Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Judge Tauro's questionable past

Judge Joseph Tauro’s opinions striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act may or may not be good constitutional law. I’ll leave that complex matter to others. But as works of history, they are puzzlingly incomplete.

In ruling DOMA unconstitutional partly because it intrudes on what he calls the states’ “exclusive” authority to define marriage, Tauro glosses over an issue with which the federal government was obsessed for most of the 19th Century and even part of the 20th: polygamy, particularly as practiced by Mormons in the western territories.

Tauro notes, accurately enough, that Congress historically deferred to state laws regarding common law marriage and divorce, as well as restrictions regarding interracial marriage, “hygiene,” and age at marriage -- despite often-furious controversies.

But Mormon polygamy, like southern slavery, converted the territories into an arena of national moral conflict that inescapably involved all three branches of the federal government -- beginning with President James Buchanan’s ill-fated dispatch of U.S. troops to install a non-Mormon governor in the Utah Territory in 1857.

During the 1856 presidential campaign, the Republican Party platform had accused the Democrats of countenancing “those twin relics of barbarism--polygamy and slavery” and declared it the "duty of Congress to prohibit” both evils in the territories. Buchanan’s expedition was intended to prove the Republicans wrong. It succeeded only in provoking a few inconsequential clashes between armed Mormons and U.S. soldiers.

Congress subsequently adopted three increasingly harsh criminal bans on bigamy and polygamy in the territories: in 1862, 1882 and 1887. The Supreme Court upheld these laws repeatedly against Mormon challenges alleging, among other things, that they violated religious liberty. The 1887 law, the Edmunds-Tucker Act, abrogated the Mormon Church’s corporate charter and confiscated its property, on the grounds that its leaders encouraged polygamy.

The Supreme Court said that was okay, too. Echoing the majority opinion of the day, the court recoiled in frank horror at a practice the Mormons believed was ordained by God -- but which the justices considered a “crime against the laws and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.” They compared it to human sacrifice.

Polygamy was the main reason that Congress denied the Utah territorial legislature’s repeated requests for admission as a state.

Finally, in September 1890, the Mormons yielded. Their leader, Wilford Woodruff, decreed: “my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

This cleared the way for Utah to become a state in 1896 – on Congress’s terms. Specifically, the Utah Enabling Act said the state could enter the Union as long as its new constitution banned polygamy or plural marriage “forever,” and provided that this rule could not be revoked without the consent of the federal government.

So it is a bit misleading to say, as Tauro does, “every [historical] effort to establish a national definition of marriage met failure.” Washington’s triumph over Mormon polygamy, made permanent in a national statute, would seem to qualify as a federal definition of marriage, at least in the sense of what marriage is not.

To be sure, Tauro emphasizes that the states have always had exclusive authority over marriage. Utah was a territory at the time of Washington’s effort to stamp out polygamy, and the constitution gave the federal government paramount authority over territories, including their domestic legislation. (That is why, technically, the anti-polygamy laws aimed at Utah also applied to Arizona, Oklahoma, Alaska and the District of Columbia.) Congress functioned, in effect, as the super-legislature for each territory.

Yet what is noteworthy about the Utah case is that Congress leveraged its power over Utah the territory into power over Utah the state. As a condition of admission to the Union, Utah’s people gave Congress a permanent veto over their marriage laws – a veto that remains on the books to this day. The fact that today’s Mormons are proponents of heterosexual monogamy and opponents of same-sex monogamy, is deeply ironic, but legally irrelevant.

What’s more, Utah is not the only state in which this situation obtains. The language of the Utah Enabling Act was repeated, word-for-word, in the laws that admitted New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma as states in the early 20th Century. In short, the federal government has shared authority over the marriage laws of four U.S. states.

So it is not quite correct to say, as Tauro does, that “DOMA marks the first time that the federal government has ever attempted to legislatively mandate a uniform federal definition of marriage – or any other core concept of domestic relations, for that matter,” or that “as of 1996 the status quo at the federal level was to recognize, for federal purposes, any marriage declared valid according to state law.”

In fairness to the judge, the Justice Department seems not to have presented these facts to the court, and they aren’t mentioned in the only historical document in the record before him, an affidavit from Harvard historian Nancy Cott from which Tauro quotes frequently. Maybe we’ll hear more about them if the Obama administration decides to appeal.

By Charles Lane  | July 9, 2010; 3:57 PM ET
Categories:  Lane  | Tags:  Charles Lane  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The 'Mama Grizzlies' video and Palin platitudes
Next: LeBron James and the American way

Comments

Once again an activist liberal judge tries to make a law instead of interpreting the law. This is how the vast amount of immorality has taken over our land. No decent person would support the denigrating of marriage by allowing homosexuals to call their disgusting and immoral practice of sodomy marriage.

Posted by: good_angel | July 9, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

@good_angel

How about the decent heterosexual people practicing sodomy in their marriages?

Posted by: lingeringvoid | July 9, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The federal decision is also interesting in that it affirms the "exclusive" right of the states to define marriage. Thus, it would seem that the federal judge in California would be constrained from nullifying Proposition 8. If the judge in California rules in favor of Olson and Boise's position, it would say that the federal judiciary is chaotic, and the interpretation of the marriage laws are just the personal preferences of any federal judge. Either the states have the right to define marriage or they don't. It would seem that the constitution says that they do.

This would seem to be a blow to the gay marriage cause in the federal courts.

Posted by: captn_ahab | July 9, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

This administration and their gay marriage supporters really are timing things for effect. After the gay marriage movement became stalled because national opinion is against it, the Administration leaned on their Department of Defense lackeys; Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to recite the drill before Congress in an attempt to create implied legitimacy were it can be imposed the easiest; in the armed forces. That has not happened yet because of strong resistance from within the armed forces to leave “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” alone. However, the impression of legitimacy was already made. Now, other forces in the form of a cadre of activist judges are coming into play. The final trump may come in the form of a confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Kagan’s confirmation is possible and likely, but it has not happened yet. The bottom line is that being gay is not a civil right. If some same sex couples want to "play house," then society will tolerate it, but that does not make it a marriage. One man and one woman are needed to make a marriage. That is where it ends. If the definition of marriage is misdefined into anything else, then the definition of marriage will never end.

Posted by: OIFVet06 | July 9, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Good_Angel, you need to change your screen name because you're neither good nor angelic. Your comments belies what religious people should be about.

It's fine to be against something, but your angry choice of words shows you're just a person full of hatred.

It's time you start re-reading your bible, focus more on the New Testament and maybe in your prayers ask Christ for forgiveness for being such a person prone to spite.

Posted by: vtmoreno | July 9, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Lane's historical argument is weak. Federal deference to states in many areas, including allowing states to define marriage, is not the same thing as allowing territories to set whatever rules they wish and automatically become states with those rules. To equate these situations is to declare no difference between the status of statehood and that of a territory. We know that today, in many ways, territories from Puerto Rico, to Guam, to, in a sense, Washington DC are certainly not treated in the same manner as a state.

Posted by: allentown1 | July 9, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Why wasn't sickness or diease mentioned by Good_Angel?

The way I see it there are 3 camps in this gay marriage thing. 1. The camp that thinks homosexuality is NOT a disease and wants gay rights. 2. The camp that thinks homosexuality is NOT a disease and wants Jim Crow. 3. And of course the camp that I'm in that believes homosexuality is a disease (bad chromosomes I believe, like someone with down syndrome).

Posted by: RobertCurleyJacobs | July 9, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Why wasn't sickness or diease mentioned by Good_Angel?

The way I see it there are 3 camps in this gay marriage thing. 1. The camp that thinks homosexuality is NOT a disease and wants gay rights. 2. The camp that thinks homosexuality is NOT a disease and wants Jim Crow. 3. And of course the camp that I'm in that believes homosexuality is a disease (bad chromosomes I believe, like someone with down syndrome).

Posted by: RobertCurleyJacobs | July 9, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

If it was agreed to let Utah enter the union if Utah's new constitution banned polygamy, then it's not really a Federal statute against it.

Two points about the gay marriage debate to think about...

The whole gay marriage debate has been argued from a religious perspective almost exclusively. If marriage is a religious sacrament only, then all married couples must give up all civil rights related to marriage otherwise, it's a violation of church and state as well as equal protections.

Civil rights are NOT something for the majority to decide. If that were the case, do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have passed a vote by the majority?

Think about it!

Posted by: mupright_2000 | July 9, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Ahab,

The California case is about whether the voters have the right to violate the state constitution. The Massachusetts decision on DOMA doesn't affect that case.

Frankly, I think it's time for the gov't to get out of the marriage business altogether. Any two people should be allowed to form a civil union under the law. If they want a religious marriage (or any other type), they can do that on their own.

This way, we can all stop fighting over semantics.

Posted by: jonebraunstein | July 9, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

There's a lot of people out here who don't equate the civil rights movement with rights for people based one who you're attracted to.

To the article, the Defense of Marriage Act seems like pretty awkward law. If folks who want to keep marriage traditional want to rely on it, it's probably not going to be effective.

Posted by: slatt321 | July 9, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

There is a world of difference between a Territory and a State. The legal arguments in this article are very very weak because they ignore this major fact. Congress has often imposed conditions for admission to statehood, especially slave vs. free states.

Concerning above comments about " activist liberal judge", Judge Tauro was appointed by conservative republican President Richard Nixon. Judge Tauro's father was Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and grandson of Italian immigrants.

Posted by: petronius88 | July 9, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

jonebraunstein wrote:
The California case is about whether the voters have the right to violate the state constitution.

_____
The voters are not violating the state constitution by amending the state constitution. That suggestion makes no sense. Of course if the case was really about whether the voters 'have the right to violate the state constitution' why would a federal judge be hearing the case?

Regarding DOMA - doesn't it do exactly the opposite of what Judge Tauro says? Rather than preventing a state to define marriage for their state, DOMA is the only law that is keeping a few judges in a small number of states from forcing their definition of marriage on a nation of 300 million people.

Posted by: LouBear | July 9, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

How about all you religious peple, why don't you get your definition of "marriage" straight before you jam it down our throats. You people can't even come close to agreeing on what it means.

Catholics think you can only get married once, in the church. There is no such thing as divorce. If you wish, you can get your marriage "annulled" and start over.

Mormons think that polygamy is just fine.

Jewish people have their own strange ideas about "marriage".

So would you mormons and jews and catholics and whatever out there, get together and come up with a proper definition of "marriage" and get back to us.

Posted by: frantaylor | July 9, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Though I agree with DoMA substantively, the Utah precedent does not seem to be relevant to Massachusetts, for the reason Lane points out (i.e. that Utah was not a state at the time federal strictures against polygamy were imposed). Though the precedent clearly shows that Judge Tauro's statement about the federal government's interest in the definition of marriage is incorrect, this does not seem to me to bear on the question of whether Congress was within its rights to assert its views on this question over a duly enacted state law.

I do wonder about the Justice Department's preparation, if it did not in fact at least bring the history to Judge Tauro's attention. Following what seems to have been weak DoJ preparation in the matter of the deepwater oil drilling moratorium, it may be fair to ask if the Department is making the best case it can for federal government law and policy in the courts.

Posted by: jbritt3 | July 9, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Heterosexuals keep focusing on sodomy. Well the Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy is legal amongst consenting adults. Let's not be naive. Heterosexuals engage in sodomy too. So spare me your religious opinions. I guess the multiple marriages of Larry King, Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney are true examples of the validity of heterosexual marriage. Most marriages end in divorce. What an institution worthy of special protection. Stop trying to hide your fear and discrimination behind morals and protecting marriage.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | July 9, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

What really bugs me about this is that if we give equal rights to gays and lesbians, and due process under the law, and treat them as equal to the rest of us, then what's next?

Soon they'll try to take 12 items through the 10-items-only checkout line. And then they'll take cuts for the roller coaster at the amusement park. And use the fast lane at the security checkpoint at the airport. And...

Wait, what? They can't do any of that?

Then what's the Big F-in Deal?

Posted by: dnitzer | July 9, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

oh jezus pleeze how about just having equal rights for all americans straight or gay, no butts about it, no hokus/pokus churches , no more scams ,just equal rights for all.

Posted by: willemkraal | July 9, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Laws pertaining to marriage SHOULD be federal, since they in so many areas involve basic human rights.

Posted by: asoders22 | July 9, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

There is a great irony that the Mormons would use Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) as rationale for the stopping same sex marriages when it is this very ruling which was used against the Mormons to make polygamy illegal. Utah should be seeking a federal case to legalize plural marriages for consenting adults. Crazy cult polygamy with old men and underage girls should be forever illegal because it is removing agency from a truly protected class of US citizens - (our children). Big love is harmless to my monogamous marriage.

Posted by: pluralunions | July 9, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

As Mr. Lane himself notes, his argument as to Federal involvement with STATE definitions of marriage is worthless. Which, of course, didn't prevent him from completing his article and posting it.

My understanding is that the key bigamy case, which also relates to separation of Church and State, is

REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U. S. 145 (1878)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html

Relevant content includes (p. 166 ff):

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

----
Loubear's posting, "Regarding DOMA - doesn't it do exactly the opposite of what Judge Tauro says? Rather than preventing a state to define marriage for their state, DOMA is the only law that is keeping a few judges in a small number of states from forcing their definition of marriage on a nation of 300 million people." is itself rather confused. What Judge Tauro ruled is simply that people who are legally married in Massachusetts are just as married as people who are legally married in any other state.

Posted by: edallan | July 9, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Lane has over-emphasized the polygamy issue while minimizing the status of the jurisdiction (territory vs. state). States are sovereign jurisdictions within a federalism framework, while teritories belong to the federal government, so any attempt at control of territories is neither surprising nor over-reaching regardless of the subject matter.
As a matter of fact, DOMA’s passage may have had the unintended effect of outlawing for the first time polygamy practiced by Native Americans. See Hallowell v. Commons, 210 F. 793, 800 (8th Cir. 1914), aff’d, 239 U.S. 506 (1916). Native Americans have limited sovereignty, too, within the federal framework, so the comparison of acceptance of polygamy by the federal government is much more relevant to the discussion than the non-acceptance of polygamy in a territory.

Posted by: boyyourenosey | July 9, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

The judge didn't know? You mean the Oboobma regime failed in its most fundamental duty to uphold the law of the land? We are shocked, shocked.

Posted by: thebump | July 9, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Tauro doesn't argue that states have exclusive authority to define marriage. However, he argues that the federal government cannot intrude without a rational basis, and he ruled that DOMA's intrusion had no rational basis.

If the issue at hand withheld federal benefits from, say, animals married to persons, or persons married to multiple spouses, assuming such marriages were legal in some state, the government might have had an argument for rational basis. In this case they did not.

What do you see as the rational basis for DOMA, other than disapprobation of gay unions (which reason the constitution will not abide)?

Posted by: skass | July 9, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse

There is no flaw. Any law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Marriage in the eyes of the gov is a legal contract. Since homosexuals help build this country as much as any other group, saying they can't engage in a legal contract because of cherry picking passages from the bible, is rediculous.
People who oppose same sex marriage are no different than those who wanted to stop inter-racial dating via state and local laws. The USA can do the right thing when it tries.

Posted by: dwdave67 | July 9, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse


Jim, you definitely need to change your divorce lawyer, let me recommend http://bit.ly/bluYTI do not waste time and money.. choose a better divorce lawyer, sorry to hear about this and you will have better times soon.


Posted by: trevinjake | July 10, 2010 2:09 AM | Report abuse

One of William Rehnquist's least appreciated opinions was his dissent in Roe et al. v. Wade, unappreciated because he shows in painstaking detail how the "right" Roe created had no basis in the Constitutional provisions its creators tried to graft it to.

Ditto Judge Tauro.

2/3 of two Houses of COngress, followed by 3/4 of the states after public debate ratified the XIV Amendment, and there is no trace that anybody thought the amendment would render marriage laws as they then existed unconstitutional. The masterful value of Mr. Lane's column today is that he shows that what marriage was WAS on the minds of those lawmakers. One can thus say that the framers of the XIV AMendment, far from not even thinking about what marriage was, did in fact think about the essence of marriage and still nobody imagined that the amendment would require those laws to change.

Posted by: grondelsjm | July 10, 2010 4:37 AM | Report abuse

This is nice. It's the first time someone has criticized this ruling on precedent using the law, not their own bible. All the others get hung up on what their religious morality prescribes that other people do so as to not offend them.
However, as you mention, you are not a constitutional scholar. The Constitution does not like when citizens are treated differently (that whole 'equal protection of the law' thingy). The Constitution also does not like the Federal Government interfering with the States (the long ignored 10th amendment). So, having a Federal law that creates two classes of people (one privileged and one not) inside a State for doing things that are legal in that State (and Constitutional) clearly is not allowed.
What's so hard to understand about that?

Posted by: natecar | July 10, 2010 5:28 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't this just prove the point? Congress had to make it a condition of statehood because otherwise they would not have had the power.

Posted by: lykbi | July 10, 2010 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Look, whether you like it or not, same-sex marriage will be nationwide. Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be repealed. Laws prohibiting discrimination against gay people will pass. There are too many gay people and those who love them for these archaic attitudes to continue. Those who want to discriminate against gay people obviously don't know any gay people. It's all just a confused concept in their head. Well, that's too bad. In the USA we try not to discriminate against US citizens when it comes to rights that everyone enjoys. So quote your bible all you want -- it won't make a bit of difference.

Posted by: bob2davis | July 10, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

For those placing this defeat at the feet of Obama's inept DOJ, we can only long for the leadership of figures like Alberto Gonzales.

Posted by: mus81 | July 10, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

The headline ("Judge Tauro's questionable past") is deeply misleading. In an attempt to be cute, it makes it sound like the judge was a crook before he was a judge.

BTW for 90% of human history the definition of marriage was one man, many women, not one man, one woman.

Posted by: lensch | July 10, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Then again, what is morally repugnant with three or more adults committing to a life time relationship? Polygamy is not to be equated with barbarism or slavery except when it is practiced as something demanded by God (by, e.g., forcing young girls to marry the nearest available patriarch). I wouldn't mind if polygamists in free unions were able to make use of the Judge Tauro's ruling. Why should they be denied the equal protection of the law?

Posted by: ohs123 | July 10, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Charles Lane -

Your comparison of polygamy to marriage between people of the same gender is not only disingenuous it is simply absurd.

You indicate this yourself when you stated that Washington’s triumph over Mormon polygamy, made permanent in a national statute, would seem to qualify as a federal definition of marriage, at least in the sense of what marriage is not.

F/Y/I ... Polygamy is multiple marriages and has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. In fact, under the laws of most of the several states, polygamy can't acually exist because if a person is married, by statute the second marriage would be null and void.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | July 10, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that Mr. Lane's focus is misplaced with regard to precedent for federal intrusion on state marriage laws. The precedent is there if you look in the right place -- Loving v. Virginia, a 9-0 Supreme Court decision that overturned Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws.

Posted by: rogerward | July 10, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

good_angel ... since your personal standards are suspect, it is fortunate for America that you don't get to decide who are the "decent" persons.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | July 10, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Since it is no longer illegal to be openly gay in the USA and all law abiding citizens are supposed to have the very same equal rights, gays ought to have equal rights under the law, including the right to marry the person of their choice who is the very same gender that they are.

Even Wes Clark himself said that on CNN.

Posted by: joe_allen_doty | July 10, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

For all you folks who have it out for the so-called "activist" judges who have ruled in favor of same-sex rights:

These rulings almost always apply the strictest scrutiny in order to protect individuals from a minority/disadvantaged group from discrimination. You may complain that these rulings go against the will of the people, or are in direct defiance of existing legislation (such as DOMA or constitutional amendments). However, the judicial system was put in place in part for the purpose of defending the underdog; that is, in order to protect the disempowered from the "tyranny of the majority." This is because the majority, sometimes, is simply wrong. And in the case of civil rights for gays, lesbians, and the transgendered, just as was the case for African Americans during the civil rights movement in the 60s, the majority is on the wrong side of this issue.

So. "Activist" judges? I think not. The real activists are the individuals who are fighting in the courts for their dignity and their equal standing in this society alongside their heterosexual peers.

Posted by: graphchick1 | July 10, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

O_V_6 wrote: "After the gay marriage movement became stalled because national opinion is against it..."

One of the principles Americans believe in is protecting the rights of minorities, and it is these CIVIL rights that have been denied to gay couples. If you think marriage is a religious institution only, try getting married in a church and not registering your marriage with the county clerk.

Then see what happens when you file your tax returns or apply for insurance benefits from your employer. You may not be caught, but by not filing your CIVIL union, you have reduced your marriage to "common law" status.

And, yes, the definition of marriage may change over the next few centuries. I personally think that Heinlein's "line marriage" sounded like a good idea. (Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," written in 1966.)

Posted by: dotellen | July 10, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Utah wasn't a stateit was a terrority.. who controls the terrorities.. oh, yeah the feds

Lane's arguement is both an amazing display of ignorance hand waving and stupidity.

typical rightie.

Posted by: newagent99 | July 10, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

joe allen doty "Since it is no longer illegal to be openly gay in the USA" What is the rationale for any individual or group to be identified as a legitimate minority by a behavior they have a strong inclination to engage in? Sexual activity of any kind is not necessary to the survival of an individual. Heterosexual activity has the potential for procreativity so society has found that placing legal consequences around it necessary for orderly civilization. Hence, it is hoped that supporting strong heterosexual marriages will result in more children who are safely raised with either their biological or adoptive parents(heterosexual) Being conspicuously openly "gay", "straight", or sexually libertine should be discouraged.

Posted by: abbott24 | July 10, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Now, you're talking!

I insist on being able to have two husbands! You better believe that this right, denied me so far, is way overdue.

Realistically speaking, it takes two husbands to afford to support me.

The importance of a male father in a child's life is such that I like the idea of having a 'backup' Dad on hand.

God knows - I mean he REALLY knows (because multiple spouses was fine in the Bible - this is Biblical stuff!) that it is right and just. It even makes sense. A woman in a household with two men: sexually, she's available, even if one man may have trouble functioning.

We are living in a modern world now and must change with it. Even as a lesbian uses donor seed to impregnate herself, so every child born from a multi-husband household can be DNA-certified to be the offspring of a particular husband. No confusion! And here's the bonus: the father is there for the child to know, not to hunt for when he or she turns 18.

And unlike the donor seed situation, the offspring does not find out, to his utter amazement, that he has 55 siblings from the donor who made money at the sperm bank years ago when he was a young lad! Yes, there are such cases of 'extended families' from donor seed. Makes the large families of Middle Eastern sheiks look small in comparison.

Polyandry is a good situation all around, it makes sense and it's a civil right!

The state forces women to go through costly divorces. However, polyandry (and the corresponding right to polygamy) is the natural solution to keeping families together.

Polygamy will have to be allowed, too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: KathyWi | July 10, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

The General Accounting Office could be asked to do a study about the cost to the feds (social security benefits, employment benefits, disability benefits, tax receipts) of various marriage definitions.

Posted by: kay_sieverding | July 10, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Heteros, not gays, are threatening marriage. They jump in and out of it; they have children outside of it; they do not have children within it. All of this makes a mockery of marriage. Blame the straights, not the gays.

Posted by: retabroad | July 10, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

One of the critical components of DOMA was that states would not be forced to recognize the "same-sex marriages" in other states as marriages in their own. Similarly federal statutes can not interfere with the definition of marriages states come up with. This ruling seems to support that viewpoint and may even prove less beneficial to "same sex marriage" activists than has been reported. In effect, California law would stand and "same sex marriage" would be isolated to just a few states with those marriages receiving no privileges when the couple moved to another state.

Posted by: cprferry | July 10, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse


Liberal Judges rule us. Democracy is dead.

Posted by: dboc_991 | July 10, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"Heteros, not gays, are threatening marriage.
Posted by: retabroad"

Agreed. Which is why there shouldn't be greater steps towards promoting it as merely a temporary contract between individuals instead of a mechanism to define, support and protect future and life-long interests that it was originally intended when the state recognized heterosexual marriages.

Posted by: cprferry | July 10, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

And this ruling also makes it impossible for the feds to impose GAY marriage on the states.

So there are benefits to both sides here.

Posted by: ZZim | July 10, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Yes, this is the elephant sitting in the room that Gay marriage activists ignore. That & the fact that States DO have the ability to restrict marriage. See: age, bigamy, close relations, etc. Currently, the rules apply to ALL men and ALL women EQUALLY. That's the angle the SCotUS will rule on if it once again reaches them.

Posted by: illogicbuster | July 10, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Yes, this is the elephant sitting in the room that Gay marriage activists ignore. That & the fact that States DO have the ability to restrict marriage. See: age, bigamy, close relations, etc. Currently, the rules apply to ALL men and ALL women EQUALLY. That's the angle the SCotUS will rule on if it once again reaches them.

Posted by: illogicbuster | July 10, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I so happy that some of you have a nice simple life. Simple things for simple people, I suppose. I did everything 'right'.....found a great man who became my best friend and then my husband.It later became apparent that what my spouse needed to be complete was to undergo gender reassignment surgery. But she is still my best friend. And my spouse. Is this how I thought my life would be? No. I am heterosexual and find myself in limbo. But life would be a lot easier if all the 'holier than thou' people would practice the christianity they love to quote and just leave me and my marriage alone.

Posted by: jcrrt | July 10, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Look, whether you like it or not, same-sex marriage will be nationwide. Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be repealed. Laws prohibiting discrimination against gay people will pass. There are too many gay people and those who love them for these archaic attitudes to continue. Those who want to discriminate against gay people obviously don't know any gay people. It's all just a confused concept in their head. Well, that's too bad. In the USA we try not to discriminate against US citizens when it comes to rights that everyone enjoys. So quote your bible all you want -- it won't make a bit of difference.

Posted by: bob2davis

It's about darn time too. Two consenting adults want to tie the knot, well, good luck to them.

Fortunately, America is NOT a theocracy, so no one has to be wed in a religious venue. I didn't, almost 20 years ago. We got married in the courthouse. The IRS thinks that's just fine and dandy. There was no demand that we prove ourselves really married by having kids (but we did), etc.

Posted by: Skowronek | July 10, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Kathy,

The biggest problem with polyandry is the fact that you need a bit of an age disparity between the men. Prostate problems you know. ;-)

Posted by: Skowronek | July 10, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Gays don't hurt people. Polygamists do.

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

Posted by: PoeticJustice1 | July 10, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Let us pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for unwed teenage girls to get pregnant and for teenage boys to have sexual relations. That is about as dumb as talking about the legality of homosexuality. It is simply a dumb concept to argue whether gays and lesbians have a moral or legal right to be together. Here is another example of a dumb question as pertinent as the gay/lesbian marriage constitutionality issue. Which of these four sports get the most home runs: Basketball, hockey, baseball, or golf? The argument is dumb.

Posted by: ThelmaMcCoy | July 10, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

good_angel wrote: "Once again an activist liberal judge tries to make a law instead of interpreting the law...No decent person would support the denigrating of marriage by allowing homosexuals to call their disgusting and immoral practice of sodomy marriage."
--------------
It's odd how it's an "activist liberal judge" when he rules in favor of fairness for all American citizens. Lots of "decent" people support fair treatment for everyone.

Posted by: jaynashvil | July 10, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

kay_sieverding says GAO should do a study to see how expensive it is to provide benefits to married couples (social security, health insuruance, etc). with the current heterosexual definition of marriage, I'd say it's pretty effing expensive. so let's change the definition to same-sex marriage and save the government loads of money! that should make the tea-baggers very happy. :)

Posted by: graphchick1 | July 10, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

At the end of the blah blah you cannot escape the fact that marriage evolved to identify fathers for children; the pair-bonding of man and woman was thus supported. The political and unscientific attempts to point to "homosexuality" in other animals, etc. shows the weakness of the argument. If you want to allow anyone to marry anyone, go ahead and be sure its seen as the political decision it is; stop pretending it has biological and historical roots of significance.

Posted by: pioneer1 | July 10, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I've read so many times where homosexuals are pointing out that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, as their reasoning for bashing heterosexuals.

Someone please tell me how many homosexual relationships last beyond their first 'date'?
Someone please tell me how many homosexuals are actually 'faithful' to their partner, or have a relationship long enough to call that other person their 'partner'?

If 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, what about the other 50% who are still married? Their marriages still last longer than most homosexual relationships.


I dont' like the idea of homosexuals calling their relationships 'marriage'.

I also don't like young people calling the person they're currently having sex with, their 'fiance', even though they have absolutely no intention of getting married.

Posted by: momof20yo | July 10, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I've read so many times where homosexuals are pointing out that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, as their reasoning for bashing heterosexuals.

Someone please tell me how many homosexual relationships last beyond their first 'date'?
Someone please tell me how many homosexuals are actually 'faithful' to their partner, or have a relationship long enough to call that other person their 'partner'?

If 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, what about the other 50% who are still married? Their marriages still last longer than most homosexual relationships.


I dont' like the idea of homosexuals calling their relationships 'marriage'.

I also don't like young people calling the person they're currently having sex with, their 'fiance', even though they have absolutely no intention of getting married.

Posted by: momof20yo | July 10, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Mr Lane refutes himself. At the time the laws were made by congress all of the states were territories that later adopted constitutional bans on polygamy. Note Mr. Lane Territories, that means they were NOT states. The adopted identical constitutional remedies because the rules applied to all of them, but just them. Where does this cause you difficulty? The judge is quite correct and rather than a "liberal activisit" he is quite conservative and strict construction reserve those rights to the states not granted to the Federal government. Amendment ten: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Posted by: samson15 | July 10, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"@good_angel

How about the decent heterosexual people practicing sodomy in their marriages?"

----------

lingeringvoid, good one!

It would seem that good angel's living in the dark ages. This train's left the station and there's no looking back; except looking back 50 years from now, wondering how folks could be so backward, and wondering what all the fuss was about..... (I'm hetero, btw).

Posted by: tjconnor | July 10, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"I dont' like the idea of homosexuals calling their relationships 'marriage'."

------------

WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY????? A simple question, no one seems to be able to answer it. How does it in the least way adversely affect you? Please, somebody answer, w/o using the words "sanctity", "redefine", "traditional", or "god's law"; that's just specious wordplay, avoiding real dialog, and a smokescreen for bigotry. Being actively (taking actions against, like signing petitions) anti-gay marriage is not much different from a Muslim considering non-believers to be infidels to be converted.

Posted by: tjconnor | July 10, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY????? A simple question, no one seems to be able to answer it. How does it in the least way adversely affect you? Please, somebody answer, w/o using the words "sanctity", "redefine", "traditional", or "god's law"; that's just specious wordplay, avoiding real dialog, and a smokescreen for bigotry. Being actively (taking actions against, like signing petitions) anti-gay marriage is not much different from a Muslim considering non-believers to be infidels to be converted.

Posted by: tjconnor | July 10, 2010 6:31 PM

1. Marriage has always been about males and females coming together procreatively(i.e. having babies).

2. Even when a given marriage does not produce babies, the male female paradigm is what is required to have babies and reinforces the idea that male female sexual activity best takes place in a marriage.

3. Marriage encourages people to legally solidify their relationships before indulging in regular long term sexual activity that most often results in babies.

4. No one can actually predict the long term social consequences of finally and absolutely disconnecting marriage from procreation.

Finally, and most importantly, you will not accept any of these argument, because they are a matter of public policy, cultural values, and a perspective on what is best for society that you do not accept.

We can differ on this, because we can make marriage ANYTHING we want. There is no real reason why first cousins shoudn't marry, a man can't have more than one wife,
or that the age of consent couldn't be 13 years. They are all cultural proscriptions dictated by accepted social ideas aboout what is in the best interests of society.

If you are successful in changing social attitudes about marriage perhaps you can get the citizens of your state to change the definition.

Posted by: captn_ahab | July 10, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Finally, and most importantly, you will not accept any of these argument, because they are a matter of public policy, cultural values, and a perspective on what is best for society that you do not accept."

-----

You're correct, I won't accept them as they are personal assertions and red herrings ("No one can actually predict the long term social consequences of finally and absolutely disconnecting marriage from procreation"--we need more studies, the oldest delaying tactic; there's plenty to study in more progressive countries) rather than arguments justifying forcing your moral standards on others. By your logic, my hetero friends who married, never intending to procreate, had no business doing so.

BTW, I believe it is now legal in most states to marry a 1st cousin, not 100% sure. The risks of inbreeding may no longer exist at that level.

Posted by: tjconnor | July 10, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I too found the ruling a bit odd.

Of course, if marriage is a matter of state's rights, there is nothing to prevent Alaska, say, from recognizing the marriage of man and moose. Or California from requiring people to seek their wedding licenses from gay Hollywood agents. (Polygamy begins to sound relatively mainstream.)

My strange notion is that marriage is between the partners, their families, and their church. The states themselves mostly stayed out of marriage before the mid 1800s. I've resided in communities where the culture doesn't make a big deal out of individual choices, and tacit polygamous and homosexual marriages/households were tolerated. The world didn't come to an end.

States have the right and duty to regulate contracts. Let states limit themselves to regulating the terms of civil contracts, let families and churches decide who can marry. (It's the conservative way.)

Posted by: j3hess | July 10, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

However, captn_ahab, I admire and appreciate your offering a cogent and non-screechy opinion.

Posted by: tjconnor | July 10, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"States have the right and duty to regulate contracts. Let states limit themselves to regulating the terms of civil contracts, let families and churches decide who can marry. (It's the conservative way.)"

---------------

Well said the entire post (except for the AK moose part. I don't think that's true. And I lived in AK for 8 years, you wouldn't want to marry one).

It would seem logical to be the conservative way, but the conservative way over the last has been co-opted by the so-called "moral majority" religious extremists.

Posted by: tjconnor | July 10, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how society benefits from honoring deviant sexual behavior with the term "marriage".

There are other legal remedies for the legitimate claims of homosexuals and polygamists.

Posted by: scott3 | July 10, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Get the government out of the marriage business all together! Why does anyone feel a need for the government to validate their commitment to another person. If they do, they should consider themselves to be a tool, a lackey of the state.

Posted by: Henry5 | July 10, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

All you have to do to support/oppose gay marriage is claim that it involves interstate commerce and you can regulate as you see fit. Geepers, we only have one constitutional paragraph anymore- regulational of commerce. Everyone knows that.

Posted by: JohnnyGee | July 10, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Lane is exactly right here.

The broader point, I think, is that courts are legislating the moral flavor of the moment, with virtually no legal or historical justification. Polygamy remains unappealing to most, especially in a feminist era, so we'll not deal with that, while legislating currently popular same sex marriage from the bench - even though the rationale for regarding laws against both as "constitutional" is identical.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | July 10, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Homophobia is intolerance which brings no benefit. Same-sex marriage is a right which must be accessible to all LGBT people in every state of the United States. Although Judge Tauro forgot polygamy and Utah, he ruled correctly in the cases against the intolerant DOMA. With marriage having been defined by the federal government, so will same-sex marriage be defined as a right by the federal government.

Posted by: LibertyForAll | July 10, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

The worst and most misleading headline ever!

Federal courts have never had any trouble distinguishing between the sovereignty of states versus territories. Lane's argument is a red herring. Is this the best he could do?

Posted by: marcluxjd | July 11, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

It baffles me how much heterosexuals have so much control over homosexuals; when they have no clue what being a homosexual is all about. The issue of gay marriage doesn't belong on a ballot! That's something that deserves no introduction...people marry because they want to. Heterosexuals are always crying about the scriptures saying this and that, but most ofthem haven't thoroughly read the Bible, so how can that play a role at all?

And since the Bible dictates no one change it, add words to it, or interpret it; heterosexuals defy that. Yet they want to tell homosexuals they can't marry...come on; this is discrimination at it finest! And we have the audacity to have a open forum about such trivial no non-sense information, while countless families are losing jobs, homes and medical care.

People, let's get it together; even an ex-felon can see this is a butch of trumped up crap that needs to be set out to sea.

Read more at
http://defendingthewisdomofgod.blogspot.com

Posted by: LaShawnFowler | July 11, 2010 2:44 AM | Report abuse

It baffles me how much heterosexuals have so much control over homosexuals;especially when they have no clue what being a homosexual is all about.

The issue of gay marriage doesn't belong on a ballot! That's something that deserves no introduction...people marry because they want to. Heterosexuals are always crying about the scriptures saying this and that, but most of them haven't thoroughly read the Bible, so how can it play a role in the decision at all?

And since the Bible dictates no one change it, add words to it, or interpret it; heterosexuals defy that. Yet they want to tell homosexuals they can't marry...come on; this is discrimination at it finest!

And we have the audacity to have a open forum about such trivial no non-sense information, while countless families are losing jobs, homes and medical care.

People, let's get it together; even an ex-felon can see this is a bunch of crap that needs to be set out to sea.

Read more at
http://defendingthewisdomofgod.blogspot.com

Posted by: LaShawnFowler | July 11, 2010 2:47 AM | Report abuse

Why do heterosexuals have a say so about homosexual issues? They're not homosexuals. Each time the issue rises about same-sex marriage, some heterosexual spits out what the Bible says, but neglects to mention no one is to change the scriptures, add to the words of the scriptures, or interpret what the book means.

If people want to marry that's their business; why waste time debating who can sleep with who? There are too many gods and not enough peace amongst those that follow such.

Luckily, I trust in GOD and it is GOD that gives me the right to do whatever I will...

http://defendingthewisdomofgod.blogspot.com

Without light we all remain in darkness!

Posted by: LaShawnFowler | July 11, 2010 2:53 AM | Report abuse

These "reasons" for limiting marriage to heterosexuals were posted by captn_ahab. I have offered a response to each:

1. Marriage has always been about males and females coming together procreatively(i.e. having babies).

Answer: Not true. At no time in our history were married couples required to have babies. In theory (though not in practice) they were required to be married to legally have sex.

2. Even when a given marriage does not produce babies, the male female paradigm is what is required to have babies and reinforces the idea that male female sexual activity best takes place in a marriage.

Answer: Nothing in gay marriage would change the fact that marriage among heterosexuals is the dominant paradigm. Nor would it undercut the argument that "male female sexual activity best takes place in a marriage." Quite the contrary, it would strengthen the argument that ALL sexual activity best takes place in a marriage. If preservation of the baby-producing paradigm were the basis of restricting the availability of marriage, why would we let octogenarians marry? How is the state's interest in my relationship greater than in Bob Dole's?

3. Marriage encourages people to legally solidify their relationships before indulging in regular long term sexual activity that most often results in babies.

Answer: You cannot any longer seriously believe that most people are waiting until marriage to "indulge in regular long term sexual activity." That's just objectively untrue.

4. No one can actually predict the long term social consequences of finally and absolutely disconnecting marriage from procreation.

Answer: The Supreme Court ruled decisively on this point when it said there is a Constitutional right to practice birth control. For many straight couples, either by choice or as a result of age or other physical limitation, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Legalizing gay marriage would add a statistically small number of additional marriages to that equation. Perhaps most decisively, straight people have decided that marriage is not necessary for procreation: approximately 40% of births in the US are now outside of marriage.

These justifications for restricting marriage to heterosexuals simply don't stand up to scrutiny, which is why these arguments keep losing in court, where evidence and cross-examination rule. The best illustration of this: the California trial in which the Prop 8 advocate, after all the rhetoric about "protecting" marriage, couldn't provide a single example under oath of how gays getting married would do any damage to straight marriage or to straight families. Not one.

Posted by: Meridian1 | July 11, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

These Godless judges believe they know beetter than God what a marriage should be. He is saying that God's definition of a marriage is unconstitutional. These people MUST be stopped!!!

Posted by: Godslion777 | July 11, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Polygamy was the main reason that Congress denied the Utah territorial legislature’s repeated requests for admission as a state

so polygamy in Utah was NOT a "State's Right" issue, was it ???

this whole article is am exercise in stupidity

The US Government defers to the States in issues involving marriage

and Utah was not a State when the US Government was involved in the polygamy issue

so you are comparing apples to potatos

seems pretty stupid to waste your time on this issue, since it has such an easy explanation

maybe you don't have the brain power to figure that out

but thanks for proving that you are an idiot, mr lane

Posted by: nada85484 | July 11, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

This is nice. It's the first time someone has criticized this ruling on precedent using the law, not their own bible. All the others get hung up on what their religious morality prescribes that other people do so as to not offend them.
However, as you mention, you are not a constitutional scholar. The Constitution does not like when citizens are treated differently (that whole 'equal protection of the law' thingy). The Constitution also does not like the Federal Government interfering with the States (the long ignored 10th amendment). So, having a Federal law that creates two classes of people (one privileged and one not) inside a State for doing things that are legal in that State (and Constitutional) clearly is not allowed.
What's so hard to understand about that?

Posted by: natecar

================================

there is nothing hard to understand there

that's why this 4sshat lane had to use sophistry to make his point

4sshat lane comments on "State's Rights"
and then uses the federal intervention in the TERRITORY of Utah

lane convolutes Statehood and territotial status to confuse the reader

it is a dishonest arguement

intentionally dishonest

what else could you expect from a repuglootard

dishonest discussions, lies, and flat out stupidity

the terrorist teabaggers might be dubm enough to buy lane's limp arguement, but thinking people should keep in mind the lane is a liar

Posted by: nada85484 | July 11, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

In keeping with the dishonest and misleading headline, the logic is also riddled with holes.

The Utah Enabling Act of 1896 was a quid pro quo: Utah, you wanna become a state? Then you have to abide by our stipulations.

If the Utahns of that time had been percipient enough, they probably would've declined the offer. After all, what it really amounts to is legislative arm-twisting, a bad deal for devout Mormons to accept.

But then we have to keep in mind that the Mormons had been hounded from state to state -- often at the point of pitchforks, or even bayonets -- and were longing for at least a bit of tolerance, if not acceptance. The absurd comparison offered by the Supreme Court (and foolishly cited by Lane), that polygamy is the moral equivalent of human sacrifice, is prima facie evidence of this extreme prejudice.

Strangely ironic, then, that we find present-day religious fundamentalists complaining that they suffer political prejudice at the hands of a secular government. They, themselves, were the very ones dishing out anti-Mormon prejudice back in the day.

It's also interesting that Lane notes that these Supreme Court decisions "echoed the majority sentiments of the day" -- as if this had some bearing on their decisions. Most people today would find the very idea of this type of linkage to be odious, something that must be avoided at all costs.

Good writing is a poor substitute for sound logic, and this op-ed is proof.

Posted by: laboo | July 11, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I'd suggest leaving law generally to people who know what they're talking about. You made us wade through 2/3 of this silly commentary before finally acknowledging the point that made your entire commentary moot: THAT UTAH WAS A TERRITORY AND CONGRESS CLEARLY, INDISPUTABLY HAS ALL THE POWERS OF A STATE LEGISLATURE WHEN IT COMES TO TERRITORIES. Moreover, your attempt to dodge that buried, argument-destroying point was pathetic. The Supreme Court has made clear that Congress CANNOT use enabling acts to maintain power over state functions. Those enabling act caveats are unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Posted by: uh_huhh | July 12, 2010 5:06 AM | Report abuse

pluralunions writes
"Utah should be seeking a federal case to legalize plural marriages for consenting adults. Crazy cult polygamy with old men and underage girls should be forever illegal because it is removing agency from a truly protected class of US citizens - (our children). Big love is harmless to my monogamous marriage."


Yup. The state has no business in determining with whom we enter a contract, marriage or otherwise.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 12, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

The continuing saga of that group going judge shopping. I never say a group demand a vote and when it does not go their way, then find a judge to declare that outcome illegal.

Daddy and Daddy, who gets the mother's day card?

Posted by: rlippert3 | July 13, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The continuing saga of that group going judge shopping. I never say a group that demands a vote and when it does not go their way, then find a judge to declare that outcome un-constitutional.

Posted by: rlippert3 | July 13, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

This “judge” said there is no rational basis for DOMA. The rational basis is GOD!!! When this corrupt judge was sworn into office he placed his hand on a Holy Bible. In that Book it states that God Almighty created the institution of marriage ( that's why its called Holy Matrimony) Moreover, in the holy Bible god states that a marriage is between a husband & wife. Homosexuals, liberals & this Godless judge are saying that they know better than God as to what a marriage should be. these people Must be stopped.

Posted by: Godslion777 | July 14, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company