Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[california boy]

Myth #11: There has never been a legitimate legal answer to the question of what SSM has to do with those favoring the status quo, when in actual fact, legal arguments were presented in each of the legislatures of the past where marriage legislation was enacted, and even more recently in the cases of state and federal DOMA's and other related marital laws, and there have been a number of cases through the years and brought by gay advocates challenging these state and federal laws, where legal arguments were presented and the existing legislation upheld. Since these legal arguments work against the gay agenda, the gay advocates are left to spread the myth that these arguments don't exist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Takes Another Bullet:How Can It Survive?

Another federal judge has now ruled that the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that precludes recognition of same-sex marriage for any federal-law purpose is unconstitutional. This provision of DOMA has taken several bullets in the last year, but the ruling in Pedersen v. OPM is even more damaging, as it carefully refutes every conceivable argument made in defense of the law, and identifies multiple theories on which it could be invalidated.

In just the past six months, four federal courts have ruled that Section Three of DOMA is unconstitutional. In Golinski v. OPM, the plaintiff sued because her employer, the federal government, refused to add her new wife to the health insurance plan, which generally covered spouses. This litigation was notable because not only did the Department of Justice refuse to defend DOMA, just as it had promised in the Holder Memo, but it also filed a brief arguing affirmatively that Section Three is unconstitutional because it discriminates against gays and lesbians.

Last week, on July 31, 2012, a federal district court in Connecticut joined the growing chorus trumpeting DOMA’s unconstitutionality. Notably, the judge, Vanessa Bryant, is a George W. Bush appointee. Pedersen advances the endgame not only by ruling, as several courts now have, that Section Three violates equal protection doctrine, but also by suggesting that it might violate due process protection for the fundamental right to marry as well.

[Damien the Leper]

Traditional marriage was pre-defined before gay advocates decided they wanted to extend it to include homosexuals. The public democratically denied legal recognition of this new definition of marriage. It was overridden by activist judges. That presents a flaw in your argument.

It is unfortunate that I have to once again emphasize that traditional is not synonymous with correct or right. Daniel McClellan has made similar arguments except his were concerning Protestant theology vs. LDS theology. The standard is the same.

Yes, the public democratically determined what they did. However, it is Supreme Court's responsibility to determine what laws are supported by the U.S. Constitution. Why do you think the U.S. government overturned the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? It was ruled unconstitutional my the majority of Congress. Of course we're going to have the ignoramuses of John McCain's camp who will throw tantrums but they'll just have to get over it.

[california boy]

The belief is in the importance of instituionalizing something based on facts.

The fact is that the continuation of civilization is best served by biological reproduction in a stable, nurturing family environment. This is why humanity has established it as the norm. After all, the human race cannot continue without reproduction, and marriage institutionalizes this. Reliance on adoption is too risky, and marriage institutionalizes this also (as the alternative, institutionalized reproduction and adoption is fraught with more pitfalls than marriage).

Where same-sex “marriage” fits into the institutionalized reproduction / adoption model, it is simply not a wise thing to institutionalize.

Well you are not the first one to suggest that straight couples will stop having children when gay marriage is made legal. You probably won't be the last either.

[Damien the Leper]

The nastiness of myths such as what is presented in this podcast is a problem:

Backpack Radio

Scroll down to the propaganda podcast that is Consequences of Same Sex Marriage. Even Wade would be embarassed by such nonsense!

Edited August 7, 2012 by Valentinus

[happy]

It is unfortunate that I have to once again emphasize that traditional is not synonymous with correct or right. Daniel McClellan has made similar arguments except his were concerning Protestant theology vs. LDS theology. The standard is the same.

Yes, the public democratically determined what they did. However, it is Supreme Court's responsibility to determine what laws are supported by the U.S. Constitution. Why do you think the U.S. government overturned the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? It was ruled unconstitutional my the majority of Congress. Of course we're going to have the ignoramuses of John McCain's camp who will throw tantrums but they'll just have to get over it.

The federal courts, in my view, were dead wrong. The 14th Amendment's equal access clause does not force definition changes based on perceived rights. Prop 8, for example, is covered by the 10th Amendment, but since people want in invoke the 14th to block the 10th, one has to understand equal access. And in this case a homosexual can marry anyone of the opposite sex under the traditional definition and still qualify as constitutionally correct.

Edited August 7, 2012 by happy

[wenglund]

I would like an official source for these myths...or are we just making them up as we go along?

The fallacy of bifurcation aside, you will need to address your request to someone who:

1) Believes that the gay movement is organized in such a ways as to have officials who may be the source of official statements.

2) Restricted his/her comments to alleged officials within the gay movement.

Neither apply to me. Good luck with that.

Now where have I seen this before?

You may have seen it on occasions where, unlike with you, the request actually made sense. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Takes Another Bullet:How Can It Survive?

Last week, on July 31, 2012, a federal district court in Connecticut joined the growing chorus trumpeting DOMA’s unconstitutionality. Notably, the judge, Vanessa Bryant, is a George W. Bush appointee.Pedersen advances the endgame not only by ruling, as several courts now have, that Section Three violates equal protection doctrine, but also by suggesting that it might violate due process protection for the fundamental right to marry as well.

Damn those Conservatives who oppose the divine mandate of DOMA!!

Oddly enough, we have Log Cabin Republicans (AND their supporters) who are a mixed back of heterosexuals and homosexuals who are seeking reform and proclaiming that Inclusion Wins.

[Damien the Leper]

The fallacy of bifurcation aside, you will need to address your request to someone who:

1) Believes that the gay movement is organized in such a ways as to have officials who may be the source of official statements.

2) Restricted his/her comments to alleged officials within the gay movement.

Neither apply to me. Good luck with that.

You may have seen it on occasions where, unlike with you, the request actually made sense. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The myths you propose are your camp's propaganda used as a means to diminish the arguments of the opposite. This is an epic failure of proportions in which I would probably forget to write home to mother about because of their irrelevance.

But nice try!

[Zeta-Flux]

california boy,

Counting rulings seems to me to be besides the point. There are many cases where the courts have ruled for the constitutionality of DOMA (many more than the recent 4 cases). And, as always, there are counter-arguments against the recent rulings against DOMA (notably, the previous cases, which were often ignored or misunderstood by the judges). Besides which, it wouldn't matter if there were only 1 or 100 rulings against DOMA; it all comes down to (as you pointed out) the Supreme Court.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Zeta-Flux]

Valentinus,

Being picked by a conservative does not make one a conservative (and nor should it with regards to judicial decisions). That said, Vanessa Bryant badly misunderstood previous precedent and how Section 3 of DOMA operates. See this link for more info.

[Zeta-Flux]

wenglund,

I appreciated your initial post, where you outlined some myths. I'm not sure it is conducive to discourse to point out weaknesses in others arguments by labeling those weaknesses as myths (especially as it isn't clear they don't disagree).

Edited August 7, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Damien the Leper]

The federal courts, in my view, were dead wrong. The 14th Amendment's equal access clause does not force definition changes based on perceived rights. Prop 8, for example, is covered by the 10th Amendment, but since people want in invoke the 14th to block the 10th, one has to understand equal access. And in this case a homosexual can marry anyone of the opposite sex under the traditional definition and still qualify as constitutionally correct.

That is your opinion. The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) mandates against discriminatory laws. This amendment was pivotal in the Brown vs. Board of Education and also Reed vs. Reed.

Perhaps you should also go back and look at the Due Process Clause (DPC).

You still wish to give weight to the term traditional. This is a failing argument. Traditional, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is not a standard or norm or status quo. It is a long held perceived idea or principle...you know...kinda like an opinion.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

Being picked by a conservative does not make one a conservative (and nor should it with regards to judicial decisions). That said, Vanessa Bryant badly misunderstood previous precedent and how Section 3 of DOMA operates. See this link for more info.

Perhaps you should have this discussion with her then since it is your claim that she misunderstood. Whether you agree with her reasoning or understanding is of no importance. I find it odd that you would cite an opinion-media piece with an obvious slant to support your position.

[happy]

That is your opinion. The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) mandates against discriminatory laws. This amendment was pivotal in the Brown vs. Board of Education and also Reed vs. Reed.

Perhaps you should also go back and look at the Due Process Clause (DPC).

You still wish to give weight to the term traditional. This is a failing argument. Traditional, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is not a standard or norm or status quo. It is a long held perceived idea or principle...you know...kinda like an opinion.

The Due Process Clause is considered the weakest of the attempts to make gay marriage bans unconstitutional. Even most constitutional attorneys will tell you this. The only component properly used is actually called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause.

Though they are part of the same section (1), they are two different concepts, but again, a law ignoring a redefinition of marriage I do not think fails this test. HOWEVER, I do believe states could be compelled to enact Civil Unions under the 14th Amendment.

As for the final clause, Equal Protection Clause, that is debatable. I still also don't think this is a proper usage of the 14th Amendment.

Edited August 7, 2012 by happy

[wenglund]

When you oppose marriage to one part of the population that wants to participate in marriage simply because you think they should not be participating in "your" ceremony...

This is a variation of myth #9--i.e. This is all about just keeping gays from being married--as though gays are what is so important to the "one group of people," and they are out to get gays; when in actual fact, it is about preserving the traditional legal definition of marriage and protect it against all parties thinking to undermine it, since to us that is what is in everyone's best interest.

...then those that support the right for everyone in American to have the blessing of being married...

This is touches on myth #6: SSM is a right--fundamental, civil, human, or otherwise. Legal marriage is a right conferred by the government, which has become fundamental because of its long history and its importance to the survival of our society. This right is indesputably in regards to marriage between a man and a women, and it has been explicitly denied by the court as applying to SSM. In other words, the fundamental or civil right is marriage between a man and a woman. In the U.S., every man and woman, including people with SSA, have the right to legally marry someone of the opposite sex (with the exception of close relations), and to receive the blessings thereof. No one in the U.S. has the fundamental right to legally marry someone of the same sex, though such is permitted in a few states.

...feel you must be against gay marriage because of prejudice. To someone who supports gay marriage, your points simply look like justification to make you feel better about denying a part of the population the right to marry.

This is a mythical conclusion based on two busted myths. It perpetuates yet another myth:

Myth #14: Opposition to SSM is about emotions, such as feeling better about ourselves, rather than reason; whereas in actual fact, all I have been presenting, and the means by which I have been busting this myth, is by way of logical reasoning. This myth simply projects the purely emotion-based propaganda of gay activist onto opponents of SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[happy]

Also, I find people trying to merge the homosexual rights issues with race issues very dishonest. I feel these are apples and oranges from each other.

That should be a myth.

Edited August 7, 2012 by happy

[CV75]

Well you are not the first one to suggest that straight couples will stop having children when gay marriage is made legal. You probably won't be the last either.

I'm not suggesting that, of course; you are perverting the truth.

I'm suggesting that between the two choices, marriage preserves civilization better than an alternative contrivance of reproduction and adoption. That is why marriage is an institution and other arrangements are not.

Of course reproduction and adoption take place without marriage, but that is really not a sound (efficient, effective) way to build the future. Adoption is generally very laudable, but not the preferred format, since the circumstances resulting in it are initially very risky for the survival of the child, who is he future of the civilization.

[Damien the Leper]

The Due Process Clause is considered the weakest of the attempts to make gay marriage bans unconstitutional. Even most constitutional attorneys will tell you this. The only component properly used is actually called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause.

Though they are part of the same section (1), they are two different concepts, but again, a law ignoring a redefinition of marriage I do not think fails this test. HOWEVER, I do believe states could be compelled to enact Civil Unions under the 14th Amendment.

As for the final clause, Equal Protection Clause, that is debatable. I still also don't think this is a proper usage of the 14th Amendment.

Then we have to agree to disagree.

[happy]

Then we have to agree to disagree.

That's too bad. It would have been nice if you respected my effort to present you a very thought out and very legally researched opinion by presented an interesting counter-argument. Agreeing to disagree will never resolve this debate and at some point I think this debate needs to move to bigger and better things. A lot of resources, money, and time are being wasted here.

If we actually followed the constitution, we'd realize that Marriage itself should not be a government issue at all. There is absolutely no reason government even should be involved with this discussion. Churches should be free to define their own marriages and divorce should be handled as a simple contracts case.

[wenglund]

The myths you propose are your camp's propaganda used as a means to diminish the arguments of the opposite. This is an epic failure of proportions in which I would probably forget to write home to mother about because of their irrelevance.

But nice try!

Myth #15: Pointing out demonstrably false statements from gay activist is nothing more than propaganda that ironically is to be dismissed as irrelevant and a failure; whereas, reasonable minds would call it critical thinking that is to be valued.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[happy]

Myth #15: Pointing out demonstrably false statements from gay activist is nothing more than propaganda that ironically is to be dismissed as irrelevant and a failure; whereas, reasonable minds would call it critical thinking that is to be valued.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

"Rules for Radicals"... If you have not read it, I suggest giving it a try. It will give you insight on how the liberal side of this argument functions.

[Zeta-Flux]

Perhaps you should have this discussion with her then since it is your claim that she misunderstood. Whether you agree with her reasoning or understanding is of no importance.

If whether or not I disagree with her is of no importance, why should I have that discussion with her?

I find it odd that you would cite an opinion-media piece with an obvious slant to support your position.

Why? Who else would I cite?

By the way, your sentence is what is colloquially referred to as an "ad hominem." You did not respond to the points of the article, but merely dismissed it by name-calling. (I understand if you cannot respond to the article as it took me a few months to come up to speed on many of the legalistic topics. And even then, as I'm not a lawyer, I tend to get some things wrong.)

[CV75]

A motion for a Myth #16: An integrated system of institutionalized reproduction, cohabitation and adoption is just as efficient and effective as the institution of marriage. It is even preferable because it represents external approval of one’s sense of pride in his sexuality, which is a separate and more important issue than preserving civilization.

[Zakuska]

Wade, I noticed you left out the myth that homosexuality is biological and not a choice. Was this on purpose or do you feel that it is biological?

If it were biological, then there wouldn't be people who switch sides.

[Zeta-Flux]

If it were biological, then there wouldn't be people who switch sides.

Could you expand on this argument? I don't find it very persuasive. For example, alcoholism is (partly) biological, and yet people switch sides.