Students in my classes are often surprised to learn that anti-miscegenation laws were still on the books until 2000 in Alabama, and that only 60% of voters in a referendum supported the repeal.
 

The full background to the case is available in this book.
 

Marriage isn't only a "right". It is a "duty," a responsibility, a requirement by society itself.

In reading colony law, I am constantly struck by how utterly selfish the "Puritan" society (but only as one example out of virtually all) was. Laws were enacted to prevent one town dumping its poor on one or another neighboring town. Laws required persons to prove their residency in this or that town; and if they couldn't, or were not "egally" resident, they were in effect "deported".

And out of that, also, laws forced people to marry (the laws are silent on whether there must be an actual pregnancy) so the larger society need not pay for and suppport its own future -- that future being represented in the embodiments of its future: little ones.

(None of which yet goes to the issue of inheritance and chattel. There were, however, despite the blanket myth, exceptions made as to inheritance by women in the case of widows -- to, of course, "protect" the larger society from supporting its own financially.)
 

I am writing this through tears as I look at the photo of my wedding day. Me, with my pale white face, and my wife with her brown skin and dark eyes flashing with the happiness we still feel. What Richard and Mildred did for my wife and I went without comment on that day, but not without remembering. I was born before the Court ruled in their favor and spend my life happily now because of it.

Marriage is far to important to people to continue to let politicians and promoters of prejudice to prevail. Legalization of marriage between consenting adults of any gender (or race) is far overdue.
 

melas,

Exactly, so why do so many of you try to limit it to only two? As you say, marriage is too important, so why limit it to "between," it should be "among."
 

Loving is inapposite regardless of Mildred Loving's personal views on the subject.

Anti-miscegenation laws did not change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman), but rather made it a crime for a man and woman of different races to get married.

In contrast, there is no law which makes it a crime for a homosexuals to marry. Rather, we are speaking about an effort to redefine marriage itself to include homosexual unions.
 

Anti-miscegenation laws did not change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman), but rather made it a crime for a man and woman of different races to get married.

A distinction without a difference. Plus, one man and one woman is not the "definition of marriage" as even the briefest glance at anthropology or even the Bible would show you.
 

I have read the book Mark Field referenced and found it interesting. Likewise, the t.v. movie providing the human story behind the case, "Mr. & Mrs. Loving" was pretty good as well.

The case has a lot of interesting background to it. For instance, an earlier CA case, Perez v. Sharp, held against bans on interracial marraiges about twenty years earlier. The sky did not fall when a state court took a pioneer approach in marriage law.

One concurring judge referenced a freedom of religion argument, more relevant in the days when fornication and even cohabitation w/o benefit of marriage was much more dangerous (esp. before Lawrence v. Texas).

Martha Nussbaum in her latest book on religious freedom defends a religious exception for polygamy. Either way, see Griswold v. CT., marriage often is deemed "sacred," and state sanction of only non-same sex holy unions is rather discriminatory.

[the definition argument is rather circular; Catholics argue women cannot be "priests," a definition that is discriminatory to some people]

As with employment discrimination, this leads some to fear that we will have kids marry and work in factories since we don't allow gender discrimination in the workplace. Loving et. al. figured we could find a way to avoid that.
 

I just finished reading "Speaking Truth to Memory: Lawyers and Resistance to the End of White Supremacy" by Mary Ellen Maatman (Howard Law Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2006) available at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1124123

that focuses upon Deep South lawyers in their efforts to avoid compliance with Brown v. Board of Education and integration. The Loving case is discussed as these lawyers pressed White Supremacy concepts and the feared impact of miscegenation. This article, some 90+ pages, reads quickly and serves as a reminder of lingering racial issues. As I read the article I could not put out of my mind the injection of Rev. Wright into the presidential campaigns and how he has been treated in comparison to Rev. Hagee and other white religious leaders, e.g. Falwell, Robertson, etc.
 

One concurring judge referenced a freedom of religion argument, more relevant in the days when fornication and even cohabitation w/o benefit of marriage was much more dangerous (esp. before Lawrence v. Texas).

A few years ago I spent some time trying to convince the lawyers handling the gay marriage cases to include the freedom of religion argument (or to put more emphasis on it). They apparently didn't/don't think it's all that strong, but I continue to believe it has real advantages.
 

shag:

As I read the article I could not put out of my mind the injection of Rev. Wright into the presidential campaigns and how he has been treated in comparison to Rev. Hagee and other white religious leaders, e.g. Falwell, Robertson, etc.

You might want to credit videotape and not racism.

Wright's rants were written about in the Rolling Stone and Obama's own book and there was not a peep. Ditto for the flakes ranting from the right. However, once you can see the Right Reverend Wright in full racist rant on TV, it becomes real.

More importantly, there is no comparison between McCain and Obama on this subject which would cause press coverage of McCain's preacher.

If McCain spent twenty years in a white supremacist church and we saw similar video of a white supremicist preacher ranting racial conspiracy theories about how the country was damned because it was run by blacks, then McCain claimed he could no more disown his racist church than disown the white community, McCain would be charred toast.

I sure as hell would not vote for him under those circumstances. Further, I would bet a year's pay that the GOP would find a way to force McCain to withdraw so the party could choose another candidate at the convention. There would be no half hearted party defenses about former pastors not speaking for the campaign. The party reaction would be swift and final.

Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, there is no way in hell McCain would consider attending a white supremicist church nevertheless become a faithful follower of a ranting racist.

Unfortunately, for the Dems their party does not have the gumption to compel Obama to withdraw because he was the faithful follower of a ranting racist.

For what it is worth, I do not believe that Obama is himself a ranting racist, but rather he followed a ranting racist for political advantage in Chicago and Illinois. That is hardly an improvement, though.

Obama has a politically fatal problem here which he and his supporters ignore that their own peril.
 

Baghdad, what "racist rant" are you talking about? I've seen video of a very angry black man, but I suspect black men of Wright's age probably have very good reasons to be angry. Where is the racism?
 

so why do so many of you try to limit it to only two? As you say, marriage is too important, so why limit it to "between," it should be "among."

So many of "us"? I don't recall that the proponents of gay marriage support repeal of Reynolds. I thought it was the marriage traditionalists who want to bar polygamy notwithstanding the considerable historical support for that as a valid form of marriage.
 

Damn. "Proponents" should have been "opponents".
 

For what it is worth, I do not believe that Obama is himself a ranting racist, but rather he followed a ranting racist for political advantage in Chicago and Illinois. That is hardly an improvement, though.

Happens all the time. Heck, some of them are even white!
 

Baghdad, it's funny that you don't have a problem with McCain following a ranting racist (Hagee)for political gain, but you do have a problem with Obama doing it (according to you).
 

Anti-miscegenation laws did not change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman)

That's only one definition of marriage.

In order to come up with a suitable universal definition, you have to say it's a culturally recognized bond between two or more people that define rights and obligations among the people being married, their families, and/or their children.

Worldwide, of course, the preferred form of marriage is polygamy, with monogamy being the most practiced form, due to mathematical and economic limitations. So, by rushing to propose the acceptability of polygamy, humblelawstudent demonstrates a surprising amount of awareness for one of "them."
 

narc/pms:

We are discussing the law, not anthropology.

The law in all 50 states (at least until four black robes in MA rewrote it for the Bay State) was that marriage = one man and one woman.

Proponents of homosexual "marriage" are seeking to change that definition.

For the purposes of the EPC, it only matters that the marriage laws are applied equally and they are.

Consequently, it is up to the People through their elected representatives to decide whether they want to recognize homosexual unions as marriages and a such to extend legal benefits to them.
 

"Bartbuster --

"Baghdad, what 'racist rant' are you talking about? I've seen video of a very angry black man, but I suspect black men of Wright's age probably have very good reasons to be angry. Where is the racism?"

Bart probably refers to Wright's citing of and apparent objection to the Tuskegee experiments on black men, deliberately infecting them with syphilis, and then withholding treatment in order to chart the progress of the disease, as being racist on the part of Wright because it reminds Bart of the fact that racist white folks tend to justify their racism based upon racism attributed by them to black folks.

(How dare Wright raise FACTUAL issues which SUBSTANTIATE his charge/s of racism?)

That being based, of course, on the fact that there was never any slavery in the US, or lynchings of black folk in particular, therefore blacks have nothing to whine about except for figments of their childlike imaginations about having been adversely affected by white racists, which we all know have never existed. They just don't seem to accept the fact that the KKK is a religious organization, even though they obviously wear Pope hats.

Give a black an inch and he'll take a mile. Didn't we white folk go out of our way and thus make the mistake of giving blacks, in the mistaken belief that it would shut them up about their fantasies of white racism, anti-lynching laws, with which they still weren't satisfied?

You mean we haven't yet enacted those anti-lynching laws? Never mind.

Meanwhile, we have just as much videotape of "Rev." Hagee spewing his white supremacism, but those aren't being run on the MSM. Might that be because the MSM is populated with innumerable white racists? The high-profile juvenile Maureen Dowd even wrote a piece about "angry black men" -- which couldn't have been more overtly intended to arouse racist stereotypes and fears.

If nothing is scarier than an angry white man, it's a black man. And the only thing scarier than a black man is an angry black man.

But we know where Bart is coming from: he neglects to mention the readily available videotape of Hagee which isn't being exploited by the white-dominated MSM in order to expose McCain to legitimate scrutiny.

Let alone looking at the facts which underlie McCain's purported "heroism":

He was illegally in Vietnam, flew a bombing mission over North Vietnam, was shot down, landed in a lake, was rescued from drowning by the North Vietnamese, and then imprisoned as a POW.

For which he's declared a "hero".

I wonder: if all the blacks in US prisons were instead imprisoned in Iraqi prisons under Saddam Hussein, would they be "heroes" too? Nah: they ain't white enough.
 

jnagarya, McCain isn't a hero for getting shot down or for being captured. He acted heroically while withstanding the kind of torture that he now believes to be OK for the CIA but not the Army.
 

Bart brazens it out --

". . . . The law in all 50 states (at least until four black robes in MA rewrote it for the Bay State) was that marriage = one man and one woman."

Actually, that isn't the fact, because no one thoguht to stipulate that because no one thought homosexuals would one day demand equal rights under STATE LAWS sans "religious" bigotries unconstitutionally entwined therewith.

"Proponents of homosexual 'marriage' are seeking to change that definition."

No, there are simply acting on what the non-stipulated/"common sense" definition of marriage has al along been: two individuals agreeing to join their fortunes and destinies together under existing state law. ASSuming those two individuals would be of opposite sexes is not stipulation or law.

The only objections to which come from those who are incapable of distinguishing between a civil institution -- marraige -- and their private "religious" orientation.

There's another exemption in MA law which needs to be expunged: the exemption in the statute protecting children's health by requiring proper medical treatment for Christian Scientists. Thus the case in which the dumb-ass religionuts who let their child die of a curable illness because their "religion"/superstition was more important than the life of their own child.

And they got off because of that unconstitutional exemption.
 

Eric --

"For what it is worth, I do not believe that Obama is himself a ranting racist, but rather he followed a ranting racist for political advantage in Chicago and Illinois. That is hardly an improvement, though."

"Happens all the time. Heck, some of them are even white!"

You mean, like, for example, McCain and racist/white supremacist Hagee, and McCain so greedy to be president that he actually sought, and enthusiastically accepted, Hagee's endorsement, because he has no ethical or moral concerns whatsoever from whence he gets votes?

Reminds of the Republican who recently gave a speech at a Neo-Nazi event -- then later said he didn't know it was what it was. The huge picture of Hitler behind him as he stood at the podium, and the swastika armbands on the Neo-Nazis present, apparently weren't sufficient clues for him.

His comment was sorta like the priest-in-the-whorehouse scenario sketched by Lenny Bruce: "I was there to bring them to the Lord."
 

Bartbuster --

"Baghdad, it's funny that you don't have a problem with McCain following a ranting racist (Hagee)for political gain, but you do have a problem with Obama doing it (according to you)."

But there's an easy explanation for that, Bartbuster:

We have videotape of Rev. Wright ranting. We don't have videotape of "Rev." Hagee ranting, including the segement about Catholics being "a cult" and "the anti-Christ".

. . . now where did I see that Hagee rant . . . ?
 

The law in all 50 states (at least until four black robes in MA rewrote it for the Bay State) was that marriage = one man and one woman.

First, the people of the Bay State and their elected representatives had every opportunity to reverse the gay marriage decision. They did not, and there's no desire out there to do so. If you want to blame anyone, blame the populace of the state. Stop hiding behind typical boilerplate (and BS) conservative criticisms of the judiciary.

Second, the law in many states, until 9 black robes said otherwise, was that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race.

There is no distinction between something that is part of the "definition" of marriage and something that isn't; the only distinction is who the state allows to get married and whom they allow them to marry. And the answer, before Loving, in many states, was that whites cannot marry blacks. And the answer, now, in most states, is that men can't marry men.

An honest conservative would admit that Loving very much changed the way many people thought about marriage and departed from longstanding traditions. Because it did.
 

Melas --

"jnagarya, McCain isn't a hero for getting shot down or for being captured. He acted heroically while withstanding the kind of torture that he now believes to be OK for the CIA but not the Army."

According to other POWs, he spilled the beans as result of the (alleged) torture.

But as McCain knows, we have ways to overcome those who are able to resist torture: waterboarding, psychotropic drugs . . .

And who says he's against the Army using torture? And if so, is it because he knows the Bushit criminal enterprise has mostly privatized that activity?
 

Did Lisa's Bro allude to the possibility of a Manchurian Candidate? If so, this Bud's for him.
 

melas said...

jnagarya, McCain isn't a hero for getting shot down or for being captured. He acted heroically while withstanding the kind of torture that he now believes to be OK for the CIA but not the Army.

Hero, The NVA starved, beat and dislocated the shoulders of Mr. McCain, The original CIA coercive interrogation program had nothing like this. What Mr. McCain supports is an abbreviated program without waterboarding.
 

dilan said...

BD: The law in all 50 states (at least until four black robes in MA rewrote it for the Bay State) was that marriage = one man and one woman.

First, the people of the Bay State and their elected representatives had every opportunity to reverse the gay marriage decision. They did not, and there's no desire out there to do so.

The Bay State has an odd initiative process requiring multiple votes of the legislature. The Dem politicians were under tremendous party pressure not to dump on a prime Dem constituency. They figured their overwhelmingly Dem constituents would not vote GOP to punish them so they voted with the party.

If the issue was submitted to the People first through the petition process to get it on the ballot and then in an initiative election (as it is in most states), homosexual marriage would have lost here as it has every time it is submitted to the People.

The supporters of homosexual marriage knew this and fought tooth and nail to stop a vote in the Bay State, as they have in every other state.
 

narc/pms:

We are discussing the law, not anthropology.


Then I suggest saying "the legal definition of marriage" when that's what you mean.

The law in all 50 states (at least until four black robes in MA rewrote it for the Bay State) was that marriage = one man and one woman.

Your temporal sequence is out of whack. For most states, marriage was a self-evident cultural category until the potential success of LGBT rights movements prompted people to push for codification of certain beliefs.
 

"Bartbuster --

"Baghdad, what 'racist rant' are you talking about? I've seen video of a very angry black man, but I suspect black men of Wright's age probably have very good reasons to be angry. Where is the racism?

That was a pretty racist comment.

So you believe that those older black guys just can't help from making loony racist statements like the US is run by a cabal of mass murdering rich KK members and white and black kids use their brains differently?

Classy.
 

As for the politics of the Right Reverend Wright, the exit polling from IN and NC is showing that Obama's fumbling of this issue has nearly entirely alienated Dem blue collar voters and most of them now say they will vote for McCain over Obama.
 

Bart DePalma barfs BS --

jnagarya, McCain isn't a hero for getting shot down or for being captured. He acted heroically while withstanding the kind of torture that he now believes to be OK for the CIA but not the Army.

"Hero, The NVA starved, beat and dislocated the shoulders of Mr. McCain, The original CIA coercive interrogation program had nothing like this."

And how would you know what the "original CIA coercive program" entailed? You wouldn't know, except for pulling yet another chunk of horseshit out of your ass and lying that it it instead gold.

"What Mr. McCain supports is an abbreviated program without waterboarding."

Since when is one a "hero" for being captured, imprisoned as a POW, and treated as a POW?

Why does that make McCain a "hero," but no one else who was subjected to the same circumstances and treatment? Might it be because he is a fake maverick Republican politica and public figure?

Or might it be that the US loves to lie to itself about the facts concerning the illegal US invovlement in Vietnam, the illegal bombings of hospitals and civilian infradstructure in North Viewnam, and ultimately the fact that the US lost a war in which it had no business interfering?

I think we know the actual answer, Bart, though you will continue to lie against it.

What bogus "hero" McCain supports is torture committed in accordance with the Bushit signing statement circumventing the anti-torture statute McCain knew was useless, yet continues to hide and lie behind.
 

Bart DePalma articulates his bogit's ignorance in fine detail --

dilan said...

BD: The law in all 50 states (at least until four black robes in MA rewrote it for the Bay State) was that marriage = one man and one woman.

First, the people of the Bay State and their elected representatives had every opportunity to reverse the gay marriage decision. They did not, and there's no desire out there to do so.

"The Bay State has an odd initiative process requiring multiple votes of the legislature."

Massachusetts has an initiative process which is neither "odd" nor "requiring multiple votes of the legislature". The initiative petition process has been part of the Massachusetts constitution since at latest 1917. Factsd notwithstanding, you will insist it is the spawn of "liberals," though a review of the history will likely find that the government at that time was still in the hands of blueblood Republican WASPS.

"The Dem politicians were under tremendous party pressure not to dump on a prime Dem constituency."

The General Court was dealing with the initaitve provisions in the state constitution. Interestingly, Bart, you're constant line is that "liberals" and Democrats are incapable of transcending politics -- which is exactly from when you constantly spew: a refusal to be anything but a party-before-country partisan bigot.

"They figured their overwhelmingly Dem constituents would not vote GOP to punish them so they voted with the party."

There aren't enough Republicans in Massachusetts to constitute a majority in the General Court should all of them be voted into office. However, Bart, Massachusetts, unlike your baby-state of Colorada, is where the revolutionS which established the US began. We really don't need baby states such as yours tellling us "how to do it".

The fact is that the majority of the population in Massachusetts is Democratic, not Republican. That is not, despite your uninformed yet elitist implication, a measure of their lack of intelligence. It is a measure of their liberalism, which is to say their "turn the other cheek" tolerance for difference and diversity, unlike lilly-white-only bigots such as you.

"If the issue was submitted to the People first through the petition process to get it on the ballot and then in an initiative election (as it is in most states), homosexual marriage would have lost here as it has every time it is submitted to the People."

You needn't posit your self-sering "IF"; you need only go to the MA Sec. of State website and read the portion of the MA constitution concerning initiative petitions.

"The supporters of homosexual marriage knew this and fought tooth and nail to stop a vote in the Bay State, as they have in every other state."

Funny thing is, Bart, that the MAJORITY of the people in MA supported the court decision. That's why the vote turned out as it did -- and that in spite of conservative "Irish"- and "Italian"-Catholic Democrats in the legislative leadership.

It should disappoint you profoundly, Bart, that slavery was declared by MA's highest court to be unconstitutional during the 18th century, not long after the constitution of 1780* was ratified.

*"The Massachusetts Constitution, adopted by the citizens . . . in 1780, is the oldest still-governing constitution in the world. It served as a model for our national constitution as well as for numerous other states. . . ." "Foreword," The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Secretary of State, September, 1989).

The main author of the constitution was John Adams. Your baby-state of Colorado should have such a respectworthy tradition as concerns constitutional law -- punk.
 

If the issue was submitted to the People first through the petition process to get it on the ballot and then in an initiative election (as it is in most states), homosexual marriage would have lost here as it has every time it is submitted to the People.

First, Bart, the word is "gay". Use it. It shows that you respect these people as human beings. And you do respect them, don't you? You aren't a bigot, are you?

Second, if the anti-gay marriage platform were such a big electoral winner in Massachussets, the politicians who voted to uphold the Supreme Judicial Court's decision would have been voted out of office.

They weren't, because the voters aren't up in arms about gays and lesbians marrying as the religious right is.
 

dilan:

The term "gay" applies to homosexual men. You are leaving out the lesbians by using gay instead of the proper term homosexual.

Why are you afraid of the term homosexual?

Is that a form of "homophobia?"

Sorry, I could not resist the snark after the cheap bigot crack.

As for the Bay State, do any of the Dem polticos who denied the People a chance to vote to reverse the Mass Supremes have any viable competition for their seats? There is your answer.
 

As to "religious freedom" arguments, freedom of conscience is often a core aspect of these fights, religious freedom clearly related to that, as is general liberty. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or various opinions of Justice Stevens. I find it an important factor and that many people deep down agree.

As to language, "gay" doesn't really work. First, yeah, it can and sometimes does apply to lesbians too. Still, it is true that it is often tied to males, so 'lesbian marriage' is left out.

Second, the issue is same sex marriage. "Gay marriage" suggests two "gays" marrying. It is useful to avoid misleading terms in this area. Consider bisexuals or even two gays of opposite sex marrying (e.g., those who think they are "ex" gays).
 

May I suggest that "Bart" is "inapposite".

["Bart"]: Loving is inapposite regardless of Mildred Loving's personal views on the subject.

Anti-miscegenation laws did not change the definition of marriage (one man and one woman), ....

What a crock. They most certainly did. They said that blacks and whites can't marry. Hardly necessary to pass such laws if it wasn't necessary to prevent this horrible mongrelization of the races that the RW racists were so askeered of.

... but rather made it a crime for a man and woman of different races to get married.

Yes. You make something a crime to prevent it. And that's changing the definition of a marriage, isn't it?

I'd note that if "Bart" wants to maintain that the ban on blacks and whites marrying has always and forever been (as the Virginia judge also suggested, until the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court set him right), and also wants to maintain that the "traditional" definition of "marriage" must be defended at all costs from the homosexual hordes, than he must also maintain that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided.

In contrast, there is no law which makes it a crime for a homosexuals to marry....

Wow. I'm sure they feel better. They aren't tossed in prison or fined; they're simply not allowed to marry (and to have the benefits that married people are afforded). "Bart" is so fulsome with his tolerance and magnanimity.

... Rather, we are speaking about an effort to redefine marriage itself to include homosexual unions.

... which very fact causes "Bart" such severe psychological angst -- the thought of those nude men cavorting together, and touching each other -- that "Bart" rises in righteous indignation, ready to jump into battle to assert himself, and show them the way things should be done..... Luckily for "Bart", there are plenty of like-minded people. I'm thinking "Haggard". I hear Ted's out in Colorado somewhere; maybe "Bart" can look him up and they can play... -- ummm, sorry, "plan" -- out strategy to defeat this insidious evil (that requires even a constitutional amendment to prevent) together....

Cheers,
 

Jack... you may want to read Loving again -- the "fundamental rights" question was addressed by the Court under the Due Process clause. Section II of the opinion:"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men..." Mrs. Loving understood exactly...
 

Bart DePalma bungles a bunt --

". . . . Sorry, I could not resist the snark after the cheap bigot crack."

It isn't the crack that's cheap, it's the bigot against whom that evaluation has been lodged by more than one participant in this blog.

"As for the Bay State, do any of the Dem polticos who denied the People a chance to vote to reverse the Mass Supremes have any viable competition for their seats? There is your answer."

I already answered that upthread, Bart. You might try, first, READING, and second, RETAINING.

I even give you some tips on how to get a handle on the actual Massachusetts initiative petition process.
 

To tell you the truth, I've always found Loving a little problematic doctrinally. Does the ruling depend on the obvious discriminatory intent of the statute? Or, doesit suggest that all racial classifications, regardless of intent or even whether they impose a greater burden on one race or another, are suspect per se? Both readings can be supported by the opinion, and if you buy the latter, I think you have a tough time arguing with cases like Shaw.
 

So you believe that those older black guys just can't help from making loony racist statements like the US is run by a cabal of mass murdering rich KK members
Classy.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 8:27 PM

Baghdad, I didn't ask for what you thought he said, I want actual quotes.
 

Tray -- I think you can read the opinion as resting solely on the statute's "invidious" nature and as suggesting that "racial classifications" always are "suspect", and that the Court intended to say both in the opinion. I don't think the latter presents a problem in Shaw since it held that "[c]lassifications of citizens based solely on race are by their nature odious" and "[n]or is there any support for the argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority."
 

As for the Bay State, do any of the Dem polticos who denied the People a chance to vote to reverse the Mass Supremes have any viable competition for their seats? There is your answer.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:52 PM

The Rethuglican party in Massachusetts has largely been destroyed. The rejection of bigots like you is one of the best things about living here.
 

Bartbuster:

["Bart"]: So you believe that those older black guys just can't help from making loony racist statements like the US is run by a cabal of mass murdering rich KK members
Classy.

Baghdad, I didn't ask for what you thought he said, I want actual quotes.

Even if Wright had said that, it might have been simply a transcription error. People like Barr and Lott (and Ashcroft too, IIRC), had more than a passing acquaintance with the CCC WARNING! Google flags this site as containing potential "badware"!!! ;-)

Then there's Dubya's visit to Bob Jones University....

I'd note, FWIW, that one of the major "concerns" of the CCC (Council of Conservative Citizens) was the dilution of the 'white race', pretty much the very (stated) concern of the Commonwealth of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia).

And "Bart" himself has been known to opine on this blog about the terrible problem of the other 'races' outbreeding us whiteys, and telling us we ought to take alarm, lest we find ourselves swamped with those 'darkies' ("Bart" probably doesn't want to see our family picture album).

Cheers,
 

Bartbuster --

As for the Bay State, do any of the Dem polticos who denied the People a chance to vote to reverse the Mass Supremes have any viable competition for their seats? There is your answer.

# posted by Bart DePalma: 9:52 PM

"The Rethuglican party in Massachusetts has largely been destroyed. The rejection of bigots like you is one of the best things about living here."

Let's be absolutely clear on this for the benefit of Bart, and also for the benefit of those who believe truth trumps lusting after power by any means seen fit:

The MA Republican party demolished ITSELF, without needing the help of anyone or anything outside itself. Ray Shamie anyone as "mainstream"? And how about that Jefferson guy, another one who talked stuff that made no sense to anyone, except perhaps to space aliens.

Which doesn't mean MA doesn't have its statistically-insignificant subset of religionuts who were all up in flyers with their fire-and-brimstone psychoses at the time.

And then there's the morally-superior Romney -- he's got "religion," donchaknow: was for abortion before he was against it. Political expediency: he couldn't get elected Park Street Station soapbox preacher being against it. But he hadn't a chance of being a Republican't-tell-the-truth nominee unless he were agin' it.

So, being a morally-superior Republican with religion and family values, he lied -- both times. Other than that, his looks made many women's hearts go bumpity-bump.
 

If McCain spent twenty years in a white supremacist church and we saw similar video of a white supremicist preacher ranting racial conspiracy theories about how the country was damned because it was run by blacks....

... and if pigs could fly, we'd all carry cast iron umbrellas.

Can we stick to facts, please?

FWIW, the comic strip Candorville is running a series this week on the issue of Wright's supposed "extremism". Well worth a peek, starting at the May 5th strip. Enjoy!

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

The law in all 50 states (at least until four black robes in MA rewrote it for the Bay State) was that marriage = one man and one woman.

What a crock. Don't insult us like that. We're neither stoopid nor blind. The reason that so many states have pushed new laws recently stating that marriage is only between "one man and one woman" lately is that the prior laws didn't say that.

Cheers,
 

["Bart" DePalma]:
For the purposes of the EPC, it only matters that the marriage laws are applied equally and they are.

"While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [388 U.S. 1, 8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 7-8 [1967].

Well done, "Bart". You made the same argument that a unanimous Supreme Court shot down in flames forty years ago.

Cheers,
 

And what arguments might Lisa's bro have made on Dred Scott and Plessy cases? Miscegination laws were based upon white supremacy, which might have been okay if the one-drop rule applied in reverse with respect to both race and to ethnicity. Isn't there a drop of the Genghis Khan clan in all of us? Or are there still some as pure as the driven Colorado snows? (I still prefer a Corona over a Coors.)
 

Arne Langsetmo --

Bartbuster:

["Bart"]: So you believe that those older black guys just can't help from making loony racist statements like the US is run by a cabal of mass murdering rich KK members
Classy.

Baghdad, I didn't ask for what you thought he said, I want actual quotes.

"Even if Wright had said that, it might have been simply a transcription error. People like Barr and Lott (and Ashcroft too, IIRC), had more than a passing acquaintance with the CCC WARNING! Google flags this site as containing potential "badware"!!! ;-)"

The "CCC" is the old "White Citizens Council" under new hood -- er, under new name; sorry [like hell] for the slip-of-the-fingers.

And Delay, Lott, Asscrafty, and their Federalist Society ilk, et al., have been known to hang out with the "Neo-Confederates" -- those who want to re-establish the Confederacy and its constitutional prohibitions against constitutional amendments or statutes adversely affecting or eliminating slavery.

"Then there's Dubya's visit to Bob Jones University...."

Which is famously known for teaching its vulnerable "Christian" students the non-racist "Christian" view that miscegination is prohibited by "Gawd". On the other hand, and by contrast therewith, having visited the Middle East and seen for himself the demographics, Mark Twain postulated, based upon the percentages, that Christ was in all likelihood other than white.

Didn't McCain refuse to speak there because, he said, it's racist -- until, that is, he decided it would be necessary to "heroically" pander to the racist Republican "base" (which basely runs the party from the top) if he were to have any chance of becoming president?

"I'd note, FWIW, that one of the major "concerns" of the CCC (Council of Conservative Citizens) was the dilution of the 'white race', pretty much the very (stated) concern of the Commonwealth of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia)."

"The KKK is out of style: they don't wear colored sheets." -- Dick Gregory.

"And 'Bart' himself has been known to opine on this blog about the terrible problem of the other 'races' outbreeding us whiteys, and telling us we ought to take alarm, lest we find ourselves swamped with those 'darkies'"

I could say I'm shocked that Bart would hold, let alone express, such a view. But if I were to say I'm shocked, I'd either be joking or lying.

"('Bart' probably doesn't want to see our family picture album)."

(Psst! Don't tell anyone -- especially Bart -- that I said this; and I'll whisper it so as not to be overheard by evesdroppers: Bart probably doesn't want to see his own family album.)
 

Why are you afraid of the term homosexual? Is that a form of "homophobia?" Sorry, I could not resist the snark after the cheap bigot crack.

You can use "gays" or "gays and lesbians". "Homosexual" is fine if you are doing clinical research, but it is used by right wingers because they don't want to give gays and lesbians the dignity of calling them by the preferred terms.

That's reason enough not to use it. It's kind of like "Negro" for blacks.

As for the Bay State, do any of the Dem polticos who denied the People a chance to vote to reverse the Mass Supremes have any viable competition for their seats? There is your answer.

That's a non-answer. If it were such a great issue, those seats would become contested as pissed off voters sought to remove representatives who voted for gay marriage. Even "safe" seats can become unsafe when a representative does something truly out of step.

Again, it hasn't happened, because there's pretty strong support in the state for gay marriage.
 

Bart, you're right that Loving didn't change the meaning of marriage, but then again, neither would same-sex marriage. In each case, allowing that kind of couple to marry allows them to have genetic offspring together legally (they could of course have done it illegally and had illegitimate children). But fornication laws were in place, so denying marriage meant that they weren't allowed to "mix their genes" ("miscegenate) to procreate together. The court noted that was designed to preserve white supremacy by preserving distinct races and the concept of races in general. This is why they cited Skinner (about procreation) in the decision.

So the question is the same - should we allow people to mix their genes with someone of the same sex? Currently it is legal to attempt it, so it makes sense that we should allow same-sex marriage too. But we really ought to prohibit attempting to create people from two men's or two women's genes. Not just because it is unsafe, but because it would open the door to all forms of experimental methods of genetic engineering. We should enact a law that prohibits forms of conception that do not join unmodified gametes, which means a man and a woman's gametes, because same-sex conception requires modifying one of their gametes to coax the genetic imprinting into complementarity.

People should only have the right to conceive children by joining their genes with someone of the other sex, and all marriages should have the right to conceive children using the marriages own genes. Ergo, same-sex marriage should not be allowed.
 

I assume the John Howard post is a joke?
 

That's a sadly common reaction. No, people are actually hoping to attempt same-sex conception with their partners. Scientists are actively researching it, and some have said it could happen in just a year or two. It needs to be prohibited, the sooner the better, it is a waste of money and it continuing to be allowed confuses things greatly. Resolving it will enable us to move forward on useful things. Google "same-sex procreation" or "female sperm".

Also, prohibiting it is the key to establishing civil unions and getting full equal protections for same-sex couples, including federal recognition. By offering up a concession to create a real distinction between marriage and civil union, we could overcome much of the opposition to civil unions, which is mainly that it is just like marriage or a stepping stone to marriage. By coming up with a distinction that makes it substantially permanently different, we could get civil unions in all 50 states before the end of the summer.
 

John Howard:

What makes you think that marriage is one and the same with "procreation"?

Cheers,
 

All marriages have always had a right to procreate using their own genes. That must be preserved, so that marriages cannot be prohibited from conceiving using their genes (ie, told they must use GE'd genes or donor genes due to a genetic defect one or both of them carry). Same-sex couples should be prohibited from procreating using their genes. That is first of all a difference in rights compared with couples that should have a guaranteed right to procreate togetehr, and secondly, incompatible with marriage rights.
 

John Howard:

My question was: "What makes you think that marriage is one and the same with 'procreation'?"

All marriages have always had a right to procreate using their own genes....

Since when? Do only 'marriages' "have the right to procreate using their own genes?" What about "... using someone else's genes"? What about "not at all"?

Isn't this a 'right' of the person(s), and not of the 'marriage'?

... That must be preserved,...

And how does not letting gays marry "preserve[]" that?

... so that marriages cannot be prohibited from conceiving using their genes (ie, told they must use GE'd genes or donor genes due to a genetic defect one or both of them carry)....

Huh?!?!? Where'd that come from?!?!? Are you perhaps in need of Haldol (or alternatively the product of some "defect[ive]" genes)?

... Same-sex couples should be prohibited from procreating using their genes....

Well, if we just lock them all up, no worry, no problem ... oh, wait ... they'd be in prison together. I've got it; let's just euthanise them all..///

... That is first of all a difference in rights compared with couples that should have a guaranteed right to procreate togetehr, and secondly, incompatible with marriage rights.

Not getting any, eh? Just on the basis of a few post here, it seems you're either a complete whackjob, or one of the RW religious nutzoes from the Fred Phelps battalion. I seem to recall some of their rantings along similar lines.....

You ought to go visit "Bart"; you and him can 'discuss strategy'.

And with that, any further posts by you here will be studiously skipped over by me.....

Cheers,
 

Yes arne, feel free not to respond anymore, thanks. I'm going to address some of your points though:

My question was: "What makes you think that marriage is one and the same with 'procreation'?"

I don't think it is "one and the same", I think that all marriages should have a right to conceive using their own gametes, ie, no married couple should ever be prohibited, in principle, from attempting to conceive using their own gametes.

All marriages have always had a right to procreate using their own genes....

Since when?

Since always. I've asked many many times, no one has ever found a marriage that was prohibited from attempting to conceive with their own genes.

Do only 'marriages' "have the right to procreate using their own genes?"

I'd say so, yes. At least in principle, it is only "right" to conceive with married gametes. In fact, "gamete" comes from the word "gamos", meaning marriage in Greek. People conceive without having a right to and we don't punish them, but that doesn't mean they have a right to.

What about "... using someone else's genes"? What about "not at all"?

I think there is no right to use donor gametes, if you are asking me what I think. Of course having a right to do something does not mean one has to do it. The main point is that marriages should have the right to use their own genes, that no married people should ever be prohibited from attempting it. We don't need to prohibit unmarried people from attempting it unless we decide to again.

Isn't this a 'right' of the person(s), and not of the 'marriage'?

No, it's technically a right of the person to get married, and the right of the marriage to procreate. With the marriage's gametes.

... That must be preserved,...

And how does not letting gays marry "preserve[]" that?

Well, currently, we should let same-sex couples marry because same-sex conception is legal. but if we prohibit same-sex conception, then we cannot let same-sex couples marry because that would change marriage, it would mean marriage didn't protect conception rights anymore. Imagine if Virginia had let the Lovings marry but prohibited them from procreating - it would have been unacceptable and would have changed marriage. The entire question was about their right to procreate together, hence citing Skinner in the decision.

... so that marriages cannot be prohibited from conceiving using their genes (ie, told they must use GE'd genes or donor genes due to a genetic defect one or both of them carry)....

Huh?!?!? Where'd that come from?!?!?

My brain, Arne. If you have one, use it for a minute and try to imagine what'll happen if we start allowing genetic engineering and also strip procreation rights from marriage. It'll be a terrible combination, setting up a government regulated eugenic industry.

... Same-sex couples should be prohibited from procreating using their genes....

Well, if we just lock them all up, no worry, no problem ... oh, wait ... they'd be in prison together. I've got it; let's just euthanise them all..///

If we pass the law that we need to, we sure would lock them up if they actually tried it, and also any scientists that were offering it. There'd also have to be huge fines, just like cloning laws in most countries. Our country doesn't have a law against cloning, but many states do.

... That is first of all a difference in rights compared with couples that should have a guaranteed right to procreate togetehr, and secondly, incompatible with marriage rights.

Not getting any, eh?

You realize i'm right, don't you? The best thing you should do is accept that you've lost this argument, and choose between insisting on conception rights or giving them up to get equal protections.

Just on the basis of a few post here, it seems you're either a complete whackjob, or one of the RW religious nutzoes from the Fred Phelps battalion.

Not both?

I seem to recall some of their rantings along similar lines.....

Really? Have they mentioned same-sex conception? Or that marriage gives conception rights and they must be preserved? I think their theology is solid.

You ought to go visit "Bart"; you and him can 'discuss strategy'.

Does Bart have a blog? Mine's eggandsperm.blogspot.com, please stop by, comments are welcome.
 

That's a sadly common reaction.

It probably common because your viewpoint is laughable. It's not possible for sex between 2 people of the same sex to result in conception.

No, people are actually hoping to attempt same-sex conception with their partners.

Only the ones who went to whatever high school that "educated" you and Baghdad.

Scientists are actively researching it, and some have said it could happen in just a year or two. It needs to be prohibited, the sooner the better, it is a waste of money and it continuing to be allowed confuses things greatly.

Let's assume that scientists could eventually create healthy children from the DNA of 2 people of the same sex. What exactly is the downside?
 

dilan said...

If it were such a great issue, those seats would become contested as pissed off voters sought to remove representatives who voted for gay marriage. Even "safe" seats can become unsafe when a representative does something truly out of step.

Again, it hasn't happened, because there's pretty strong support in the state for gay marriage.

The fact that the good citizens of the Bay State did not storm the capital with torches, tar and feather the bums and run them out of town on a rail is not the same as "strong support in the state for gay marriage."

If there was anything close to majority support for "gay marriage" among the voters of the Bay State, proponents would have amended the marriage law under the democratic process and would not have opposed an initiative putting the court decision to a vote. Instead, the opponents of "gay marriage" were the ones pushing for a vote of the People, as they have been across the country.

It is pretty obvious how both sides believe the People of the Bay State would come down on this issue.
 

It is pretty obvious how both sides believe the People of the Bay State would come down on this issue.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:28 PM

No offense, Baghdad, but you thought it was obvious that Republicans were going to nominate Rudy as their candidate for president. You're not very good at predicting these sorts of things.
 

Downsides, you mean. It's a question of priorities, about whether we want to open the door to a brave new world of government regulated genetic engineering and eugenics and threaten everyone's conception rights. The cost of developing it will be huge and cannot be justified by any need for it. And it is needlessly risky, purposefully creating people with no concern for their health and well-being. it's unloving, and anyone that would attempt to create someone that way is not suitable for being a caring parent. Do you really want to insist on a right to attempt it, when it probably can never be done, and giving up the right provides such a good distinction on which to enact civil unions with full federal recognition and equal protections?
 

Ahhh. Now I remember "John Howard".... He was off on this same irrational tangent a couple years ago on Balkinization (and even managed to get a post deleted by the blodadm back then, quite a feat). He was just as much a nutcase, and plagued by his own private phobias as he is today. Sad, it is, but let's just ignore him; he'd be best fighting his personal daemons in private.

Cheers,
 

Thanks for finding that link. It's recommended reading for anyone thinking about making quick comments, lots of stuff got answered there very well.

And thanks for reminding me who you are, arne. And I wonder if Jack Blakin has time to consider this subject now? What do you think Jack? Does it have something to do with marriage? Do we have to allow same-sex conception?
 

Bart DePalma --

dilan said...

If it were such a great issue, those seats would become contested as pissed off voters sought to remove representatives who voted for gay marriage. Even "safe" seats can become unsafe when a representative does something truly out of step.

Again, it hasn't happened, because there's pretty strong support in the state for gay marriage.

"The fact that the good citizens of the Bay State did not storm the capital with torches, tar and feather the bums and run them out of town on a rail is not the same as 'strong support in the state for gay marriage'."

But, Bart, if they were truly "good citizans" by your meaning, they would have turned into the lynch mob you describe. I knew you objected to anti-lynching laws.

Instead, Bart, they cared less about it not only than you do, but that lack of concern was not countered by a stronger opposition. They basically said, "Unlike that Bart guy in bab-state Colorada, WE know how to MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS.

"If there was anything close to majority support for "gay marriage" among the voters of the Bay State, proponents would have amended the marriage law under the democratic process and would not have opposed an initiative putting the court decision to a vote."

You've probably heard that old saying, Bart: There's more than one way to evade a bigot's abuses.

There was no need for the proponents to go to such an extreme, Bart, because the opposition to gay marriage wasn't there to make it NECESSARY.

I'll bet an anti-lynching law would be enacted before "The Busybody Bart DePalma with Too Much Time on His Hands Act" you propose.

"Instead, the opponents of 'gay marriage' were the ones pushing for a vote of the People, as they have been across the country."

And they didn't succeed, Bart, not because the majority is stupid, but because the anti-"gay marriage" busybody were the MINORITY.

"It is pretty obvious how both sides believe the People of the Bay State would come down on this issue."

It is pretty obvious that you argument was lost then, is is to this day a bigot's fake-Christian/religious horseshit.
 

Also, Bart, first refusing to call gays gay, and now refusing to place the words gay marriage outside of "scare quotes".

I invite you to tell a married gay couple, to their face, that you don't think they have a marriage. Until you do that (and get the reaction you deserve), your demeaning their marriages on the Internet is the worst sort of cowardice.
 

Bart, I'd join you in telling a same-sex couple to their face that they should not be allowed to attempt same-sex conception, and that therefore they shouldn't be married, because all marriages should have a right to conceive children together. I'd explain that they don't need technology to make them equal to a man and a woman, they don't need the right or the ability to conceive together to have equal dignity and humanity, and indeed that eugenicists that want to open the door to genetic engineering of children are using them and insulting them by implying thta they can't be equal unless they can do what hetero couples can do. It is very anti-gay to try to shoehorn same-sex couples into the hetero norm of conceiving children together.
 

Tray -- I think you can read the opinion as resting solely on the statute's "invidious" nature and as suggesting that "racial classifications" always are "suspect", and that the Court intended to say both in the opinion. I don't think the latter presents a problem in Shaw since it held that "[c]lassifications of citizens based solely on race are by their nature odious" and "[n]or is there any support for the argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority."

Anthony, my point exactly. If Shaw's such a bad ruling, as the entire academic legal community seems to think, yet, one could argue that it logically follows from Loving, then there's something a little screwy about Loving. I'd also argue that Brown was very poorly written (though correctly decided, of course).
 

It's a question of priorities

No one gives a crap about your priorities.

about whether we want to open the door to a brave new world of government regulated genetic engineering and eugenics

That door is already wide open.

threaten everyone's conception rights

I have no idea how you could justify this claim. Is this the same thing as the "gay marriage threatens straight marriage" bullshit?

The cost of developing it will be huge and cannot be justified by any need for it.

And yet we still invaded Iraq...


And it is needlessly risky, purposefully creating people with no concern for their health and well-being.

That is why I added the "healthy children" qualifier.

it's unloving

You're an imbecile.

This game is fun!

and anyone that would attempt to create someone that way is not suitable for being a caring parent.

How exactly does the method of conception define one as a "caring parent"?

Do you really want to insist on a right to attempt it, when it probably can never be done

If it will probably never be done, then you are very concerned about nothing, and you have nothing to lose by giving those people the same rights as everyone else.


and giving up the right provides such a good distinction on which to enact civil unions with full federal recognition and equal protections?

This is nothing but gibberish.
 

Thankfully no one has suggested as yet a coupling of Lisa's bro and John Howard.
 

Do we have to allow same-sex conception?

I love this question so much I want to marry it and have little baby stupid questions with it. I can just imagine how they'd look...

"Should we allow whales to mate with cats?" would probably have blond hair like me.

"Should pigs be allowed to fly?" will probably need glasses.
 

Tray -- I think the screwiness properly resides within the "academic legal community." I think Loving is good law, and I think the same of Shaw -- without the holding in Shaw you have the potential for racial gerrymandering to be used in an invidious manner[hence, racial classifications are always "suspect"]

The only problem I have with Brown is its reliance on evidence from social science to hold that seperate is not equal, rather than simply stating that the statues in question served no governmental interest sufficient to overcome =pro. Unfortunately, the Court had to take that route, I think, in order to get over its Plessy precedent...
 

Bartbuster, I take it you feel we have to allow same-sex conception? So you feel that a ban on using modified gametes to create people would be unconstitutional? I think because it involves intentionally creating people in labs and creating people isn't something that can be kept private, that it falls under public scrutiny and we have a duty to protect people from being created with experimental modified DNA, and also duty to a public interest in preventing a future of government regulated eugenics replacing our right to have natural children. Whether you agree with the ban or not, you should certainly feel that we have a right to consider questions about what we allow in the creation of people, and that people can't just do whatever they want to and thumb their noses at the will of the world.
 

Anthony:

The only problem I have with Brown is its reliance on evidence from social science to hold that seperate is not equal, rather than simply stating that the statues in question served no governmental interest sufficient to overcome =pro. Unfortunately, the Court had to take that route, I think, in order to get over its Plessy precedent...

I agree. The court had to be very careful (and Warren went out of his way to ensure this, pushing for a unanimous decision, for example), because of the risk that any bold steps would simply incite resistance from the segregationists/racists (which it in fact did, but not as bad as it could have been), maybe even leading to a mini-reprise of the Civil War.

Stating that there was "no rational basis" for such invidious distinctions would have been a greater affront to the segregationists/racists, and a sharper rebuke, than just saying that "science has shown that your policies are flawed ... and we just won't talk about your intentions...."

For more on the decision, Richard Kluger's Simple Justice is an excellent account (including also a brief side note on Rehnquist's lies under oath as to his anti-Brown memorandum).

Cheers,
 

Bartbuster, I take it you feel we have to allow same-sex conception?

No, I think it's is ridiculous to be worrying about it, nevermind making laws based on the possibility that it might happen.
 

JH, what is the difference between same sex couples having children using some future scientific method and opposite sex couples having children using artificial insemination? Both involve creating people in labs.
 

Well, you're wrong. It's ridiculous to be ignoring it or thinking that we shouldn't talk about it. It makes you look like a scared fool.

We need to resolve this issue as soon as possible, there is no point in waiting till tons of money has been spent and millions of animals killed in experiments and god forbid human babies killed in experiments. Also, by addressing it now, we can use it as a bargaining chip to achieve equal protections via civil unions. It is ridiculous to cling to the right to same-sex conception when doing so keeps so many couples from equal protections.

Would you accept a law banning same-sex conception and other use of modified gametes on the condition that the federal government recognize state civil unions as marriages? You wouldn't be giving anything up that can be done and probably can ever be done, or that anyone would probably ever choose to do anyhow (though a very small number of people would, hence the need for the ban), and thousands (millions?) of couples would get equal protections right now, instead of waiting and wasting time. Those couples need protections now, they don't care about conception rights.
 

JH, what is the difference between same sex couples having children using some future scientific method and opposite sex couples having children using artificial insemination? Both involve creating people in labs.

One obvious difference is that one is done thousands of times a day, the other has only succesfully created one mouse (Kaguya) out of probably thousands of experiments by now, the other attempts all failing, usually before birth, sometimes after birth. Even cloning is successful about 4% of the time, whereas same-sex conception is proving to be ridiculously difficult. The reason is that male and female genes are imprinted differently, they are complementary, after millions of years of evolution. Both are required to create a new genome.

The similarity would be that they both happen in labs, but that's a pretty trivial similarity, isn't it?

Another difference is that medical and marital privacy cover a couple's right to conceive together however they want, so no one theoretically knows that a couple is using IVF. But a same-sex couple is publicly the same sex because a person's sex is not subsumed by marital or medical privacy, they continue to be publicly legally male or female, so there is no privacy to protect when they go to the lab for help conceiving. Everyone would know they required lab assistance.
 

Shoot, left out that the genome created using IVF is not created by the lab, it is identical to what would have been created by the couple at home. It is still the couple having their children together. If we allow use of modified gametes, then the gametes are no longer the couple's own gametes. That's the main difference, it opens the door (or, as you point out, goes through the currently wide open door) to creating genomes of people and threatens everyone's right to have their own children using their own genomes.
 

Well, you're wrong. It's ridiculous to be ignoring it or thinking that we shouldn't talk about it. It makes you look like a scared fool.

No, the person who thinks we should be banning landing gear for pigs on the chance that pigs might someday fly is the one who looks like a scared fool.

That would be you.
 

One obvious difference is that one is done thousands of times a day, the other has only succesfully created one mouse (Kaguya) out of probably thousands of experiments by now,

Thomas Edison tried and failed many times while trying to perfect the light bulb. Should they have passed a law banning marriage for inventors?

The similarity would be that they both happen in labs, but that's a pretty trivial similarity, isn't it?

If both result in healthy human beings, the way they were conceived is the triviality.

Everyone would know they required lab assistance.

They could say they adopted.


creating genomes of people and threatens everyone's right to have their own children using their own genomes.

You still haven't explained how everyone's right to have children is threatened.
 

Bartbuster:

John Howard's a screaming loonie. In serious need of meds and/or professional care. Forget it. Ignore him.

Cheers,
 

John Howard's a screaming loonie. In serious need of meds and/or professional care. Forget it. Ignore him.

I can't stop. Apparently mocking loonies is part of my genome.
 

John Howard --

"Bart, I'd join you in telling a same-sex couple to their face that they should not be allowed to attempt same-sex conception, and that therefore they shouldn't be married, because all marriages should have a right to conceive children together. I'd explain that they don't need technology to make them equal to a man and a woman, they don't need the right or the ability to conceive together to have equal dignity and humanity, and indeed that eugenicists that want to open the door to genetic engineering of children are using them and insulting them by implying thta they can't be equal unless they can do what hetero couples can do. It is very anti-gay to try to shoehorn same-sex couples into the hetero norm of conceiving children together."

Your entire schtick, Mr. Howard, is religionuttery falsely pretending to be "science". In fact, Mr. Howard, it is an extended baldface lie -- as especially are your rationalizations "in behalf of" gays. In short, Mr. Howard, you are a bigot falsely pretending to be a Christian. Falsely, Mr. Howard, because there are RLES which MANDATELY APPLY to being Christian. Two relevant here are "Commandments" -- not "Requests," not "Suggestions" -- "COMMANDMENTS":

1. Thou shalt not lie.

2. Thou shalt not lie against others.

I'd ask you for the NAMES and SPECIALTIES of ONLY TWO of the "scientists" you ALLEGE are NOW working on "homosexual concepption, but YOU HAVE NO SUCH NAMES BECAUSE NO SUCH THING IS HAPPENING.

You aren't crazy, Mr. Howard; you are a bigot who fails to disguise his bigotry behind a transparent extended LIE falsely invoking Christian morality while at the sdame time being a FAKE Christian.

Unless you wish to admit to being a genuine Christian addicted to a rancid multi-level hypocrisy.

Tell us, Mr. Howard: which brand of the politics of fear would Christ use in order to terrorize others into involuntarily obeying his dictat to turn the other check?

Lying is prohibited to Christians, Mr. Howard. Either be a Christian, or continue to be a bald-faced and transparent LIAR.
 

Shag from Brookline --

"Thankfully no one has suggested as yet a coupling of Lisa's bro and John Howard."

Hand me the repair instructions, and the glue: you just made my head explode.
 

John Howard --

"Bartbuster, I take it you feel we have to allow same-sex conception? So you feel that a ban on using modified gametes to create people would be unconstitutional? I think because it involves intentionally creating people in labs and creating people isn't something that can be kept private, that it falls under public scrutiny and we have a duty to protect people from being created with experimental modified DNA, and also duty to a public interest in preventing a future of government regulated eugenics replacing our right to have natural children. Whether you agree with the ban or not, you should certainly feel that we have a right to consider questions about what we allow in the creation of people, and that people can't just do whatever they want to and thumb their noses at the will of the world."

Who elected you "Gawd" to defend and implement a "will of the world" against that which the world knows isn't possible to begin with?

Not-so-by-the-way: a "right" doesn't exist unless it allows for at minimum two options. Thus the "right" of married couples to have children has its corrolary in their right to NOT have children.

Neither of which is any of your business, outside your half-opinion in whatever marriage you might be master over.

You are trasparently one of those "sex is only for conception" fundamentally "mental" who can't get his lust for the salacious out of other people's bedrooms and crotches.

"Turn the other cheek" also properly means "keep your nose out of other peoples' private business" -- and, most especially, out of their crotches.
 

Bartbuster (and dear arne), most other countries have banned creation of genetically modified babies. Germline genetic engineering and same-sex conception aren't some strange cartoon fantasy we don't need to concern ourselves with, and you know it. Don't waste space.

You bring up inventing lightbulbs as an example? I think that proves you are not thinking carefully, we are talking about human beings here. The point about the lack of success is that it would require tons of work and money and resources and kill thousands of animals and still won't be able to be proven safe enough to try in humans, the point is there is a huge difference in the thing that is being attempted to be done. They both would create a person, yes, but same-sex conception is more like withcraft and sorcery and raising the dead and yes flying pigs than it is like IVF, which still is plain old natural sexual reproduction as far as the conception is concerned. SSC is not just a different, more difficult or complex form of IVF.

Man, you miss the point about adoption too. The point is they wouldn't be protected by marital or medical privacy to legally contend that they used their own gametes to join a man and a woman's gametes together to conceive that child, because even behind marital and medical privacy, a person's sex is public. You can't just lie about whether you adopted you know. Like, those polygamists in Texas can't pretend those kids were all adopted.

Liberal eugenics (as opposed to authoritarian eugenics, wiki it) threatens everyone's right to have children because of the principle of procreative beneficence. That principle is deeply embedded in our values, and indeed in almost every animal's values save the lowest forms which do not care for their young. It morally obligates people to believe that it would be wrong for them to pass up ways to have healthier or more capable children. If one believes that it would be wrong to use one's own genes, then it doesn't matter if one happens to technically still "have the right" to do it. Just point out to a gay man that they have the right to marry a woman and you'll understand how a strong belief tht doing something is wrong can negate a right and make it worthless. So that's how liberal eugenics threatens conception rights, by making them worthless. To believe that it is a right to use your own genes, one has to believe that it is right to use one's own genes, and that there is no "better" alternative that would be more right.

And stripping conception rights from marriage, which would happen if we banned same-sex conception but allowed same-sex marriage, and indeed which happens just by insisting that we could do that if we wanted to, threatens everyone's conception rights by removing the legal protection that a marriage license has always given a married couple. Once society has started believing that it is wrong to pass on "bad" genes, and has stripped conception rights from marriage, then liberal eugenics could very easily slip into authoritarian eugenics, it would be almost inevitable. If society starts feeling that it is child abuse to have natural children, society will apply child abuse laws just like it does today when parents don't act in the best interest of the child. It would be wrong not to, at that point.
 

John Howard --

"Well, you're wrong. It's ridiculous to be ignoring it or thinking that we shouldn't talk about it. It makes you look like a scared fool."

You're the paranoid urging the rush to judgment --

"We need to resolve this issue as soon as possible, there is no point in waiting till tons of money has been spent and millions of animals killed in experiments and god forbid human babies killed in experiments."

The Iraq war has and continues to waste tons of money, and to kill not only US troops (some of whom are actually white), but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. True, in your view the Iraqis don't matter because they aren't white to begin with.

"Also, by addressing it now, we can use it as a bargaining chip to achieve equal protections via civil unions."

So now we begin to get at the malevolent agenda behind your pseudo-scientific bullshit --

"It is ridiculous to cling to the right to same-sex conception when doing so keeps so many couples from equal protections."

Doesn't follow. But you aren't about "equal protections". You're about creating separate classes for minorities -- in this instance homosexuals -- you hate.

"Would you accept a law banning same-sex conception and other use of modified gametes on the condition that the federal government recognize state civil unions as marriages?"

I though you were against same-sex marriage, therefore posited granting "civil unions" only to same-sex couples.

Your obvious paranoid/racist desperation is shredding your cover-lie.

"You wouldn't be giving anything up that can be done and probably can ever be done, or that anyone would probably ever choose to do anyhow".

Then you are all het up about a non-issue.

"(though a very small number of people would, hence the need for the ban),"

Then it wouldn't require tons of money after all. So not to worry: the drain of funding from the war on Iraq would be inconsequential, so the continued killing of brown people/Muslim spawn-of-the-Devil would continue.

"and thousands (millions?) of couples would get equal protections right now, instead of waiting and wasting time."

Different "protections" are not "equal" "protections". Read Brown for whay that is. Or read Loving.

Or read Christ on "turn the other cheek" as alternative to being a bigot.

"Those couples need protections now, they don't care about conception rights."

If THEY don't care, then it's certainly none of YOUR business to attempt to FORCE them to care about SOMETHING THAT YOU ADMIT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
 

same-sex conception aren't some strange cartoon fantasy we don't need to concern ourselves with, and you know it.

No, actually, I don't know it. It appears that you are using an imaginary threat to justify restricting the rights of a large group of people

Don't waste space.

You first.

The point about the lack of success is that it would require tons of work and money and resources and kill thousands of animals and still won't be able to be proven safe enough to try in humans

Then is won't be tried on humans. Problem solved.

Man, you miss the point about adoption too. The point is they wouldn't be protected by marital or medical privacy to legally contend that they used their own gametes to join a man and a woman's gametes together to conceive that child, because even behind marital and medical privacy, a person's sex is public. You can't just lie about whether you adopted you know.

No, YOU just don't get it. Not one of those "problems" is any of your damned business.

Liberal eugenics (as opposed to authoritarian eugenics, wiki it) threatens everyone's right to have children because of the principle of procreative beneficence. That principle is deeply embedded in our values, and indeed in almost every animal's values save the lowest forms which do not care for their young. It morally obligates people to believe that it would be wrong for them to pass up ways to have healthier or more capable children. If one believes that it would be wrong to use one's own genes, then it doesn't matter if one happens to technically still "have the right" to do it. Just point out to a gay man that they have the right to marry a woman and you'll understand how a strong belief tht doing something is wrong can negate a right and make it worthless. So that's how liberal eugenics threatens conception rights, by making them worthless. To believe that it is a right to use your own genes, one has to believe that it is right to use one's own genes, and that there is no "better" alternative that would be more right.

That (and the rest of your post) is a big steaming pile of bullshit.

If you're opposed to same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. It's that simple.
 

John Howard --

Ah yes, the ancient "four cells in a petri dish is a 'baby'" stupidity --

"Bartbuster (and dear arne), most other countries have banned creation of genetically modified babies."

"Germline genetic engineering and same-sex conception aren't some strange cartoon fantasy we don't need to concern ourselves with, and you know it."

That's why you admit it ain't happening, and ain't gonna happen, EVEN WITHOUT BEING BANNED.

What ya gotta go back to, Mr. Howard, is the original formulation of your "argument": Banning marriage between whites and non-whites because allowing it would mean the end of the universe as we know it.

"Don't waste space."

Don't waste space, Mr. Howard: a lead baloon would have a greater chance of getting off the ground than the abortion of an "argument" you attempt.

Clever it is not.

Scientific it is not.

Intelligent it is not.

Factual it is not.

It is a failed effort at the politics of terror.

It is paranoid/racist-white supremacist/fascist religiosmut.
 

Maybe an intervention, or an "uncoupling," is called for to salvage the devil we know.