Homosexual Marriage

The recent Supreme Court decision more or less recognizing marriage between homosexuals as valid should not be important for conservatives. But:

  1. Of course, I resent the Supreme Court’s intrusion in what is clearly, constitutionally, a state matter. IT bothers me when it the Court overturns the result of a democratic process even when the process is wrong i its results.
  2. The fact that homosexual activists did not merely ask for an equal civil contract bothers me. This is a cultural coup. It creates a precedent for the idea that an activist minority can use the power of the state to force a change in language. (Shades of George Orwell.)
  3. Only eighteen months ago, President Obama was one of these bigots who oppose homosexual marriage. I wonder how his change of conscience came about. It would be good to get an answer to this question. We will not. And remember that it was Pres. Clinton who signed the ill-named Defense of Marriage Act.

That’s on the one hand. On the other hand:

When in doubt, it’s better to be more inclusive rather than less inclusive. There is doubt when the inclusion does not create readily identifiable victims. Who is this Supreme Court decision going to harm, again? Certainly not heterosexual marriage. (See my previous writing on this.) Not me. Who?

The decision makes happy many people I like. This subjective consideration matters. It should matter.

If only this struggle had served as a trigger to get government out of the marriage business altogether.

We have bigger fish to fry.Yesterday, the President explained how he intended to dismantle the fossil fuel-based civilization that has brought up multitudes out of millenarian misery.

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Cultural Studies, Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Homosexual Marriage

  1. Thomas H. says:

    Sir:

    Many thanks for your column today. This high – court ruling and related publicity including presidential mentions favourable to gay marriage undoubtedly has made many people happy, one of the overall civic goals of our society. I do wonder on different terms what things will be like under the circumstances in Utah and the like some day once of this ruling and favourable administrative endorsements are household banter and fully considered and integral in our greater culture. This is why social policy on such things, narrowed to one high – court case and the like with prognosticators everywhere is so dangerous; that it is imitated and predictably will be carried to the extreme for the media and in the public forum by way of such things (court case and all) is even more outlandish and shocking.

  2. Yes, Thomas, I share some of your concerns. It seems to me though that virtuous politics usually means a choice between several evils. In this case, I am swayed by the argument that there are no tangible victims. Read my previous piece on homosexual marriage, please: (It’s down the way a bit)

    https://factsmatter.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/the-slumber-party-homosexuality-and-the-threat-of-violence-cordoba-seat-of-the-caliphate/

    Moreover, I suspect that what you found “shocking” may be homosexual behavior itself rather than the ruling on marriage. There is nothing that can be done about the behavior that is acceptable by our current standards of civilized behavior. Blame Mother Nature!

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    I (yet again) want to encourage you to know what you’re talking about. I know you abhor actually reading original sources but just in case hell freezes over in the near future here’s what scotus had to say about the DOMA case.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

  4. Terry Amburgey says:

    Here’s the opinion for the Proposition 8 case.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

    Keep in mind that in our soon-to-begin discussion about how you are wrong (you are very consistent in that regard) I will have an unfair advantage: I’ve read the opinions.

  5. Terry Amburgey says:

    “IT bothers me when it the Court overturns the result of a democratic process even when the process is wrong i its results.”

    You’ve got it bass ackwards yet again. Scotus didn’t overturn anything, they refused to get involved and said no federal court could get involved because there wasn’t a legitimate case to decide:

    “(c) The Court does not question California’s sovereign right to maintain an
    initiative process, or the right of initiative proponents to defend their
    initiatives in California courts. But standing in federal court is a question
    of federal law, not state law. No matter its reasons, the fact that a State
    thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized
    grievance cannot override this Court’s settled law to the contrary. Article
    III’s requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court
    seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going
    to the role of the Judiciary in the federal system of separated powers. State
    cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise
    lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse. Pp. 16–17.”

    “1.Of course, I resent the Supreme Court’s intrusion in what is clearly, constitutionally, a state matter.”

    Could Jacques’ resentment have a foundation in fact? Even broken clocks are right twice a day eh? Nope yet another figment of his teapublican imagination:

    (a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and traditional extent of state
    power and authority over marriage.

    Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.

    DOMA rejects this long-established precept. ”

    The reason that DOMA was overturned was because it infringed on the right of states to ‘regulate domestic relations’. Yeah that’s quite an “intrusion” on the part of the court.

  6. Nick says:

    This is a wonderful thing. people can marry whoever they choose. as for dismantling the fossil fuel based civilization; it might make me think more of the president and also it is lame to spend so much energy to drink and drive. We could move past it. also I think it would allow everyone to have a glider and fly to work. no more roads! would be legit. I would be more into flying if it wasnt in a gross polluting tin can…

  7. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Nick
    “This is a wonderful thing. people can marry whoever they choose.”

    I wish it were so…If a state allows gay marriage the federal govt. can’t discriminate against gay and straight marriages with regard to benefits etc.
    For once I wish Jacques were correct and that the court had said that under the 14th amendment states couldn’t deny gays the right to get married. But it didn’t.

  8. Nick had his car totaled recently. That was the same car he drove across country and back a couple of years ago. That was before he was against fossil fuels, obviously.

    I don’t know what Terry is saying in his analysis of the Supreme Court decision about (in, on) homosexual marriage. Does anyone?

  9. I write my editorial opinions on the basis of my readings – on serious matters- often of the Wall Street Journal, put through the filters of Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and, on radio, of Rush Limbaugh, and NPR. That may not be enough to form a correct view of Supreme Court decisions. I don’t know. I do know that I have no reason to trust that I am able to read legal opinions as delivered by members of the Supreme Court. I am glad to learn – alas, late in life- that Prof. Terry includes thorough legal training among his many other talents. What next, winning no-hands pissing context in bars?

  10. Bruce says:

    Two prizes. Obamacare and amnesty. Gay marriage, the IRS targeting 100% of conservative groups, the NSA collecting everything possible on law abiding American citizens, the absolute failure in our response in Benghazi, the abortion controversy, the looming student loan interest rate increase, the Obama’s $100M vacation to Africa at the expense of White House Tours, China and Russia disrespecting us over by not turning over Snowden, the planned destruction of the domestic coal industry, our increased reliance on foreign oil, FEMA forcing me to build my oceanfront home to absurd standards, the attempted gun grab, the massive deficit spending, Guantanamo Bay, ACORN, firing Paula Dean for using the “N” word, all the cronie capitalism, the relentless global warming scam, the continuing failure of the war on drugs, the race-polarizing Zimmerman trial, the Balkanization of our society, the no-end-in-sight affirmative action programs, is Obama a US citizen or not dispute, is Obama a Muslim concern, is Obama gay, did he attend Columbia even though nobody who went there those four years remembers ever seeing him question, Michele Obama’s mom living in the White House while Barry’s brother lives in a mud hut in Africa, all the golf and the “Let them eat cake” White House lavish parties…you name it. It feels more and more like I’m swatting mosquitos when I’m up to my ass in alligators. I think all Obama needs to declare total victory is Obamacare and amnesty. Government control of healthcare and Democrat Party control of government. It appears all the more like he’s going to achieve both.

  11. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques
    “What next, winning no-hands pissing context in bars?”

    You know quite well I have to use both hands when pissing. Ba-dum-tum!

    @Bruce
    “I think all Obama needs to declare total victory is Obamacare and amnesty. Government control of healthcare and Democrat Party control of government. It appears all the more like he’s going to achieve both.”

    I just can’t see immigration reform getting through the House of Representatives.

    • Bruce says:

      Dr. A,
      I sure hope you’re right about the Senate bill dying in the House of Representatives! Sad to see what happened to Marco Rubio’s conservative principles. I swear there’s something in the water in Washington, D.C.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        @Bruce
        “The Washington Aqueduct adds fluoride to the drinking water supplied to the District of Columbia to meet an optimal level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L).”
        😉

      • Fluoride is suspected of undermining mental processes. The aqueduct finally explains the DC vote.

  12. Neon says:

    🙂😀

  13. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques
    “I do know that I have no reason to trust that I am able to read legal opinions as delivered by members of the Supreme Court.”

    C’mon, it’s not rocket science. It’s not any kind of science; anyone that can read a social science journal article won’t have a problem.

    I sometimes forget that you’re no longer an academic. Brains need to be used to keep their edge. Some people do crossword puzzles, others do Sudoku puzzles. A good first step for you would be to quit hanging around teapublicans and spend more time with people that know their ass from a hole in the ground. Maybe re-acquaint your self with analytic tools, knock the rust off your abilities to read and understand text. Remember that basic rule of ‘use it or lose it’. You clearly haven’t used your head for years but it’s not too late.

    • All good advice from Prof Terry.

      I wish I would find teapublicans with whom to hang out in Santa Cruz, California. If there are any, they are in deep hiding. I live in the belly of the collectivist Beast. In terms of keeping any sort of tools sharpened, it beats reading scholarly journals, I think.

      I repeat that I don’t trust myself to read legal opinions. If I had known earlier of Prof. Terry’s competence in that area, I would have asked him to handle my divorce. I would have come out better! I might have been awarded custody of my bike.

      My piece on homosexual marriage was guided by my perception that homosexuals and their organizations celebrated the Supremen Court decision while evangelical Christians did not, by and large.

  14. Terry Amburgey says:

    “My piece on homosexual marriage was guided by my perception that homosexuals and their organizations celebrated the Supremen Court decision while evangelical Christians did not, by and large.”

    I’d bet small amounts of money that the degree of celebration was much stronger in states that have approved gay marriage than in those that have not. The woman from New York that brought the DOMA suit will qualify for the tax status of married but my friend Chris in Kentucky will not; Kentucky will not let her get married. Since the decision against DOMA was founded on a lack of deference for the right of states to define and regulate marriage there’s not much to celebrate for gays that live in the 30+ states that DON’T let them marry. Well I guess there’s some psychological momentum but that’s about it.

    Contrast that with the possible decision that didn’t happen: the court says that anyone is allowed to marry based on the 14th amendment, that individual rights trump states rights. THAT would’ve been a real cause to celebrate. Not for conservatives of course but for civil libertarians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s