Here is the real reason Andrew Sullivan wants to makes sure the gay marriage issue is resolved in the courts:
Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday to ban gay marriage, the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.
Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as the gay marriage battle spreads to ballot boxes around the nation. At least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, will vote on similar amendments this year.
The amendment had garnered 70 percent of the vote with 91 percent of precincts reporting.
I really think the gay community overplayed their hand with the rash of gay marriages earlier this year. At any rate, I wonder if Sully will come back from vacation to tell everyone in Missouri that they are bigots?
Oliver
I really think the black community overplayed their hand with the rash of black marriages earlier this year.
See how that doesn’t sound quite right? Yeah.
John Cole
OLiver- Apples and oranges.
While you may personally feel there is no difference between inter-racial marriage and homosexual marriage, the law observes a difference.
Thus, when I state they overplayed their hand, it is pretty clear that I am talking about their illegally getting marriaed, rather than whether they should be able to get married.
Of course, you probably know this- but like all Democrats, it is simnply easier to call me a bigot.
Slartibartfast
Bigot!
Wow, that was easy. I don’t think it required more than a few dozen synapses, which puts it well within Oliver’s range of thinking ability.
RW
“Black eye for the latino guy” doesn’t sound all that well, either, but that would be putting forth a false analogy in order to support one’s opinion. Of course, by now Oliver should be used to being on the wrong end of election results….
On topic, I don’t think the “gay community” per se overplayed “it’s hand”, since they were basically powerless…..it was a few officials in SF and the court in Mass that really kicked off the whole shebang. They had verbal support from the “gay community”, but they themselves were the parties that started the ball rolling.
Tongue Boy
“I really think the black community overplayed their hand with the rash of black marriages earlier this year.”
I thought that the gay/black marriage equivalence canard was demolished in the distant past.
Sigh, here’s the Crayon version:
black/white = physical characteristic. Non-behaviorial.
gay/lesbian = strictly behaviorial.
Now for the quill version:
Interracial marriage between a man and a woman is, well, marriage because it is, well, marriage. Our society has finally, to its credit, figured that out and legally sanctioned such relationships as marriage. A relationship between two men or two women can be called many things but it cannot be called marriage, at least not in the state of Missouri or most other states. Marriage currently has only one definition. If Oliver wishes to expand the definition of marriage, perhaps he can explain the basis for this expansion and what its limits, if any, might be.
More importantly, Oliver seems to imply some sort of civil rights issue with gay marriage where none exists. States restrict the ability of its citizens to form certain relationships and engage in certain activities on a routine basis without legal challenge. Those restrictions go by many names, including articles of incorporation and LICENSURE. Perhaps Oliver would like to make a principled argument for the issuance of driver’s licenses or medical licenses to anyone who applies for them. Good luck with that. Without such a principled argument for either indiscriminate license issuance or the abolition of licensure altogether, the next best option for those individuals who are so enamored of a piece of paper called a marriage license would be to *meet* *the* *requirements* to be issued such. It can’t be all that hard; people get them every-freakin’-day.
And if it’s such a civil rights issue, is Oliver’s willing to champion the rights of other downtrodden citizens, namely those who wish to form polygomous, polyamoric, incestuous (between consenting adults), or temporary swap relationships>
beloney
Sorry Guys, You all missed Olivers’ point. He didn’t say ‘Black/white’ marriages, but “Black Marriages”. I read that to mean he was equating “blacks” to homosexuals.
Hope he doesn’t espouse that veiwpoint if he ever walks the streets of Detroit.
RW
Or Atlanta.
Rick
“…he was equating “blacks” to homosexuals.”
Going by the picture on his site, that’d be easy to do.
Cordially…
Oliver
Really class commenters you’ve got here John, a credit to their ideology. In my experience its usually homphobes who feel that gay marriage is going to hurt them. So two guys get married. What the hell is the big deal? I thought you guys were pro-family?
Dean
Oliver:
I’m curious—is there any reason to ban bigamy? Polygamy? Is there any limitation to be placed upon what two or more consenting adults choose?
John Cole
Oliver-
Pointto the part in my post where I say homosexuals should not be able to get married.
Now stop your war on straw.
My observation was that by exploiting the illegal antics of a few judges in a push to legalize homosexual marriage, the gay community may have done themselves more harm than good.
Slartibartfast
Getting dinged by Oliver on one’s comments section? Pot, meet kettle.
RW
Sorry, Oliver, but Cole banned your most frequent commenter JadeGold/Guy Cabot or your lovely linkette Mac Diva, so you’ll have to excuse us regular folks participating in discourse.
Class, indeed.
norbizness
Going the other direction using the above Crayon version, I would assume that interfaith marriages are based on characteristics that are strictly behavioral. Could the government ban them, even if by referendum?
M. Scott Eiland
I’d say that banning interfaith marriages would probably run afoul of the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the First Amendment.
Dean
Conversely, norbiz, do you think it’s somehow a violation of anti-discrimination statutes for people of one faith to shun or otherwise ostracize those who marry outside the faith? Should a church that refuses to marry an interfaith couple somehow find itself liable under anti-discrimination law?
norbizness
Well, I think the answer to Dean’s question is MSE’s answer. But wouldn’t a ban on interfaith marriages be decided on the same grounds as Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriages), which has to do with the 14th Amendment?
Oliver
I’m curious—is there any reason to ban bigamy? Polygamy? Is there any limitation to be placed upon what two or more consenting adults choose?
I don’t give a damn what two or more consenting adults want to do in their bedrooms.
M. Scott Eiland
If Sullivan does unleash such a screed, do you think we can get him to say “I’m against Bush!” both before and after he does? Considering the Dems tried to fix the last Presidential election in Missouri with the help of a tame judge illegally keeping election stations in heavily Democratic areas open long after polls were supposed to be closed, I think anything that would guarantee extra Republican votes is a good thing.
John Cole
I don’t give a damn what two or more consenting adults want to do in their bedrooms.
Your opinion on sodomy laws is duly noted. For the record, I agree.
However, we are talking about marriage, which is a legal and public issue.
Dean
John:
Yes, *that* was the thrust of my question. Oliver, is there any reason for the state to ban bigamous/polygamous marriage (a person marrying more than one spouse openly)?
Norah
“So two guys get married. What the hell is the big deal? I thought you guys were pro-family?”
In the excitement you all forgot to answer this question, but I’m curious.
And John,
“Point to the part in my post where I say homosexuals should not be able to get married.
Now stop your war on straw.”
Oliver didn’t accuse you of saying that. Speaking of straw wars…
Slartibartfast
Oliver said:
“So two guys get married. What the hell is the big deal? I thought you guys were pro-family?”
Norah said:
“Oliver didn’t accuse you of saying that.”
Methinks one of us needs to work on reading comprehension.
RW
Dean,
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a logical response.
Dave
“Oliver, is there any reason for the state to ban bigamous/polygamous marriage (a person marrying more than one spouse openly)? ”
I’m not Oliver, but there is an answer to that. Allowing gay couples to marry simplifies inheritance issues when one of the partners dies intestate. You just apply the same rules that currently exist for str8 couples.
In contract, bigamist / polygamist marriages would complicate the matter. Who gets the house, the wife who was married the longest, or the one with the most kids?
Dean
Dave:
So, the reason to legalize gay marriage is simply to make inheritance issues easier?
How about simply mandating that people designate a next-of-kin? Is marriage necessarily the sole solution?
Look, I’m not especially swayed one way or the other (you’ll notice I don’t tend to comment over at Steve’s on this sorta thing), but I’m curious where one draws the line *if anywhere* on state rulings viz. marriage and “morality” (as these things used to generally be referred to).
Dave
You asked why the state would have a compelling reason to ban polygamous marriage, and I gave you one example, not an exhaustive list.
The argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage is a slippery-slope argument. To be valid, there has to be a slop, and it has to be slippery. My example was to show that there might be some non-skid surface on that slope that doesn’t require an appeal to tradition.
Justin Ogren
Gay marriage and law should not be in the same sentence….and if it’s illegal, screw em…that shouldn’t stop people from doing it themselves without the watch of an unknown in an office who makes the choice for you…. it’s not right.
And there have not been enough marriages, it should continue, and continue in every state of the country.