Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Torie]

Their strategy should be like Hillary's: clean their computer disks of anything they ever wrote on SSM, and claim it was all just personal chit chat that was cleansed.

[Torie]

I don't mind your posts TJ, at all, on SSM, and appreciate them. But I am curious whether at this juncture, you have a secular, data based argument against SSM to which you honestly subscribe. Arguing theology qua theology when it comes to public policy is a dead end. It will persuade nobody but believers. But then you already knew that.

I do have some sympathy with allowing legal separation based on religious conscience of enmeshment with gay wedding ceremonies of those who are so inclined. They will be missing  a great party however.

[Torie]

Are we drawing a clear distinction here between baking a custom cake to be used 1) for a gay wedding that has a gay wedding theme design, 2) a cake with a generic wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, 3) a generic cake with no wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, and 4) a cake to be used for a birthday party for a gay? To me, there clearly is an excellent case for a religious conscience exception for having to cater a gay wedding at the wedding site, and I strongly suspect SCOTUS would agree. As to numbers 1 through 4 above, I tend to favor an exemption for number 1, 2 is a very close case but I tend to lean against a religious exemption, but could be persuaded otherwise potentially, and there is no real case for an exemption for numbers 3 and 4.

That link TJ gave seemed to be about Lesbians by  the way. As noted, even assuming the data isn't GIGO, the real question to ask are the outcomes between children of unmarried gays, and married gays.

[Torie]

Are we drawing a clear distinction here between baking a custom cake to be used 1) for a gay wedding that has a gay wedding theme design, 2) a cake with a generic wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, 3) a generic cake with no wedding theme to be used at a gay wedding, and 4) a cake to be used for a birthday party for a gay? To me, there clearly is an excellent case for a religious conscience exception for having to cater a gay wedding at the wedding site, and I strongly suspect SCOTUS would agree. As to numbers 1 through 4 above, I tend to favor an exemption for number 1, 2 is a very close case but I tend to lean against a religious exemption, but could be persuaded otherwise potentially, and there is no real case for an exemption for numbers 3 and 4.

That link TJ gave seemed to be about Lesbians by  the way. As noted, even assuming the data isn't GIGO, the real question to ask are the outcomes between children of unmarried gays, and married gays.

How does this compare to your opinions on scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 if it were an interracial couple instead of a gay one? A marriage between people who had married before?  A Catholic baker and a marriage between Catholics outside the church?

I am unaware of any theology that is against interracial marriage, so I would consider such a claim to be ersatz. As to the other two examples, I would have the same attitudes.

[Torie]

I am unaware of any theology that is against interracial marriage, so I would consider such a claim to be ersatz. As to the other two examples, I would have the same attitudes.

1. "If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." -- Brigham Young

2. How did Bob Jones University defend its ban on interracial dating?

Neither of these are currently in force, which goes to show much "deeply felt religious objections" tend to track with the culture as a whole rather than absolute theology.

Well that was then, and now is now. If one wants to roll back the clock, the issue gets more difficult. I suppose if the religious claim is legit, one must accept it, to a limited extent. If things get out of hand, maybe we would then need a Constitutional amendment. In thinking about it, I suppose I would draw a distinction between a "legitimate" religious organization, or tradition, and someone just making up their own religion, as a cover. The IRS does not accept that, and if someone created a religion that had a high correlation with the Nazi "theology," that simply does not deserve as much deference, even if it truly is a religious claim made in good faith, rather than a disingenuous cover for execrable conduct. Hard as it may be to believe, that law does incorporate some tradition of what is practical, and makes good sense, just as was one time noted by Justice Jackson, the "law is not a suicide pact" (in the context of balancing individual liberties in time of war). One does not need to take things to a logical extreme, and slide all the way down the slippery slope. All things must be balanced, to seek to effect the best one can that sometimes elusive golden mean.

[Torie]

Wulfric, the only secular argument argument against SSM that you have that makes much sense, if supported by the data, would be if the data demonstrated that SSM will reduce the percentage of heterosexual couples that get married, because if gays are allowed to get married, heteros will find the marriage currency degraded, and just not go there. Good luck with that, but that is all you have. The idea that this planet needs more people, and thus procreation should be encouraged, is highly problematical, and given that the US is currently at about stasis when it comes to fertility rates (and that assumes no more net immigration, which itself is not data supported), means that even if one just focuses on the US alone, and does not care about the planet, the US is not in danger of going the way of Europe or Japan (too many olds and not enough youngs to make the transfer payments to the non-working olds), unless it pushes the procreation accelerator. Just this one old dissected lawyer's opinion.

All of the above ignores the morality of treating gays as second class citizens, even if there were some modest negative ancillary consequences, but I digress.

[Torie]

Why should polygamy be illegal though?

Your argument is consistent - but if "some" marriages are protected by the constitution and "some" aren't, based on "Feelings" -- that's a problem. And the left cannot answer that question. The courts won't either. They'll create a new law.

More slippery slope BS. I am not going to bother even answering the policy distinctions between polygamy and gay marriages. Let someone else do that. The differences are huge.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only difference is there are more people who choose to enter into a gay relationship than in a polygamist relationship. The problem is, if you're going to declare marriage between two people a right, you're re-writing the constitution. It's either a right or it isn't.

This should not be imposed on America in this fashion.

Wrong. Not even close as to the poly versus homo distinction. You do have a legitimate argument about judicial fiat versus ballot box reform to treat gays like human beings, rather than to be shunned and degraded, but at this point it's close to moot. Gay rights will be secured either way. Deal with it.

[Torie]

Guys, I'm confident that if we ever reach a situation where millions of Americans are living in polygamous relationships and raising children outside the protection of the law—and not just in a few insular compounds in remote parts of the country—the courts will have to consider if marriage laws need to adapt.

The fact is, we don't have that. While it may not seem this way to people who have limited exposure to gays and gay families, the Supreme Court does not expand marriage laws "on spec" in the absence of a cultural shift and a large number of people affected just because people perceive a slippery slope. Same-sex marriage has been ratcheted forward by a few court cases, but gays won those court cases because we had been living openly and proudly and raising children for many years outside the protection of the law, even well before 2003.

This argument is similar to saying that if the government can raise the minimum wage to $9/hour, it can raise it to $1,000/hour, and of course that would break our economy, so it shouldn't be able to raise it to $9/hour. That argument has serious problems.

Yes, the slippery slope argument is ludicrous. The law is perfectly capable of making intelligent distinctions, and does it all the time. It's how lawyers make their living helping the courts to do just that.

[Torie]

It's not even like the law needs to make much of a distinction to avoid the slippery slope issue.  Besides the fact that it's less traditional, how is same-sex marriage any closer to polygamous marriage than heterosexual marriage?  It isn't.  And there's no serious person who thinks that "it's traditional" is an argument worth hanging your hat on.

Well you expand the definition in one direction, and then it is like a supernova, and expands everywhere, eventually consuming the planet Earth, and we all die, and it's the end.  It is sort of like Kenan's containment policy against the former Soviet Union. The key thing is containment. I hope that helps.

[Torie]

Assuming you were an atheist Wulfric, and did not believe the Bible had any divine inspiration, would you still hold the position that you do on SSM? I ask, because you sort of admit that your secular arguments are weak. Plus, there is no data whatsoever, no is it reasonable to believe, that SSM will have any impact on fertility rates (which is the predicate to then even reaching the argument as to whether in the US higher or lower or the same fertility rates are good or bad). Nor is there any data, that SSM will reduce the marriage rates of heterosexual couples, to the extent that you argue that point at all, but it is the main secular argument opponents of SSM push. At least that is my impression.

[Torie]

In other news, this interpretation of the SCOTUS oral argument on SSM, is that at least six justices are not buying the procreation distinction as any kind of persuasive argument at all.

[Torie]

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Why has everyone thought Wulfric was a moderate? On his post in the "Political Views Explained" megathread months ago, he was consistently conservative on almost everything with the exception of a few random liberal positions, mostly on economics.

He's straight up conservative almost across the board.

Because he goes out of his way to appear moderate even when his actual positions are extreme

Being against SSM for religious reasons is an "extreme" position?

[Torie]

Being in favor of banning the construction of mosques.

Yes, that qualifies, particularly if it is because of the particular religion involved.