure that people’s rights are enjoyed and these religious sensitivities were taken into account?"

Once again it comes down to the question, "what about my religious sensitivities?" Why can't I get married in a church, just because someone from a different religion disagrees? Why should my religious beliefs count less?

I am glad to see that I have prevailed, and my hunches have been validated.


Liam '15

Back to 'bama

Alabama AG, Luther Strange, filed an appeal to the SCOTUS in regards to Strange v. Searcy. The only possibly bad news for marriage equality is that the appeal falls directly and only to Clarence Thomas.

In his plea, Lex Luther explained that the state needs a longer stay because:

The decisions by the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit (App. B, C) to deny a longer stay have created confusion in the State. Probate judges, who are not supervised by the Attorney General and are not under his control, issue marriage licenses. As an association, the Probate Judges initially said they did not believe they were subject to the District Court’s injunction and remained under an obligation to follow Alabama law. Later, at least some individual Probate Judges reached a different conclusion.The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama,who also heads the Administrative Office of Courts which may have bearing on the authority of Probate Judges and the administration of their work, has expressed doubts about the scope of the District Court order and its application to members of the Alabama Judicial Branch, when the only Defendant before the District Court was the Attorney General.

So, gay marriage needs to be put on hold, because Roy Moore is a dumb fuck who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and a Bazooka Joe wrapper. Luther admits that Judge Granade issued a warning to the Probate Judges warning that they had two weeks to get their shit together, and if they refused they would get sued. But you that wasn't clear enough or anything.

All of this aside the appeal gets sort of bizarre, when under the section  "The Attorney General is likely to prevail on the merits of his appeal." (hahahahah, yeah you are going to succeed, uggh):

The interests supported by opposite-sex marriage are, at the very least, rational. States are not in the marriage business “to regulate love.” Id. at 404. Instead, state marriage laws link children to their biological parents (and link these biological parents to each other) by imposing a package of privileges and obligations—such as presumptions of paternity—that make less sense in the context of same-sex relationships. It is not irrational or malicious for state laws to reflect an “awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children the same way as couples of opposite sexes.” Id. at 405. It is instead the background against which the institution of marriage has developed over the last several thousand years. 

So you're going to just shit all over adoption then, huh? I mean you did read over this, right, and you saw what you were righting. And no warning bells were going off, saying, "this is kind of a band argument."

I mean really, straight people, are you going to put up with this shit.Marriage is just about popping out babies and only your biological spawn. THIS IS WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT THINKS OF YOU!

And back to the beginning of that paragraph, where it says, "States are not in the marriage business 'to regulate love.'" That's the argument gay couples are making... so thanks, I guess.


'Liam 15