Supreme Court to take up Prop 8 Case.

According to Fox News:

The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.

The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.

The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June.

The Fox News opening paragraph is a classic example of framing the issue by begging the question. So, rather than swallow the hook, let's ask, "is the right ot marry a constitutional right?" and "is a homosexual right to marry the 'same' constitutional right as the heterosexual right to marry?"

The answer to both is "no."  My initial thought was that the right to marry was not a "constitutional right" - i.e., a right created by the Constitution - but a natural right - a right created by the nature of human beings - which the Supreme Court recognizes that the state has no right to interfere with.

My initial thought is correct. Here is the United States Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation statutes:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. HN5The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Loving v. Va., 388 U.S. 1, 12 (U.S. 1967)
 

So, yes, the right to marry is not a right created by the Constitution. Rather, it is a "vital personal right essntial to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," i.e., a natural right, although it is passe for a modern court to say "natural right."

Moreover, it is a natural right because of its role in the preservation of the human race. Again, from Loving:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


Loving v. Va., 388 U.S. 1, 12 (U.S. 1967)
 

So, marriage is a basic civil right because it is fundamental to our very existence and our survival.  That certainly is the case with respect to heterosexual marriage, because we don't simply abandon children to fend for themselves after birth; rather, we ordinarily rear them within the biological family in which they were born.

Is that the case with homosexual marriages?  Are homosexual marriages ordered to the "very existence and survival" of human beings.  Obviously not, unless we are going to indulge in fiction and fantasy, in which case the end of that particular game will be water down the actuality of marriage as 'fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Note further that the Court quite properly describes racial classifications as being unsupportable. Why does it say that?  Because when it comes to making babies and raising them, mixed race couples are just as capable of fulfilling that function which is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as homogenous raced couples.

Also, note how the Court deals with hypocrital illogic of racial classifications:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed  to maintain White Supremacy. n11 We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

FOOTNOTES

n11 Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.


Loving v. Va., 388 U.S. 1, 11-12 (U.S. 1967)
 

So, Virginia was perfectly understanding of people who wanted to "mongrelize" any race other than the "white" race. This is obviously the epitome of unequal treatment, which had as its purpose the continued unequal treatment of African-Americans.

So, is homosexual marriage a "natural right" in the sense that homosexual marriage is " fundamental to our very existence and survival"?  Well, given the fact that mankind has managed to muddle through the last 100,000 years without homosexual marriage, and given the notorious sterility of homosexual unions, the answer seems fairly obvious.

Not that we shouldn't expect the court to find that times have changed.

The ironic "meta" thing is that gay activists are complaining that people like this are "making a mockery out of marriage."

First, it was that woman who wanted to marry a building.

Now, this woman wants to marry her dog.

Indiana Woman Wants to Marry Her Pet Dog – Tries to Rally Support From Gay Rights’ Activists

Cassandra White of Northern Indiana has petitioned her local government to allow her to marry her dog Brutus. White has sent several letters to gay rights activists to help her lead the march to stop discrimination against her and those like her who should get to “marry whomever they want”. Ms. White has made several unsuccessful attempts to get a marriage license after listing only “Brutus” in the section asking for FULL NAME OF PARTY B on marriage certificate form.

The form has been flagged 3 times after clerks questioned the single name of “Brutus”. Additional sections of the form were also left blank. For example, White was not able to list the name of PARTY B’s mother/parent or father/parent. Apparently Ms. White explained she could not provide the information due to the fact that she adopted her dog Brutus from a shelter which could not provide the parental information to her.

Indiana state and city officials have not returned phone calls or emails from AAP regarding the situation with Ms. White and her quest to marry her dog, Brutus.

Ms. White applauded President Obama for announcing that he is in support for gay marriage and quoted the president saying, “I was so happy to hear President Obama yesterday comment on gay marriage saying, “This is the kind of thing that prompts a change of perspective…” Ms. White is asking the state of Indiana to recognize what the president said and change their perspective on allowing her to marry Brutus.

White has also received support from ‘Freedom To Marry Our Pets Society” who plan to organize a protest in Washington to change definition of marriage to include pets.

From the "You.Must.Approve" file - Homosexual marriage doesn't affect you...

...unless you want to pray for real marriage in a church.

French Catholic Church pro-marriage prayer provokes gay rights row:

PARIS (Reuters) - Roman Catholic congregations in churches across France prayed for traditional marriage on Wednesday, provoking accusations of homophobia from gay rights groups as Paris prepares to legalize same-sex matrimony.

The rare clerical foray into political debate, on the Assumption Day holiday observed in traditionally Catholic countries in Europe, referred only indirectly to the new marriage law the government plans to pass next year.

But the carefully worded text, first published earlier this month, dominated the news headlines in France, where the media have presented it as a strong attack on the reform.

Church leaders insisted their aim was to launch an open debate about plans to legalize same-sex marriage and euthanasia, two in a list of 60 pledges made by Francois Hollande in his successful election campaign for the presidency last spring.

Well, it is France.

Homosexual marriage is not about redefining marriage...

...except for the fidelity part, the numbers involved, whether the people involved can make babies, etc., etc.

Other than that gay marriage is about what marriage has always been about, namely, narcissistic self-definition that has nothing to do with the next generation,i.e., about being gay.

But I'm not saying it. Read this paen to Anderson Cooper's cheating boyfriend that tells you what the agenda is:

Because, aside from the fact that we don't know when these photos of Maisani were taken (or if they're even real), we don't have the faintest clue about the terms of his relationship with Cooper. There's a very good chance that for Maisani, like many gay men in long-term, healthy, committed relationships, a make-out session in the park is not only acceptable but just another typical Saturday-afternoon activity.

It can be hard for some people -- both straight and queer -- to fathom that a non-monogamous relationship could not only function satisfactorily but be an ideal arrangement. But in the queer community, which has fewer hangups and restrictions on sex and less rigid parameters on with whom and how we love and lust, open relationships have long provided the stability of partnership with the excitement of being able to meet and sleep with other people.

So instead of assuming that Maisani was cheating on Cooper, as almost all the media outlets have done, why not assume that Cooper knew exactly where his boyfriend was and had simply said, "Have fun with Bob. I'll see you later tonight. Oh, and can you pick up some more milk? We're almost out"?

Because most of America isn't ready for that. It's barely ready for gay marriage (and, in most states, entirely unprepared for it). Right wingers are quick to argue that if they give their blessing to gay marriages, other unthinkable terrors, like polygamy and polyamory, won't be far behind.

And they're not alone. Even some queer people worry about what the larger consequences of non-monogamy could be. One gay friend of mine, who has been with his partner for nearly a decade but is unable to marry him because they reside in a Midwestern state where gay marriage isn't legal, thought the photos of Maisani could make it even harder for him to wed. He questioned how mainstream America would react to Maisani's public display of affection with a man who wasn't his boyfriend and how it would do anything to "help gay acceptance."

But in my fantasies, we're not gunning for gay acceptance -- especially not if the only way we're granted it is by "behaving ourselves" and struggling to fit into a heteronormative mold (which, as far as I can tell, hasn't really benefited heterosexual people very well, either). Instead, I want us to be pushing for queer liberation, which, to me, has always meant that when it comes to sex and love, we all get to do whatever we want with whomever we want as long as we're not hurting anyone (unless, of course, that person/those people are asking for us to hurt them).

If monogamy works for you, more power to you. If you and your girlfriend want to sleep with other people on occasion (or invite someone home with you at the end of the night), do it. If three men want to live as a throuple, let them live as a throuple. If a husband and wife want to take separate vacations and sleep around while they're apart, who is anyone else to say that that's unsavory?

Who is to say it's unsavory?

Well, anyone who understands what the word marriage actually means.

Obama's Self-inflicted Wedge Strategy.

Coalition of African-American Pastors speak out against Obama's "catering" to the homosexual community at the expense of the African-American community on the issue of homosexual marriage.

Former Civil Rights marcher equates mayors who don't want Chick-Fill-A in their community to racists who didn't want blacks in their community. There's some very strong criticism of Obama for ignoring the pastors and for endorsing gay marriage in denigration of the feelings of the African-American community.



It's interesting how this seems to be a phenomenon that occurs outside the "establishment," and to that extent looks like the Tea Party phenomenon.

This event will probably be ignored by the media, but it it should be watched to see what effect it has.

First Gay Marriage Suit Hits Catholic Church.

Expect many more.

While reading on this, reflect on the intellectual moves that have to be made to sacrifice religious freedom - something explicitly mentioned in the Constitution - held by 90+% of the population to the sexual lifestyle of less than 2%.

From the New York Post:

A lesbian couple from Westchester yesterday filed the first suit against a Catholic institution for refusing to recognize New York’s gay-marriage law.

The Manhattan federal court filing says the women — identified only as “Jane Roe” and “Jane Doe” — were wed Oct. 15, and that “Roe,” who’s worked at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Yonkers since 2007, later applied to add “Doe” to her medical-benefits coverage.

But the request was denied by both St. Joseph’s and its insurance administrator, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, because hospital policy excludes same-sex spouses.

The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant.

The women are seeking an injunction ordering Blue Cross Blue Shield not to acquiesce to a company that wants to deny same-sex benefits because of religious beliefs, said Jeffrey Norton, their lawyer.

Empire declined to comment. St. Joseph’s didn’t return messages.

For the English Anglican church, English gay marriage law means that it will stop performing marriages for the state.

From the Guardian:

The threat of an unprecedented clash between church and state over the issue of gay marriage has opened up after the Church of England delivered an uncompromising warning to the government against pressing ahead with controversial proposals.

Introducing same-sex marriage could lead to the church being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, the church claimed in a potentially explosive submission in response to the government's consultation on gay marriage, which closes on Thursday.

The submission's warning of a potential clash between canon law – that marriage is between a man and a woman – and parliament is likely to put pressure on the prime minister, David Cameron, who has spoken out in support of gay marriage and already come under fire from supporters of the proposals for allowing a free vote amongst Tory MPs.

In a 13-page submission, the church says it cannot support the proposal to enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.

"Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history," it says.

"Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation."

70% of Brits oppose gay marriage.

This is interesting, and odd in light of the fact that I recently listened to a British debate on gay marriage via Unbelievable, where the gay marriage proponent was claiming that polling showed that a majority of Brits favored gay marriage.

According to this Telegraph article:

In the first test of opinion carried out since the launch of a high-profile campaign against the proposed change, 70 per cent of respondents agreed with the proposition that marriage should remain a “life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”.

Only 22 per cent disagreed while nine per cent remained unsure, according to the ComRes survey carried out for the religious campaign group Catholic Voices.

But the poll also found strong support for civil partnerships for same-sex couples with six out of 10 people showing their approval.

While 68 per cent of respondents agreed with the idea that marriage is important to society and should be promoted by the state, support was much stronger among married people, at 83 per cent, compared with 55 per cent of single people.

Dr Austen Ivereigh, coordinator of Catholic Voices, said: “Our poll shows that the Government has no mandate to alter an institution which lies at the foundation of our society.

What it looks like is that the British gay marriage proponents are doing the same thing that their American counterparts are doing, i.e., dishonestly counting pro-civil union people as being pro-gay marriage, when in fact they are anti-gay marriage.

Evidence that this poll is accurate may be found in the further polling showing that British Members of Parliament acknowledge that their constituents are anti-gay marriage:

A majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage ...

... according to the New York Times.

This confirms the point I made yesterday; people in favor of civil unions do not favor gay marriage, they oppose it.

James Taranto writes about an unusually less biased NYT poll:

The Times's headline finding was that an overwhelming majority of respondents, 67%, think the president backed same-sex marriage last week "mostly for political reasons," while only 24% think he did it "mostly because he thinks it is right." This column agrees with the 24% more than the 67%, but in any case Obama has managed a neat trick: He has managed to look like a cynical opportunist while taking an unpopular position.

One reason to think this Times poll may be more unbiased than usual is its findings on the substantive question of same-sex marriage:

About 4 in 10, or 38 percent, of Americans support same-sex marriage, while 24 percent favor civil unions short of formal marriage. Thirty-three percent oppose any form of legal recognition. When civil unions are eliminated as an option, opposition to same-sex marriage rises to 51 percent, compared with 42 percent support.

That makes the Times/CBS poll an outlier among polls, but puts it in line with the results of actual voting. Every state where same-sex marriage has been on the ballot, it has lost--usually by considerably larger margins, but mostly in socially conservative states. Forty percent support and majority opposition seems in the right ball park.

Obama's Self-Inflicted Wedge Strategy.

Black Pastors - who probably don't think that they should "evolve" - come out against Obama, albeit some continue to say they will support Obama notwithstanding the same-sex marriage issue.

Of course, that misses the issue, which is that there shouldn't even be an issue.

Obama's Self-inflicted Wedge Strategy - Chris Matthews tells African-American to "evolve."

Newsbusters reports:

Hardball anchor Chris Matthews, who routinely smears his political opponents as racist, on Monday lectured an African American minister who opposes gay marriage, "I hope you evolve." The host patronizingly added, "I'm just teasing." [See video below. MP3 audio here.] How would he (or MSNBC for that matter) react if a conservative said such a thing to a black leader?

But that's Okay, Matthews told the black pastor, "I'm just teasing."